HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/19/1981-Regular1
May 19, 1981
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Tuesday, May 19, 1981, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of
Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Council -
members: Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth.
Absent: None. (Secretary's Note: Councilman Elliott arrived at 6:50 p.m
during discussion of Item # 13)
Staff Members Present: Arnold, Liley, Lanspery, Lewis, Davis, Griep, C.
Smith, M. Smith, Krempel, Hisam, Wilson, Mabry.,
Wood, R..Smith, Ruggiero, Nazarenus, Case, Denton.
enda Review: City Manager
' City Manager Arnold reported that two items might be discussed under Other
Business: the 911 Emergency System and Platte River Power Authority.
Mayor Wilmarth stated that an Executive Session would be convened at the
end of the meeting to discuss legal matters.
Councilmember Knezovich requested that Item # 8, Hearing and First Reading
of Ordinance No. 76, 1981, Repealing Section -84 of the Code as it
Relates to Industrial Cost Recovery Charges be withdrawn from the Consent
Agenda. Mayor 'Wi marth requested that Item # 10, Request to Waive the 1/6
Contiguity Requirement for Development in the Urban Growth Area be wit -
rawn from the Consent Agenda.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and
energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends,
approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this
calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
1 195
4. Second Readir
Code of the i
Pension Funds.
I
3
7.
Ordinance No. 72, 1981, Amending Article IX of the
-Fort Collins Re atinq to firemen s and Policemen's
This Ordinance was adopted unanimously on First Reading on May 5.
An actuarial study of the Fire and
completed by A.S. Hansen and Co.
that the annual contributions into
of the amounts required.
Police Pension Funds has just been
The results of the study indicate
the two funds have been in excess
Staff and the Police and Fire Pension Boards recommend that the normal
City contribution rate for Police and Fire Pension Plans be decreased
to eight percent (8%). The employee contribution rate will continue
to be eight percent (8%). This is consistent with the current State
pension plan and Poudre Valley Fire District rates.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 73, 1981, Vacating a Portion of Tract
B Between Lots and 6, i age best Eighth —Firing.
This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on May 5 by a 6-1 vote,
and is a request for the vacation of a portion of tract B, 1.02-acre
detention area, in Village blest Eighth Filing. The applicants have
indicated that the area has become the source of neighborhood prob-
lems. .
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 74, 1981 Vacating a Portion
of South College Avenue Access Road and a Portion of De air Road as
Public Streets.
This is a request for the City to vacate the South College Avenue
frontage road between Swallow and Del Clair and vacate Del Clair Road
between South College Avenue and Remington Street. The applicant,
Everitt Enterprises, owns all property adjacent to this requested
vacation. Everitt Enterprises, Inc. agrees to grant the City of Fort
Collins an access easement as required and to reserve and grant all
necessary utility easements.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 75, 1981, Amending Sections
69-9 and 69- of the Landman Ordinance.
At the last regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission on
May 6, 1981, a motion was carried recommending that the time limits
required for notifying the commission and time to hear each case be
identified as "working" days. They felt the time constraints are
excessive when weekends are counted. In order to make fair and
rational decisions for major projects which require more than one
meeting, the ten days currently specified in Section 69-9 of the
196
Ordinance is not adequate, in the opinion of the Commission. The
proposed amendment would qualify the applicable time limits in terms
of a definition for "working" days.
8. Hearina and First Readina of Ordinance No. 76, 1981, Repealinq Section
11L-84 of the Code as it Relates to Industrial Lost recovery Cnarges.
As a requirement of accepting an EPA grant, the City established an
Industrial Cost Recovery (ICR) system in 1976. The theory behind the
ICR requirement was to require the grantee to set up a system whereby
industrial users would pay for their portion or reserved capacity of
the treatment works for which the grant was requested. Basically, the
congressional intent of the ICR legislation dealt with the inappro-
priateness of "a large Federal grant program providing a high percen-
tage of construction funds to subsidize industrial users from funds
provided by taxpayers at large."
On October 21, 1980, the ICR requirement was repealed retroactive to
December 27, 1977. It is the recommendation of the staff that the
City's ICR requirement be repealed and that the funds collected,
approximately $30,000, since December 27, 1977 be returned to .the
appropriate industries.
' 9. Resolution Approvin Adoption of Amended Larimer-Weld Regional Council
of Governments Artic es of Association.
Because of the recent withdrawal of Weld County from the organization,
certain structural changes in the existing Articles of Association
were necessitated.
The Amended Articles will become effective upon their adoption by
Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County and
of the eight (8) member cities whose representation is provided for in
Article I, paragraph 3 of these Articles. Accordingly, it is recom-
mended that the Council approve the adoption of these articles by
resolution.
10. Request to Waive the 1/6 Contiguity Requirement for Development in the
Urban Growth Area.
This is a request to waive the 1/6 contiguity requirement for develop-
ment in the Urban Growth Area for a parcel approximately 70 acres in
size, located north of the Community Airpark and south of East Vine
Drive. The site is zoned I -Industrial and is surrounded by Industrial
zoning.
' Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Molly Davis, Deputy
City Clerk.
197
Item # 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No
the Code of the City of Forf
Policemen's Pension Funds.
72, 1981, Amending Article IX of
ollins Relatinq to Firemen's an
Item # 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 73, 1981, Vacating a Portion of
Tract Between o s an i aqe est iq i inq.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Molly Davis, Deputy
City Clerk.
