Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-01/16/1979-Regularb c ' January 16, 1979 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO a• Council - Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 5:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, January 16, 1979 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: Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Absent: Councilman Bowling. Staff Members Present: Arnold, Deibel, Gionfriddo, Krajicek, Balok, Davis, Nolte, Bingman, Lanspery, Straayer, Harmon, Lee, Deagle, Mabry, Ruggiero, Krempel, Liley and Lewis. Consent Calendar Items: ' These are items of a routine or non -controversial nature, on which a unanimous vote of approval is expected. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. (The purpose of this cal- endar is to allow Council to spend its time and energy on more important items.) The Consent Calendar presented was as follows: 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 1978. 4. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 59 1979, RELATING TO THE SALARIES OF CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY AND MUNICIPAL_ JUDGL. This Ordinance passed unanimously on first reading at the January 2 Council meeting. It sets the salaries for the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge for the year 1979, retroactive to January 8. Staff recommends adoption. -199= January 16, 1979 5. DEEDS AND EASEMENTS. I This is a Ditch Crossing Right -of -Way Agreement with Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company for Warren Sewer Trunk Extension. Consideration: $250. Staff recommends approval. 6. CONSIDER FINAL PLAN OF SCOTCH PINES. SHOPS P.U.D. This is a proposal for a 10.7 acre commercial P.U.D. zoned "B-P" at the southwest corner of East Drake and South Lemay Avenue. Council approved the preliminary plan at its November 21 meeting. Staff recommends approval. 7. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN OF STONEHENGE P.U.D., 6th Filing. This is a proposal for a 1/2 acre commercial site within the Stone- henge P.U.D. located on the east side of Lemay Avenue, 1/4 mile south of Stuart Street zoned "R-L-P." Staff recommends approval. 8. CONSIDER FINAL PLAN OF RIVERSIDE COMMERCIAL P.U.6., 2nd FILING. This is a proposal for four commercial buildings on 2.065+ acres zoned I "B-P" located on Riverside Avenue southeast of Lemay Avenue. Staff recommends approval. 9. RESOLUTION CHANGING THE NAME OF PLAZA DRIVE TO JOHN F. KENNEDY PARKWAY. Justus Wilkinson has requested that Plaza Drive be renamed to John F. Kennedy Parkway. Staff recommends approval. 10. EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH CH2M HILL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH EXPANSION OF WATER TREATMENT PLANT NO. 2 ON LaPORTE AVENUE AT SOLDIER CANYON. This is an amended Agreement with CH2M Hill allowing a 20-MGD expan- sion rather than a 10 MGD expansion. Staff recommends approval. 11. AWARD BID FOR THE SPRING CREEK BIKEPATH UNDERPASS AT C & S RAILROAD ON JOHNSON DRIVE. Bids have been received for the construction of a hikepath underpass at C & S Railroad on Johnson Drive. Staff recommends awarding the bid to the low bidder, Wycon Construction Company. -200- 1 R January 16, 1979 ' The following items were withdrawn from the Consent Calendar: Item No. 4 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 5, 1979, Relating to the Salaries of City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge. Item No. 10 Extension of Agreement with CH2M Hill for Engineering Services in Connection with Expansion of Water Treatment Plant No. 2 on LaPorte Avenue at Soldier Canyon. I Item No. 11 Award Bid for the Spring Creek Bikepath Underpass at C & S Railroad on Johnson Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Adopted on Second I Reading Relating to the Salaries of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This Ordinance passed unanimously on first reading at the January 2 Council meeting. This Ordinance sets the salaries for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge for the year 1979, retroactive to January 8, as follows: City Manager - $40,660 City Attorney - $26,750 Municipal Judge - $29,960 Staff recommends adoption." Councilwoman Gray commented that she would like to see this kind of Ordinance considered earlier in 1979. Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom, to adopt Ordinance No. 5, 1979 on second reading. Yeas: Bloom, ' Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -201- January 16, 1979 Extension of Agreement with CH2M Hill ' for Engineering Services in Connection with Expansion of Water Treatment Plant No. 2 on LaPorte Avenue at Soldier Canyon - Approved Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Council needs to authorize the City Manager to execute a con- tract amendment of CH2M Hill to allow a 20-MGD expansion rather than 10 MGD, as originally contracted. A memo from Roger Krempel is attached which describes the need for the amendment. Two changes have occured that justify it: 1. The need to explore design alternatives according to the Safe Drinking Water Act. 2. Separate water quality and pollution control lab acti- vities require more work. Money is available in the capital water account of the 1979 bud- get to cover the increase." Councilman Wilkinson stated he felt that when Council was renew- ' ing an agreement or approving a bid, that it should be done off the Consent Calendar. He then inquired on the next item, (Award Bid for the Spring Creek Bikepath Underpass at Colorado and South- ern Railroad on Johnson Drive), specifically if any efforts were made to determine if the bidder is competent to do the job. Dan Bunting of the Engineering Division, responded that a separate list of accepted bidders had been compiled and the low bidder (Wycon Construction Company) was on that list. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom, to authorize the execution of the Contract amendment of CH2M Hill on Water Treatment Plant Extension Design. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. -202- 1 I� January 16, 1979 Bid for the Spring Creek Bikepath Underpass at Colorado and Southern Railroad on Johnson Drive Awarded Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "On December 29, the City received bids for the construction of a bikepath underpass at C & S Railroad on Johnson Drive. They were as follows: 1. Stute Construction Company - $ 94,365.50 2. Barker Construction Company- $ 88,684.90 3. Wycon Construction Company - $ 66,853.50 Engineers Estimate - $ 49,840.00 The difference between the low bid and the engineers' estimate was $17,103.50 or 34'/. The engineers' estimate was prepared by Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff, the project consultant. The estimate was made last May, prior to completion of the final design and Right -of -[day acquisition. Two weeks before the bid opening, the project engineer for HNTB contacted the City Engin- eer's office and indicated that a substantial increase in con- struction costs had occurred. Information from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials con- firmed this increase indicating that there had been a 17.6% in- crease in highway construction costs during the second quarter of 1978, followed by a 14.7% increase during the third quarter of 1978. In view of these unusually high increases, the low engineer's estimate is understandable. The Staff has attempted to see if any cost reductions could be found; none were found. Sufficient funds are available in the Parks and Recreation Department's Seven -Year Capital, Open Space and Trails account to cover the increased construction costs. The Staff feels that the bid received is the lowest that can be expected and, therefore, recommends that the contract for this construction be awarded to Wycon Construction Company." Councilwoman Gray inquired into the construction completion date. Councilman St. Croix requested he be allowed to comment on the previous item (Contract with CH2M Hill); his specific concern was with an established price list and the dollar amount. Direc- tor of Water and Sewer, Roger Y.rempel, responded that the dollars are set on a time and material basis with a cost not to exceed. -203- January 16, 1979 Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman ' Russell, to award the bid for the Spring Creek Bikepath Under- pass at Colorado and Southern Railroad on Johnson Drive to Wycon Construction Company. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Amendment to Bank Center Square P.U.D. Approved Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This is a proposal to amend an approved plan for Lot 3 of the Bank Center Square P.U.D. This is a 2.06 acre commercial P.U.D. zoned "H-B," Highway Business District, located west of College Avenue, north of Century Mall. This proposed amended plan reduces the total gross leasable area, increases the amount of parking, and proposes extensive landscape treatment. Staff recommends approval of this amendment." ' Councilman Wilkinson stated, for the record, that he had a con- flict of interest in this matter, and would not vote on this is- sue. Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, to approve the amendment to the Bank Center Square P.U.D. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix and Suinn. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Preliminary and Final Plan of Centerpoint, 2nd Filing Approved Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This is a proposal for a one lot industrial subdivision on five acres zoned "I-L," Limited Industrial District, located on Midpoint Drive east of the Nor -Colo Subdivision. Staff recommends approval of this Preliminary and Final Plan." Planning and Development Director, Chuck Mabry, identified the ' =204- 0 January 16, 1979 area in question, and stated that this parcel -is not in the flood plain and, therefore, does not have the characteristics that Centerpoint 1st Filing has and staff recommends approval. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, to approve the preliminary and final plan. Yeas: Coun- cilmembers Bloom, Gray, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. (Russell out of room). THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Tabled on First Reading Amending the Code Section Relating to Signs Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "While Staff has been working on the sign code for the past year, it has become apparent that several revisions, most of a technical nature, are necessary. The Sign Code Committee has approved these changes. Jim Gionfriddo's memo is included which discusses these changes. City Attorney's office has prepared an Ordinance addressing ' these concerns. Staff recommends approval." City Manager Arnold stated the staff had prepared a copy of the existing Ordinance with the changes. Council might want to table this to allow review. Councilmembers inquired into the following aspects of the pro- posed changes: 1. The advisability of increasing signs for child care centers. 2. Number of businesses still under non-compliance. 3. Portable sign on an automobile or a van. 4. Posters on Public rights -of -way. 5. The length of time subdivision signs are allowed to remain in new developments. City Attorney Liley stated one item for Council's discussion was Billboards. -205- January 16, 1979 The current Ordinance outlined billboards, this provision was not enforced when the six year provision was up, because of a Colorado Supreme Court case which had held this provision unconstitutional. The City had pursued it's own test case, now that that is over, the City will regulate billboards; the question is, does the Council want the regulation to apply only to new billboards or to make it retroactive and provide an amortization period. Council concurred on having an amortization period. Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom, to table Ordinance No. 7, 1979 to February 6, 1979. Yeas: Coun- cilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Request to Vacating an Easement in Woodwest Denied Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This is a request which would vacate Petitioner to place his backyard. y Bernard L. Hill of utility easement in an 8 foot by 10 foot 718 Winchester Drive order to allow the by 8 foot shed in Staff recommends that this request be denied for the following reasons: 1. The easement is necessary to serve his present tele- phone facilities in the easement. 2. There is an anticipated future need for easements in this subdivision. 3. This segment is part of a complete easement system. The full easement system should either be retained as a whole or abandoned at one time. Staff has not prepared an Ordinance at this time. However, if Council decides to approve this vacation, we will bring an or- dinance back on second reading. Staff recommends denial." 1 -206- 1 ' January 16, 1979 Planning and Development Director, Chuck Mabry, stated the telephone company had indicated that they needed the entire easement for maintenance, also these easements might be needed in the future for such things as cable T.V. The staff recom- mends denial. Councilmembers inquired into the dimensions of the proposed shed to be placed on the easement, and whether the shed should be prohibited if it was portable. Mr. Mabry responded that if it would be "truly portable" there would be no problem. Councilwoman Gray suggested the staff recommend to the appli- cant, the portable shed concept. Councilman Bloom made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkin- son to deny the request for vacation of an easement in Woodwest. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. ' Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Increasing Compensation for Election Board Members Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Attached is a proposed Ordinance increasing the hourly compen- sation for Election Board members from $2.65 to $2.90. Our recommendation for approval is based on the increase of the minimum wage to $2.90 per hour. Staff recommends approval." Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray to adopt Ordinance No. 9, 1979. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -207- January 16, 1979 Ordinance Tabled on First Reading I Relating to Parking Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "At the December 18 Council meeting, the Council considered passing an ordinance which would prohibit the use of on -street parking for storage of vehicles held or acquired for dismant- ling, rebuilding, sale or resale, repairing, servicing, scrap- ping, or other salvage processes. The purpose of this Ordi- nance was to prevent the public on -street parking spaces from being constantly used as storage for adjacent businesses. The Council tabled this Ordinance on the recommendation of the City Attorney's office to allow more time for the staff to address the concerns of the many affected businessmen. A meeting was held between the