Item # 6. Hearing and
orti��o_
Clair Road as
First Reading of Ordinance No. 74, 1981 Vacating a
Jt o ege venue ccess Road and a -Portion of Del
c
Item # 7. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 75, 1981, Amending
Sections 69-9 and 69-3 of the Landmark Ordinance.
Councilman Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross, to adopt
and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Cassell, Horak, Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth.
Nays: None
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Repealing Section 112-84 of the Code
as it Relates to Industrial Cost Recovery Charges
Adopted on First Reading
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"As a requirement of accepting an EPA grant, the City established an Indus-
trial Cost Recovery (ICR) system in 1976. The theory behind the ICR
requirement was to require the grantee to set up a system whereby indus-
trial users would pay for their portion or reserved capacity of the treat-
ment works for which the grant was requested. Basically, the congressional
intent of the ICR legislation dealt with the inappropriateness of "a large
Federal grant program providing a high percentage of construction funds to
subsidize industrial users from funds provided by taxpayers at large."
On October 21, 1980, the ICR requirement was repealed retroactive to
December 27, 1977. It is the recommendation of the staff that the City's
ICR requirement be repealed and that the funds collected, approximately
$30,000, since December 27,1977 be returned to the appropriate industries.
HE
See attached memorandum for additional information."
Councilmember Knezovich asked about the $30,000 rebate to Reliable Linen,
which has changed its name, and whether the City would retain this money if
Reliable Linen is no longer in business.
City Manager Arnold stated that the rebate would probably go to Reliable
Linen's successor.
Councilmember Horak asked if any funds were collected between January and
December 27, 1977, and whether the City would rebate those funds.
City Manager Arnold replied that only those funds collected after December
27 would be rebated.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to
adopt Ordinance No. 76, 1981 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Cassell, Horak, Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Wilmarth then discussed the possibility of asking the businesses
' receiving rebates whether they would be interested in perhaps donating
these funds for City programs.
Councilman Knezovich suggested that the letter written to accompany these
rebate checks might ask the recipients if they would be willing to donate
these funds to the City.
Request to Waive the 1/6 Contiguity Requirement
for Development in the Urban Growth Area
Approved with Reservations
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This is a request to waive the 1/6 contiguity requirement for develop-
ment in the Urban Growth Area for a parcel approximately 70 acres in
size, located north of the Community Airpark and south of East Vine Drive.
The site is zoned I -Industrial and is surrounded by Industrial zoning. The
surrounding land uses are as follows:
North: Vacant.
South: Community Airpark, Fort Collins Business Center Subdivision,
Fort Collins Industrial Park Subdivision.
' East: Vacant, Collins Aire Mobile Home Park, vacant (Industrial
Business Park International Subdivision).
West: Vacant.
199
The site does not have at least 1/6 of its boundary contiguous to existing
development. This contiguity requirement may, upon application, be waived
by the Larimer County Commissioners after a hearing with thirty (30) days
public notice, provided that:
Such waiver is approved by the governing body of the municipality
nearest the site for which a waiver is sought;
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.
Discussion
The potential to waive the 1/6 contiguity requirement was originally
included in the Intergovernmental Agreement so that major employers
would not be excluded from locating in the Urban Growth Area by this
requirement.
Existing development is defined as follows:
1. County subdivisions which were approved before January 1, 1980
which do not have a contract between the developer and the County
for specific urban improvements must have building permits issued
on at least 50% of the lots in the subdivision before the subdi-
vision 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 development
when the first building permit is issued for construction within
the subdivision.
Any City subdivision and any Coi
after January 1, 1980, qualifies
engineering improvements (water,
street lights, fire hydrants,
inty subdivision finally approved
as existing development once all
sewer, streets, curbs, gutters,
storm drainage) are completed.
"Existing development" as defined in the Intergovernmental Agreement lies
approximately 300-feet to the south of the site in the Fort Collins Busi-
ness Center First Filing and Fort Collins Industrial Park Subdivisions.
The Community Airpark runway and a vacant piece of land separates the site
from these subdivisions, which are being built -out. There is also a
preliminarily -approved subdivision to the east of the site. However, this
subdivision does not yet qualify as existing development nor is there the
necessary 1/6 contiguity distance.
The site is also located in the area designated for industrial development
in the Boxelder cluster.
Urban improvements are existing in the area and development of this site
would constitute a logical "in -filling" of the area's development pattern.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Fort Collins Airpark Industries, Ltd. 1/6
contiguity waiver request, based on the fact that the site is surrounded by
developed areas and is thus an in -fill project.
Planning and Zoninq Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval on a vote of 5-0 at the
April 30, 1981 Board meeting (Case No. 35-81)."
Mayor Wilmarth expressed concerns about the location of the proposed
expressway/parkway near this property. He requested approval of the
request subject to reservations that there are transportation concerns in
this area.
' City Attorney Liley suggested that the Council add to the approval a
condition that the County consider a reservation for parkway purposes at
the appropriate time, either upon approval of this waiver or upon the
approval of the ultimate development for the area.