City Attorney and the attorney representing many of these businessmen to discuss possible al- ternatives to the Ordinance which would not have the same broad, all -encompassing effect of the Ordinance. After discussing some of those alternatives with Bob Lee, the Traffic Engineer, and Lt. Myron Lloyd of the Police Department, the staff felt that the most appropriate recommendation to Council at this time would be to defeat the proposed ordinance and to allow the staff to attempt to address the problem areas by creating two-hour parking zones ' and/or prohibiting overnight parking in those areas. We would recommend strict enforcement by the Police Department of these zones and would also report back to Council on the effectiveness of the staff measures. Staff recommends denial." City Attorney Liley stated the staff does not feel they have ex- hausted the possibilities in attempting to solve this problem. Councilman Wilkinson stated the staff should consider the area from Howes Street to Shields, north of Laurel, as an area of con- cern. Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, to table Ordinance No. 125, 1978, to March 20, 1979, and asked the administration to proceed with their investigation of this problem. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -208- 1 E January 16, 1979 Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Relating and Re -Enacting Chapter 35 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relatine to Animals Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This Ordinance provides for amendments to our existing animal control legis- lation which was discussed with Council during a Work Session in December. The major changes to our existing Animal Control Ordinance are as follows: 1. It changes our current license fees to the following rates: a. For each neutered or spayed dog, the license fee shall be $2.00 per year. b. For all other animals, the annual license fees shall be $10.00 per year. 2. It limits the number of pets allowed per dwelling unit in the City. Four adult animals will be permitted per dwelling provided that no more than two of the total may be dogs. Anyone presently in excess of this limit will be allowed to register with the City an exception to this provision. 3. It changes our policy on rabies vaccination. Vaccinations given to dogs over one year of age shall only be valid for three years. Present- ly, the Ordinance reads that a vaccination is valid for a one year period. Changes are further made in that all cats in the City over the age of three months shall be vaccinated with rabies vaccine and shall be valid for a one year period. 4. We have expanded our section on animal care concerning animal cruelty and abandonment to include animals other than cats and dogs. 5. We have added a section concerning animal waste on public walks, recrea- tion or private property. It shall be the owner's responsibility to remove any excreta deposited by his or her animal on said facilities. 6. We have created the following fine schedule for animals determined to be a public nuisance: a. First Offense - $25.00 -209- January 16, 1979 b. Second Offense (within 12 months) - $50.00 ' c. Third Offense (within 12 months) - $100.00 We think this Ordinance takes into account the discussion of Council at the Work Session in December. Staff recommends approval." Assistant City Attorney Ruggiero reported on the changes made since the work session on this item. Council inquired into the following sections of the Ordinance: 1. Councilman Bloom; Page 16, Section 35-42, Pasture Area for Horses and Section 35-43, Removal Required; pri- vate pastures could be exempt. 2. Councilmembers requested that more animal traps be made available to citizens requesting them. 3. Councilman Russell; Page 19, Section 35-56, Unprovoked I Biting of Humans. City Attorney Liley pointed out the various animal provisions, also the latitude given to the municipal judge. 4. Councilman St. Croix; Page 10, Section 35-8, Quantity of Animals, this provision was explained. 5. Mayor Suinn; Page 8, Section 35-1Q, Restraint, he would like to add a phrase under the definition as follows: After the first comma, to read "as tethered to a station- ary object, beyond range of a public street, sidewalk, alley, or common path." The next item was Page 16; Article X, Section 35-44, Sterilization of Adopted An- imals; Councilmembers, with the exception of Mayor Suinn, wanted this provision to remain. 6. Councilwoman Gray, returned to the Section on Unpro- voked Biting humans, she felt that too much discretion has been given to the Municipal Judge. City Attorney Liley stated this could be accomplished, by stating, "The judge may, after the first unprovoked bite, bar the animal or destroy it, but in any case, after two or three bites, they shall be. This will make it mandatory." -210- ' 0 January 16, 1979 ' Mayor Suinn then.called for any citizens wishing to speak on this issue to come forward and identify themselves. The following persons made comment: 1. An unidentified Veterinarian, cautioned Council re- garding the provision regarding unprovoked attacks. 2. Ms. Peggy Jordan, 917 Edwards, inquired into the possibility that Council might rescind the leash law. 3. John B. Moore, Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine, spoke to the desirability of the one year period, his con- cern was rabies control. At the conclusion of the hearing; City Attorney Liley stated "At this point, I would prefer that you pass the Ordinance on first reading as it appears in the Agenda, and we will make all the changes, upon which there was consensus, when it comes back to you (The City Council) on second reading." Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom, to adopt Ordinance 10, 1979 on first reading. Yeas: Council - members Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Amending Section 118-81 of the Code Being a Part of the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Accessory Uses and Pets Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This Ordinance change is in concert with those amendments made in the preceding agenda item. It is a technical change to the zoning ordinance relating to accessory uses and pets which is consistent with the revisions made to the Animal Control Or- dinance. Staff recommends approval of this Ordinance on first reading." Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix to adopt Ordinance No. 11, 1979 on first reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wil- kinson. Nays: None. ' THE MOTION CARRIED. -211- January 16, 1979 Executive Session Authorized ' Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel items and legal matters: Yeas: Coun- cilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wil- kinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Citizen Participation Attorney Justus Wilkinson, stated he could forego extending Lemay Avenue in order to pay the City Employees a competative wage, during the current year. City Manager Arnold responded on the pay plan target date. South College Properties Annexation and Development Concept Councilman Bloom stated, for the record, that there is a remote possibility that the adjoining property, which Fort Collins ' National Bank owns, might be effected, economically; as a Direc- tor of that Bank, there could be a question of conflict of in- terest; therefore to avoid any doubts, or any questions he was going to ask that the record show that he is withdrawing from any discussion or voting on this issue. Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This is a "super block" proposal to annex approximately 190 acres located on the northeast corner of the intersection of South College Avenue and Harmony Road. There are four major issues which Council must act upon concerning this proposal. 1. The annexation question; 2. The zoning pattern; 3. Traffic implications and needs of the proposal; and 4. The City's policies concerning the use of special improvement districts finzn.inc. -212- January 16, 1979 1 ; Aside from the annexation and zoning approvals, Council is also being asked to approve the super block concept for future development of the site. Master plans for each "super block" will require formal review at a future date be- fore development would be allowed to occur in any "super block" area. The issues: Annexation - This 190-acre site is the last remaining portion of the undeveloped properties adjacent to College Avenue and north of Har- mony Road. This annexation will allow for the City to have input into the development of this key "southern boundary site" of the City. Zoning - The Petitioner has requested the follo,:,ing zones for the property: "R-P" - 51.6 acres "R-M-P" - 19.8 acres "B-P" - 61.2 acres "H-B" - 58.2 acres The.Planning and Zoning Board has recommended a change and shift of the requested zoning to include more "B-P" and "R-P" zoning on the ' property. The differences in the zoning requests are illustrated on chart of the attached report. 3. Traffic - This project when fully developed will generate a sizeable amount of traffic. The "super block" concept affords us the oppor= tunity to achieve comprehensive traffic planning. The major traffic issues are the College Avenue traffic situation and the sizing of the primary street (Plaza Drive) which bisects the project. It is recom- mended that this street be designed as a four -lane major street with left turn cuts, landscaped median, sidewalks along both sides of its entire length and provisions for a bicycle lane. Interior streets serving the "super block" areas will be reviewed as one element of the master plan. The Petitioner has requested that the City consider the creation of a special improvement district to serve as the vehicle for financing public improvements in the area. This is: the first time the City has been asked to create a special improvement district at the "front end" of a proposed development rather than after the properties have been developed. There are numerous problems with