Mayor Wilmarth made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to amend
the approval of the waiver to include a condition that the County consider
a reservation for parkway purposes. at the appropriate time, either upon
approval of the waiver or upon approval of the ultimate development for
this area. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Horak, Knezovich, Kross, Reeves
and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Annexing Property Known as Harbor Walk Annexation
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This is a request to annex 9.9-acres, located on the south side of Warren
Lake. Present zoning is FA-1, Farming. There is one residence on the
site. Surrounding zoning and land use is as follows:
I
North: R-L, R-P - Warren Shores First, North Shore PUD, Warren
Lake.
201
South: R-L-P, FA-1 Farming - Landings Third, vacant.
East: R-M-P, R-L-P - vacant, Golden Meadows PUD, existing resi-
dences.
West: R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential - Landings Third,
existing residences.
The site has at least 1/6 of its boundary contiguous to City limits.
Contiguity is achieved to the east through the Harmony Annexation (annexed
in 1977) and to the south through the Landings First Annexation (annexed in
1977).
The Harbor Walk Annexation is in conformance with the City's annexation
policies as set forth in the Urban Growth Area Agreement as: (1) 1/6 of its
boundary is contiguous to City limits; and (2) the annexation is voluntary.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Harbor Walk Annexation.
Plannino and Zonino Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends approval of the Harbor Walk '
Annexation on a vote of 5-0 (Case No. 27-81)."
Councilman Cassell withdrew from the discussion and voting on this item and
the following agenda item because of a possible conflict of interest.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich,
to adopt Ordinance No. 77, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Horak, Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Councilmember
Cassell out of the room.)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Zoning Property Known as Harbor Walk Annexation
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This
is a request to zone 9.9-acres located on
the south side of
Warren
Lake,
known as the Harbor Walk Annexation. The area is presently
zoned
FA-1,
Farming in the County. The applicant is
requesting R-M-P,
Medium
Density
Planned Residential. Surrounding land use and zoning is
as fol-
lows:
North: R-L, R-P - Warren Shores First,
'North Shore PUD,
Warren
I
Lake.
202
1
South: R-L-P, FA-1 Farming - Landings Third, vacant.
East: R-M-P, R-L-P - vacant, Golden Meadows PUD, existing
residences.
West: R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential - Landings Third,
existing residences.
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of the Harbor Walk Zoning subject to the site
being developed as a unified PUD.
Plannino and Zoning Board Recommendati
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends approval of the Harbor Walk Zoning
to R-M-P, Medium Density Planned Residential on a vote of 5-0 subject to
the property being developed as a unified PUD (Case No. 27-81)."
Councilman Cassell withdrew from discussion and voting on this matter
because of a possible conflict of interest.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kross,
to adopt Ordinance No. 78, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Horak, Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None .(Councilmember
Cassell was out of the room)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinances Adopted on First Reading
Annexing Property Known as Trilby Heights First -Fifth Annexations
Secretary's Note: Councilmember Elliott arrived during the discussion of
this item.
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 49, 1981, Annexing Property
Known as Trilby Heights First Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 51, 1981, Annexing Property
Known as Trilby Heights Second Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 53, 1931, Annexing Property
Known as Trilby Heights Third Annexation.
' D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 55, 1981, Annexing Property
Known as Trilby Heights Fourth Annexation.
203
E. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1981, Annexing Property.
Known as Trilby Heights Fifth Annexation.
Background
This is a request to annex a total of 803.5 acres, located west of U.S.
287, south of Trilby Road. The annexation has been submitted in five parts
so that the contiguity requirement can be met for the entire area.
The five annexation requests are presented as one item because of the
relationships of the requests and because the entire area is under one
ownership.
This was discussed at the last work session. It relates directly to the
Urban Growth Area agreement with the County.
Present zoning is FA-1, Farming. The surrounding zoning and land uses are
as follows:
North: FA-1, Farming; FA, Farming; M-Multiple Family; Mountain
Valley Acres Subdivision, Skyview South Subdivision, Good
FA, Farming; C-Commercial, T-Tourist; Victoria Estates
South: FA-1, Farming; Vacant,
East: FA, Farming; C-Commercial, T-Tourist; Victoria Estates
Subdivision, Hermitage Inn, Triangle L-P Arabians.
West: FA-1, Farming; Vacant, existing residences.
Annexation Data
Trilby Heights First
Trilby Heights Second
Trilby Heights Third
Trilby Heights Fourth
Trilby Heights Fifth
The Trilby Heights First -Fifth
City's annexation policies as set
as: (1) 1/6 of its boundary is
annexation is 100% voluntary.
Staff Recommendation
24.47 acres
295.95 acres
239.37 acres
167.68 acres
81.06 acres
Annexations are in accordance with the
forth in the Urban Growth Area Agreement
contiguous to City limits; and (2) the
Staff recommends approval of Trilby Heights First -Fifth Annexations.
Planning and Zoninq Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of Trilby Heights
First -Fifth Annexations on a vote of 5-1 (Case Nos. 6-81, 7-81, 8-81, 9-81,
10-81)."
204
Curt Smith, Planning Director, gave a brief presentation to summarize the
issues.
Harry Deines, managing partner of the Deines Agriculture and Livestock
Company (the property owner), requested Council approval of the Trilby
Annexations for the following reasons: 1) the property meets requirements
for development of unincorporated land in the Urban Growth Area; 2) the
land is eligible for annexation because it meets contiguity requirements;
3) the County does not approve any development or rezoning of land that is
eligible for voluntary annexation to the City; and 4) it is policy for the
City to annex property in the unincorporated area of the UGA as soon as
such property is eligible for annexation. Mr. Deines then described the
proposed sale of the property.
Councilmember Horak stated this property should be annexed because it is in
the UGA, but he has concerns about the 1/6 contiguity criteria.
Councilman Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kross to
adopt Ordinance No. 49, 1981, annexing the Trilby Heights First Annexation,
on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich,
Kross, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kross, to
adopt Ordinance No. 51, 1981, annexing the Trilby Heights Second Annexa-
tion, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Kross, Reeves and Wilmarth: Nays: None
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kross made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Ordinance No. 53, 1981, annexing the Trilby Heights Third Annexation
on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich,
Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
adopt Ordinance No. 55, 1981, annexing the Trilby Heights Fourth Annexation
on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezo-
vich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by
adopt Ordinance No. 57, 1981, annexing the Trilby
on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell,
Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
Councilmember Reeves, to
Heights Fifth Annexation,
Elliott, Horak, Knezovich,
205
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinances Adopted on First Reading
Zoning Property Known as Trilby Heights First -Fifth Annexations
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 50, 1981, Zoning Property
Known as Trilby Heights First Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 1981, Zoning Property
Known as Trilby Heights Second Annexation.
C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 54, 1981, Zoning Property
Known as Trilby Heights Third Annexation. -
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 56, 1981, Zoning Property
Known as Trilby Heights Fourth Annexation.
E. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 58, 1981, Zoning Property
Known as Trilby Heights Fifth Annexation. '
This is a request to zone 803.5-acres located west of U.S. 287, south of
Trilby Road, .known as Trilby Heights First -Fifth Annexations. The appli-
cant is requesting conditional R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential with
the self-imposed condition -that the area be developed as PUD's. The area
is presently zoned FA-1, Farming in the County.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
North: FA-1, Farming; FA, Farming; M-Multiple Family: Mountain
Valley Acres Subdivision, Skyview South Subdivision, Good
Samaritan Retirement Village.
South: FA-1, Farming: vacant.
East: FA, Farming; C-Commercial; T-Tourist: Victoria Estates Sub-
division, Hermitage Inn, Triangle L-P Arabians.
West: FA-1, Farming: Vacant, existing residences.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Trilby Heights First -Fifth Annexations zoning
with the condition that the area be developed as PUD's.
Planninq and Zoninq Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval on a vote of 5-1 (Case I
Nos. 6-81, 7-81, 8-81, 9-81, 10-81) with the condition that the area be
developed as PUD's."
206
Curt Smith, Planning Director, briefly described the proposed zonings.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell,
to adopt Ordinance No. 50, 1981, Zoning the Trilby Heights First Annexa-
tion, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kross,
to adopt Ordinance No. 52, 1981, Zoning the Trilby Heights Second Annexa-
tion, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kross,
to adopt Ordinance No. 54, 1981, Zoning the Trilby Heights Third Annexa-
tion, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
' Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak,
to adopt Ordinance No. 56, 1981, Zoning the Trilby Heights Fourth Annexa-
tion, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell,
to adopt Ordinance No. 58, 1981, Zoning the Trilby Heights Fifth Annexa-
tion, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
,THE'MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Adopting the Uniform Fire Code, 1979 Edition
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"Historically the City of Fort Collins has adopted the Uniform Fire Code
with amendments pertinent to special concerns within the City. The 1979
Edition of the Uniform Fire Code has been compiled with the assistance of
the Fire Code Committee, which consists of Sid Waldrop of CSU's Environ-
mental Health Department, who is chairman; Wayne Schraeder of Schraeder Oil
Company; Reid Burton of Burton Construction Co.; Jim Cox of Cox -Parker
Architects; and Norm Graham of Graham Heating. Staff assistance was
207
provided by Don Hisam, Fire Marshal; Dwight Lumbert, Inspector; and Bob
Poncelow, Tim Hower, and Randy Bruegman, who are Fire Inspection Coordina-
tors. The Building and Fire Code Appeals Board also reviewed the document.
In the 1979 Edition the article and section numbers have been completely
changed from the 1976 Edition. This was done to make the Uniform Fire Code
numbers the same as the Uniform Building Code corresponding sections and
articles. For the first time since Fort Collins has been adopting the
uniform codes the two codes will cross reference much more readily, and be
much simpler to use.
The 1979 Uniform Fire Codes Standards is a new book published the first
time with the 1979 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code. While using the past
editions of the Uniform Fire Codes many sections and areas were referenced
to National Fire Protection Association or NFPA Standards. The NFPA
Standards are contained in a 16 volume set of books and they are the only
standards which cover many situations, especially hazardous conditions such
as equipment installation and its safe use. The 1979 Uniform Fire Codes
Standards book has incorporated the most common of these standards into one
book and we are recommending its adoption with the new fire code as it will
simplify the inspection process, especially for the engine companies being
able to use the one book on routine inspections. The more technical 1
situations would still have to be referenced with the NFPA volumes, but
this would be done by the Fire Prevention Bureau Inspector in the office.
An essential change from the 1976 Edition was the addition of permit
requirements for hazardous -processes. These permits have been required in
previous codes, but had been deleted as a requirement by the Fire Code
Committee. It was the feeling of this Code Committee that inclusion of the
permit requirement for hazardous processes gives the Fire Department a tool
it would not otherwise have in controlling potentially dangerous conditions.