this concept and consideration of the special improvement district will require us to rethink our present overall policy for creating special districts, and we think this project will allow us to do this. =213= January 16, 1979 Because of the complexities of this proposal, Staff felt it , best to bring it to Council for discussion prior to presenting the Ordinance." City Manager Arnold stated this is a highly significant proposal, sufficiently complicated, and the administration wanted complete discussion regarding the annexation and zoning. Traffic is also a major concern as well as the Special Improvement District. Mayor Suinn asked for clarification on what would be expected at this evenings meeting. City Manager Arnold and City Attorney Liley emphasised for any- one in the audience, that this item was advertised, as a hearing and first reading of the annexation and zoning; there were some problems with the legal description on the annexation petition, so the advertisement will be re -published; therefore, Council input is requested at this time. Planning and Development Director, Chuck Mabry, identified the area in question, identified the current County zonings on that property, reported that this is considered an infill annexation, and staff is recommending annexation. Mr. Mabry then presented the petitioners request for zoning patterns, the Planning and Zoning Boards recommendation, and the staff's recommendation which . are as follows: 1. Petitioners Request: Briefly, the petitioners are requesting zoning from the existing County classifica- tions to a mixture of low to medium density residential, highway and planned business uses. The developers are proposing approximately 20 acres of RP (low to moderate density planned residential) and 52 acres of RMP (medium density planned residential) which would create 1024 new residential units for approximately 3000 tenants. The arr.::ngement of these residential units would serve! as a buffer or transition from the existing low density residences in the Landings planned development to the more intensive highway oriented, business uses along College Avenue. The petitioners are also seeking approval of 58 acres of intensive highway business and 61 acres of planned business. The highway business portion of the property, if approved as is presently proposed, would generate approximately 5.0 million square feet of floor area if developed to its maximum potential as specified in the City's area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Likewise, the planned business portion would create an additional 1.25 million square feet of floor area under the zoning ordinance. These figures may be impractical given present building standards, market demand and parking standards. Given these constraints, a figure of 1.0 to 1.25 million square feet of gross leasable floor area for the total area would be more likely expected to develop. Nevertheless, it could be possil;lr- under the present zoning regulations to achieve the larger figures. ' - 214-- January 16, 1979 ' 2. Planning and Zoning, Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Board recommends approval of the zoning plan subject to the following changes and conditions (see exhibit 2). a. That the HE zone adjacent to College Avenue between the two proposed collector streets be eliminated and BP substituted; b. That the HB zone north of and abutting the 50 acre RP zone on the corner of College Avenue and Harmony Road be eliminated and BP be substituted; c. That the BP zoned parcel on the northeast corner of Plaza Drive and Harmony Road be eliminated with RP substituted. 3, Staff Recommendation: i. Eliminate the relatively small B-P zoning parcel located on the northeast corner of Plaza Drive and Harmony Road. The staff.'s recommended zoning classi - fication for this parcel is-R-P. The R-P zone would be an extension of the residential uses requested by'the 'petitioners for the surrounding property, and would provide a more proper. transition from the lower intensity residen- tial uses in the Landings planned' -development to the highly intensive'commer- cial uses along College Avenue. .In addition,,the R-P zone for this particu- lar parcel would contribute to reducing the strip commercial character along Harmony Road. ii. Eliminate the H-B district adjacent to (:ol.let;e Avenue and north and south of the interior road network. The recommended zoning classification is R-M-P. This recommendation if approved, would serve to "break up" the predominant strip - commercial character along College Avenue through the introduction of medium density residential uses, and would strengthen the orientation of activity away from College Avenue onto Plaza Drive. The staff recommendation is also an attempt to lessen the overall intensity of uses on the 190 acre tract, thereby reducing the traffic generation and resultant congestion along College Avenue. The negative impact of locating residential uses along major arterial can be overcome by proper landscape screening and site plan design. Eliminate the 20 acre R-M-P zoning district in the center of the development. The recommended zoning classification is B-P. The primary goal of this recommendation is to orient the focus of activity away from College Ave..