The Fire Authority feels this is a technical change that will not result in
additional staffing requirements for the Authority.
The purpose of adopting this code is to protect the property and life
safety within the City of Fort Collins. We feel that the adoption of this
code will continue to provide the basis for a fire -safe community.
Benefit Analysis
This process of code amendment began about 12 months ago. We need the 1979
edition adopted as soon as possible, but have great difficulty giving
Council any reasonable cost -benefit analysis.
In reviewing codes and amendments each individual section is evaluated and
judged in a cost -benefit way: "In terms of safety, is it worth the cost I
the private sector will experience in complying?" Outside citizens are
used to balance our professional judgment."
RI
Assistant City Attorney, Pete Ruggiero, stated this issue had been sub-
mitted to a review committee, and their recommendations making changes to
the 1979 Uniform Fire Code are incorporated in this Ordinance.
Councilman Knezovich asked about automatic nozzles for gasoline dis-
pensing.
Fire Marshal, Don Hisam, replied that the Fire Code does allow such
nozzles.
Councilman Kross asked if the County has adopted the 1979 Uniform Fire
Code.
Mr. Hisam stated that the Poudre Fire Authority has adopted the 1979
Uniform Fire Code, and the County is reviewing it.
Councilwoman Reeves asked if the Code allows shake shingles.
Mr. Hisam replied that the previous discussions about shake shingles have
been in connection with the Building Code. There is no change under the
Uniform Fire Code.
I
Mayor Wilmarth asked for a summary of changes that would have a cost impact
on the building groups or the citizenry.
City Manager Arnold replied that the only substantial impact will be as a
result of a permit requirement for handling of hazardous materials.
Councilman Cassell asked about whether new requirements on design of gas
stations would affect existing stations.
City Manager Arnold replied that these requirements would only impact
future designs.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kross,
to adopt Ordinance No. 79, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
tizen Participation
A. Proclamation naming June 1, 1981, as Community Television Day.
I
Mayor Wilmarth requested that the Proclamation be directed to the proper
persons.
we
B. Resolution Adopted Expressing Gratitude of the City of Fort Collins to
Arlen R. Wilson for Service as Assistant City Manager.
Mayor Wilmarth read and presented a Resolution thanking Mr. Arlen R.
Wilson for his contributions to the City during his assignment as
Assistant City Manager, while on loan to the City through the Pearson
Program of the U.S. State Department.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell, to
adopt the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Award of Bid for Airport Utilities
to Nomad Constructors and Authorization
for Sanitation District Fees and
Extension of Airport Agreements
Mayor Wilmarth withdrew from the discussion and voting on the award of bid
to Nomad Constructors because of a possible conflict of interest. '
The following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"On April 27, we took bids on airport utilities. These bids came in:
1.
Nomad Constructors
$122,018.50
2.
Weinland Construction
$133,171.65
3.
High Country Pipelines
$136,288.07
4.
Loveland Excavating
$150,360.50
5.
Palmer Construction
$154,905.87
6.
Hall -Irwin Construction
$157,666.94
7.
BT Construction
$163,073.00
8.
Hahn Construction
$164,439.37
9.
Flatiron
$165,083.50
10.
Coulson Excavating
$168,255.05
11.
K. W. Swerferger
$183,755.25
We recommend awarding the bid to the low bidder, Nomad Constructors.
To recap, the past City Council authorized a $1 million line of credit to
finance a number of airport activities designed to correct problems that
have existed there for some time. Chief among those were the provision of
utilities and joining the South Fort Collins Sanitation District, which is
necessary to receive sewer service. '
210
Originally the utilities were estimated at $276,000 and the Sanitation
District fees were calculated at $50,000. Through good bids and good
negotiations, those costs have been reduced to $122,018.50 and $25,323.00,
respectively.
A number of other actions are being taken by the City to get this project
off dead center. We are following the direction of the past Council and if
this Council has other direction, then we need to know it and to adjust.
Following that post direction, we recommend awarding the bid and moving on
with all other necessary actions."
City Manager Arnold stated that the Airport Ad -Hoc Committee had met and
was recommending award to the low bidder, Nomad Constructors, for
$122,018.50. Staff is also requesting authorization to proceed with the
South Fort Collins Sanitation District fees in the amount of $25,323.00.
Councilman Horak asked about evaluation of the firms making bids.
Councilman Knezovich stated that M & I has evaluated the bidders.
' Councilman Horak expressed concerns that decisions such as this be made in
the aggregate rather than piecemeal.
Councilman Cassell asked about performance bonding on projects such as
this.
Councilman Elliott asked about the apparent .disparity between the estimate
and the lowest bids.
City Manager Arnold replied that all bids came in lower than the estimate.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
award the bid to Nomad Constructors in the amount of $122,018.50. Yeas:
Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Kross, and Reeves.
Nays: None. (Mayor Wilmarth out of room)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Wilmarth then returned to the meeting.
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
approve the South Fort Collins Sanitation District fees in the amount of
$25,323.00. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Kross,
Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
' THE MOTION CARRIED.
211
a
City Attorney Liley requested action from the Council to extend the provi-
sions of agreements approved on March 31, 1981, relating to the fixed base
operation and the ultimate lease of that operation to Airwest. Contin-
gencies will probably be cleared up within a 60 day extension period.
These contingencies relate to obtaining a hearing to terminate the re-
ceivership, and clearing up title questions.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cassell, to
extend the terms of these agreements to August 1, 1981. Yeas: Council -
members Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and Wilmarth.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Public Hearing on UMTA Grant Application
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"A public hearing following a 30 day notice is one of the requirements of
the UMTA (Urban Mass Transportation Administration) grant for buses and a
bus garage that we have applied for.
A transcript of this hearing will be sent to UMTA and constitutes the last
requirement of the application."
Mayor Wilmarth opened the. public hearing on an UMTA Grant Application.
City Manager Arnold summarized the grant application and proposed program
to acquire four 30-passenger buses and a 35,000 sq. ft. bus garage, main-
tenance, and administrative office space facility. The total grant is
approximately $4.5 million.
There being no comments from the public, the Mayor declared the hearing
closed.
Councilmember Reeves asked if supportive comments from the Council's
previous discussions on this grant were included in the grant documents.
City Manager Arnold replied that this had been done.
Public Hearing on 1981 Citizen Survey
The City Manager's memorandum on this item is as follows:
"Included in the agenda packet is a copy of the report, Satisfaction with
Quality of Life and City Services in Fort Collins, Colorado for 1981. Th—is
212
' report is composed of two documents: a narrative summary of the findings
9
and a statistical appendix of frequency distributions of the findings.
This is the second citizen survey that has been jointly conducted by.the
City of Fort Collins and the Sociology Department, Colorado State Univer-
sity. The cost of conducting the survey and of reporting the findings is
minimal due to the volunteer efforts of John Brouillette, Professor of
Sociology, David Rogers, Chairman of the Department of Sociology, and the
numerous individuals who participated in the study.
CSU provided $1,000 for computer time and the City spent $3,000 for print-
ing, mailing, slide show, and necessary supplies for the out-of-pocket
expenses on the project.
John (Jack) Brouillette and Dave Rogers will present an overview of the
study and the findings and be prepared to answer questions regarding this
information at the City Council Meeting."
Mayor Wilmarth opened the public hearing on the 1981 Citizen Survey.
Mr. John Brouillette and Dr. Dave Rogers of the CSU Sociology Department
presented an overview of the 1981 Citizen survey and summarized the find-
ings.
Mr. Rogers described the methodology used in this telephone survey, which
solicited responses from 618 registered voters in Fort Collins. This
survey was a follow-up to the 1979 Citizen Survey.
Mr. Brouillette stated that the survey indicates general satisfaction with
City services and the quality of life in Fort Collins. This survey shows
increased satisfaction with most services, compared to the 1979 survey.
Councilman Cassell asked about the questions on the survey that dealt with
City Planning.
Councilman Horak asked about the methodology used in the survey and about
the interviewing of persons who took part in the 1979 survey. He also
asked about characteristics of survey participants and stated that such
additional information could be obtained from voter registration records.
Mr. Horak also commented on the survey question dealing with priorities for
basic services, maintenance services, and quality of life services. He
stated that a more valid question would be to ask what the citizen would
like to include under basic services.
Mr. Rogers emphasized that this survey should not serve as the sole basis
for decision -making.
' Councilman Knezovich asked about the availability of 1980 census data to
compare to the random sample in this survey. Mr. Knezovich also commented
213
about student ridership on Transfort, which may not be reflected in this
survey since students do not register to vote as much as the general
population. Mr. Knezovich asked if the question about willingness to pay
increased taxes and fees was valid, since taxes and user fees were not
separate considerations.
Councilwoman Reeves asked if follow-up questions were put to people who
said they did ride Transfort, as well as people who said they did not ride
Transfort. She also commented on differences in responses acccording to
age .levels. Mrs. Reeves also expressed interest in differences in neigh-
borhoods.
There being no further comments from the Council or the public, the Mayor
declared the Public Hearing closed.
Mayor Wilmarth then presented plaques, on behalf of the City, to Mr.
Brouillette and Mr. Rogers for their contributions in conducting the 1981
Citizen Survey.
Public Hearing on 1982 City Budget
The City Manager's memorandum on this item is as follows:
"This public hearing on the 1982 City Budget has been scheduled early in the
budget process in order to receive public comments sooner in the pro-
ceedings. Additional public hearings will be scheduled and held as the
budget process continues."
The Mayor declared this preliminary budget hearing open.
There being no comments at this time from the Council or from the public,
the Mayor declared the hearing closed.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Establishing a Noise Control Ordinance
Mayor Wilmarth opened the public hearing on this ordinance.
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"INTRODUCTION
The effects of excessive noise have concerned the City Council of Fort
Collins over the past decade; the City Attorney's files reveal draft
ordinances dating from the mid-70's. The Land Use Policies Plan, adopted
by Council on August 14, 1979, (Policy 44), states, "The City shall adopt
214
and implement Federal
and State noise regulations
and establish noise
impact zones ... .",
and the Zoning Ordinance was
modified in 1977 to
include performance
standards (particularly in the
IL Zone) dealing with
noise, as well as
other sources of pollution. This
present ordinance
reflects the concern
raised by Councilman Lloyd St.
Croix and seconded by
other members of the
previous Council.