^.ue onto Plaza Drive. The B-P district is designed to allow these uses which are supportive of surrounding residential uses and contains adequate design criteria and site plan review authority to permit business services while still pro- tecting surrounding residential areas. -215- January 16, 1979 iv. That the 50.0 acre B-P area located at the northeast corner of College Avenue and Harmony Road be approved with conditions. The staff believes that this .parcel, as a result of its size and relative .tocatiou, will eventually serve as a major "gateway" to the community ind shouGhe cnusidei:F.d. a very critical, zone in the development: of the entire 190 acre:; within Lhe "South College Properties" annexation. Although the conditiious and re2uir.eznr:nte contained within the B-P zone offer the City site plan review and certain debign criteria through which development may occur, the staff would recommend that the zoning of the parcel be conditioned with the following general guidelines for development: a. That the development of the property be with those commercial and office uses which would be secondary to or supportive of the Foothills retail complex. This means that a wide range of "secondary" uses, rather than "prime retail" uses should be encouraged. Typical uses would include: Business Services (accountants, sdcretarial services, etc.), Professional Services '(lawyers; architects, engineers, planners, etc.), Administrative offices, Medical/dental offices, Realtors, insurance offices, ctc., Certain personal services (beauty shops, cleaners, optometrists, ' funeral services, etc.), Banks, savings 6 -loans, Limited retail, Hotels/Inns, Medium -High density residential; b. That 20% of the total gross area be devoted to open space;. c. That the "master plan" for the site provide landscaped and berming'separa- tion and screening from the Harmony Road and College Avenue R.O.W. This landscaped' buffer should be at least 20' wide. V. Eliminate the seven acre H-B portion north of and abutting the proposed 50 acre B-P zone. The recommended zoning is B-P with conditions (See IV). This zone would be more 'compatible with the surrounding uses and would contribute to breaking up the strip commercial along College Avenue." -216- 1 January 16, 1979 Mr. Mabry then spoke to the traffic considerations; and the consequences of the Special Improvement District. Mr. Carr Bieker of ZVFK spoke in favor of the petitioner's pro- posal, and particularly the zoning patterns. Attorney Arthur March Jr., representing the applicants, stated the twenty-seven property owners in this proposal have come to a point where some critical questions have to be answered; pri- marily the flop of the RMP and the HB. Attorney March added that without qualifications, the property owners, are dramatically opposed to the flop, they feel it would make basically two pieces of property in the area unmarketable, would totally disrupt the entire planning scheme, and do great damage to the plan. The other area is where the property owners have requested B-P, zon- ing and the Planning and Zoning Board and the Staff has asked for R-P zoning. Attorney March then addressed the proposed in- terior road to take traffic off College Avenue; in addition there is a great deal of concern over changing the request for H-B zoning in the central portion along College Avenue to B-P zoning. Regarding the super block question and the turning movement, At- torney March requested they be delayed until the final plans are submitted. Regarding the question of the improvement district a major concern, Attorney March stated "there is no way that you ' are going to get that system in and get a workable system unless it can be put in at one time, as a practical necessity, is to use some kind of an improvement district." Councilmembers inquired into various aspects of the plan, Coun- cil's desire to direct growth to the north, and the annexation question which would increase the size of the City to the south. Councilwoman Gray requested that the City Council and the Staff provide information regarding the fire plan and Police Department coverage and their ability to serve this area. Mayor Suinn also requested information regarding the breakdown of front-end costs for the improvement district. Attorney March stated Council should address the following four threshold questions: 1. Does the Council want to annex this territory. 2. What zoning is acceptable. 3. Is the street configuration as shown on the plans ac- ceptable. 