ENFORCEMENT
Presently, the City enforces noise complaints under the general provisions
dealing with disturbance of the peace. Under this ordinance, the City has
had little success with prosecutions for noise complaints because of the
subjectivity in the testimony of witnesses. One principal purpose of this
present ordinance is to provide objective and widely -accepted standards
that should be able to meet judicial tests.
With this ordinance, enforcement can be tailored to meet the perceived
needs. By accepting the offer of the Colorado Department of Health to
train police officers and other City employees in the use of sound measur-
ing devices at no cost, we can adopt an enforcement posture that allows us
to respond to complaints while incurring no particular enforcement costs.
As the problem grows, as it surely must given the community's rapid growth,
' a more aggressive posture with the commitment of greater resources could be
adopted.
While enforcement practices are flexible, it may be helpful to discuss
different mechanical devices which would fall under the provisions of the
Noise Control Ordiance and the potential for violations as a result of
the use of these devices.
The first example is a motorcyle, which would be regulated by Section 7A of
the ordinance. Under reasonable operation, i.e. non -excessive accelera-
tion, most motorcycles will be in compliance with the 80 decibel sound
pressure level. However, the same motorcycle may exceed the 80 decibels
when the operator engages in excessive acceleration either from a standing
stop or while moving. Enforcement of these violations would be directed
toward monitoring the operation of the vehicle in areas where excessive
noise is inappropriate.
Stereos present a peculiar situation because the sound emitted from the
devices can be easily controlled by the person listening to the stereo. In
situations where stereos exceed the noise level for a given area, enforce-
ment could be handled with the cooperation of the operator of the stereo.
Upon complaint, the Police Department could monitor the noise emitted by
the, stereo and suggest that, to avoid being in violation of the ordinance,
the device be turned down to be in compliance. By cooperating with the
' operator- of the stereo, the problem could be solved without the issuance of
a summons and complaint, and all persons involved would be satisfied with
the outcome.
215
The operation of chain saws within residential areas of the City would
probably be prohibited by the ordinance. Unless such devices are electric
chain saws, as opposed to gas powered chain saws, in all likelihood the use
of the device within a residential area would be prohibited by the ordi-
nance.
A final example of a device which is commonly used in the City is a device
used in construction, such as a radial arm saw or a circular saw. Again,
it is likely that these devices would exceed the 55 decibel limit for
a residential area. However, under the ordinance, when the devices are
used in construction projects, the maximum level would be increased to that
for areas zoned industrial. Thus, the regulations would only preclude the
use of the devices if they exceed 80 decibels. In all probability,
construction projects would not be severly restricted by the Noise Control
Ordinance.
COST EFFECTIVENESS/COST TO THE COMMUNITY
It is very difficult to generate good, objective data about the cost
effectiveness of a noise ordinance. The resulting health benefits and the
quality of life protection are intangibles. If viewed only from the
enforcement standpoint, the ordinance should prove effective; eventually
fines resulting from more effective prosecution should recover the costs of
the noise evaluation equipment. However, when personnel costs are factored
in, enforcement will never make a profit. Colorado Springs in 1980 bud-
geted $111,304.00 for personnel and administrative support costs, while
collecting approximately $12,800.00 in fines for noise.
Likewise, it is difficult to estimate the cost to the community. We simply
do not know how many automobiles, motorcycles and trucks are presently in
violation of the ordinance's standards or what it would cost to bring them
into compliance. In the case of many motor vehicles, it would require
nothing more than re -installing the original factory equipment. The past
experience of some communities has indicated that even compliance by
private industry can sometimes be cost effective. Noise is often the
result of poor industrial maintenance. Proper and timely maintenance can
not only minimize noise but can also reduce operations and repair costs.
Staff believes that compliance costs for industry will be negligible, since
the standards established in the ordinance are already contained in State
law."
Assistant City Attorney, Greg Denton, gave a brief presentation on the
proposed noise control ordinance, and stated that the ordinance will be
enforced on a complaint basis.
Councilman Cassell asked about chain saw regulations and why they are
prohibited.
216
Mr. Denton stated that a chain saw would exceed decibel limitations, but
variances could be issued in hardship cases to allow the use of chain
saws.
Councilman Cassell asked about construction noise in residential areas.
Mr. Denton replied that the Ordinance provides for exceptions for con-
struction and demolition, whereby the noise level allowed would be deter-
mined at the maximum standard (IG Industrial Zoning).
Councilman Elliott asked if enforcement of this Ordinance would place an
undue hardship on the Police Department.
Assistant City Attorney Denton replied that additional equipment will be
required and officers would need to receive training from the State Health
Department. However, enforcement would be on a complaint basis.
City Manager Arnold stated this Ordinance is seen as an additional tool in
enforcement since it gives definite guidelines.
Councilman Horak asked why chain saws could not be put under an exception
rather than handled by variances.
Mr. Denton replied that this Ordinance is consistent with State law.
Mr. Horak asked what other situations would fall under the variance proce-
dures.
Mr. Denton stated that street construction and carnivals would be examples.
Councilman Knezovich asked about sound levels for trains.
Assistant City Attorney Denton stated that trains are regulated under
Federal legislation.
Councilman Kross asked about the regulations applying to horns on motor
vehicles.
Police Chief, Ralph Smith, stated that these provisions will allow enforce-
ment on a complaint basis in areas, such as the downtown, where there are
problems. Warnings are normal before ticketing, and enforcement will be on
a discretionary basis.
Councilwoman Reeves asked if the maximum permissible sound levels are
consistent with State law, or whether they are more restrictive.
Assistant City Attorney Denton replied that the sound levels are consistent
with levels set by the State.
217
Mayor Wilmarth asked how the dog ordinance is consistent with this noise
control ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney Denton replied that the two Ordinances can work
hand in hand.
Chief Smith stated that the current barking dog ordinance is enforced on
the basis of length of time.
There being no further comments from the Council or the public, the Mayor
declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to
adopt Ordinance No. 47, 1981, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilman
Kross.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager's Report
City Manager Arnold reported as follows: 1
1) Councilmembers have received various reports with their mail.
2) A memo has been sent to Council about agenda procedures, and Council's
comments are.welcome.
City Attorney's Report
City Attorney Liley reported that the City of Boulder has requested finan-
cial assistance from Fort Collins in a suit brought against Boulder by a
local cable television company. The case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme
Court in 1981. Boulder has spent approximately $200,000 and anticipates
considerable additional legal fees. Boulder is asking other Colorado Home
Rule cities for financial contributions because it involves an anti-trust
issue of significance to other cities. The suggested contribution formula
is $50 per 1,000 population, or roughly $3500 for Fort Collins. Mrs. Liley
recommended that Fort Collins contribute out of contingency funds.
Councilman Horak asked what implications this suit would have for Fort
Collins.
Mrs. Liley replied that municipalities are .subject to the Sherman anti-
trust laws, meaning we could be subject to damage awards. The issue in the '
O
Boulder suit is whether a Home Rule City has the power to act to regulate
such areas.
Councilman Horak asked if Fort Collins has in the past made such contribu-
tions to other entities.
Mrs. Liley replied that Fort Collins has contributed in cases of signifi-
cant interest to the City and in cases where considerable legal fees have
been involved.
Councilman Cassell expressed concerns about making such a contribution
after the fact.
Mrs. Liley stated that Boulder is a defendant in this action and that
Boulder is appealing the Court's decision.
Mayor Wilmarth supported the idea of reciprocity, but suggested a compro-
mise contribution in the amount of $2500.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to
contribute $2500 from contingency funds to the City of Boulder. Yeas:
' Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, .Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays:
Councilmembers Cassell and Kross.
THE MOTION CARRIED. .
Councilmember's Report
1) Councilman Kross reported on a Platte River Power Authority work
session held on May 15th at which cost increases for the Rawhide Project
were presented to Boardmembers. Mr. Kross introduced other PRPA Board -
members who were present at this meeting.
Al Hamilton, General Manager of PRPA, gave a presentation relating to
the Rawhide Project cost increases, which will result in an increase
in the wholesale energy rates to the four- cities amounting to 2.3
mills/kwh over the next decade. Mr. Hamilton stated that quarterly
updates on cost increases will be prepared, and PRPA would like to
encourage the holding of an annual PRPA/City retreat.
Mr. Jim Adam, representing project contractor Black & Veatch, gave a
detailed presentation concerning Rawhide's cost increases. Mr. Adam.
described the history of the project and detailed changes in the scope
of the project arising from environmental concerns and efforts to
reduce energy costs. Inflation, now projected at 10%, has resulted in
' cost increases amounting to $42.8 million. The total cost of the
Rawhide Project is estimated now at $339.8 million.
219
Councilwoman Reeves expressed concerns that such cost increases be kept
up with over time.
Councilman Knezovich asked about whether the efforts to reduce energy
costs will actually save money in the long run and about administrative
overhead for PRPA. He also expressed concerns for projected labor
increases.
Councilman Horak asked about Black & Veatch's fees on the Rawhide
project and about projected wholesale electricity rates for 1982.
Councilman Elliott asked about operation and maintenance costs for
equipment needed to maintain air quality, and supported cost savings in
the project wherever possible.
PRPA Boardmember and Fort Collins Light & Power director, Stan Case,
stated that the cost increases for the Rawhide project will result in
increases in the wholesale power rate for Fort Collins. Electric rates
have been projected to increase to 16% in 1982 for consumers. There
will be no change in that projected increase for 1982 as a result of
the Rawhide costs. The impact will be felt in 1983, where a 0%
projected increase might go up to a 5 1/2 - 6% increase. Fort Collins '
electric rates can be held down because purchased power is only part of
our total costs.
2) Councilwoman Reeves reported on the Land Use Commission meeting held in
Fort Collins on May 15th.
3) Councilman Knezovich reported on the Airport Ad -Hoc Committee. There
is a possible opportunity to sell some Airport land.
4) Councilman Knezovich reported on the organizational meeting of the
Downtown Development Authority. The Downtown Development Authority
will be presenting by-laws to the Council for information, but views
itself as an autonomous body.
5) Councilman Horak reported on the Council of Governments meeting.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott to
adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters concerning the City
Hall suit. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Reeves and
Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmembers Knezovich and Kross.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
220
Other Business
The Mayor re -convened the meeting following the Executive Session.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
settle the lawsuit with Robb & Brenner relating to the City Hall project.
Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Kross, Reeves, and
Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:57 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Z; -
Mayor
221