4. Would it be possible to use the Special Improvement District system co have the improvements. I Council made no decision on this item; it will be set for a future work session. -217= January 16, 1979 Resolution Authorizing Ditch Right -of -jay I Condemnation Adopted Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "Several months ago, the Council approved the P.U.D.'s for Target and LaBelles as well as the plat for the Larkborough Subdivision, all of which are a part of the Troutman Annexa- tion. The subdivision improvement agreements for those P.U.D.'S provided that the New Mercer Ditch, currently located within the P.U.D.'s, must be relocated before building permits on the improvements would be issued. At the time the subdivision improvement agreements were entered into with the City, a final agreement with the ditch company had not been reached. At that time, assurances were given to the property owners by the City that the City would be willing to use its power of condemnation to condemn the ditch right-of- way if an agreement could not be reached with the ditch company. At this point, negotiations have apparently broken down with the ditch company; and the ditch company is unwilling to agree on the relocation of the ditch from the Target and LaBelles' site to the area adjacent to the railroad tracks in the Larkborough Subdivision. ' M & I Engineering has been hired by the owners of the property and will certify that the ditch relocation to the area adjacent to the railroad tracks is a feasible one. The plans for the ditch relocation have been submitted to the Engineering Depart- ment, and that Department will review the plans as well. If the City Council authorizes the condemnation of the ditch right-of-way for this particular area, all costs of the condem- nation will be paid by the owners of the property." City Clerk, Verna Lewis, read the resolution at length. Attorney March reported there have been a number of meetings with the ditch company and they have been unsuccessful. Councilman Bloom made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray, to adopt the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -218- 1 Q January 16, 1979 I Ordinance Denied on Second Reading Rezoning Property Known as the Baetz-West Mulberry Property Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "This Ordinance passed unanimously on first reading at the January 2 Council meeting. This is a proposal to rezone 8.75 acres located on Ponderosa Drive at West Mulberry from "R-L" to "R-L-P." Staff recommends adoption." City Manager Arnold reported that at the January 2, 1979 Coun- cil meeting the recommendation of the Administration was for continuation, so that the staff could continue to negotiate with adjacent property owners. There were no protestants in attendance; since that time interested parties have come forth and are in attendance this evening. The following persons spoke in opposition to the rezoning, due to perceived increases in density and traffic problems: ' 1. Mrs. Daryll Higgins, 800 Ponderosa Drive 2. Ms. Shirley Chenard, 804 Ponderosa Drive 3. Allen Richardson, 2300 West Elizabeth 4. Mr. Achziger, Ponderosa Drive 5. Carl Patton, 515 Remington Mrs. Higgins reported that there was a misunderstanding of what was allowed in the RLP zone. Director of Planning and Develop- ment, Charles Mabry, explained the allowable densities in either zone. Councilman Russell requested the staff take time to meet with these concerned people and explain what is and is not allowed in both zones. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, to postpone consideration of this item for 30 minutes. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -219- January 16, 1979 Preliminary Plan of Eagle I, I P.U.D. Denied Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: " This is a proposal for a 2 acre three lot commercial P.U.D. zoned "H-B," Highway Business, at the northeast corner of South College Avenue and Del Clair Road. A fast-food restaurant with a drive -up window is proposed for Lot 1. A solar - equipped retail furniture store is proposed for Lot 2. A future solar - equipped commercial store and professional office building is proposed for Lot 3. The Eagle I P.U.D. was first heard by the Planning and Zoning Board on November 6. After a public hearing, the application was denied with the provision that if the site plan was redesigned, the Board would review the revision in December. The major concern of the Board at that time was the location of the Wendy's Fast Food Restaurant, its drive-in facilities, and traffic generating problems associated with the facility. A revised site plan was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on December 11. The Planning and Zoning Board denied this request based on the following reasons. 1. The drive-in restaurant is inappropriate for this site because of the heavy traffic it will generate which will be compounded by an inadequate ' street system. 2. There are significant traffic problems in this area such as an inade- quate street system, a Grade change between College Avenue and the frontage road which impedes turning movements plus several poorly de- signed intersections at College Avenue and the frontage road. These problems will be compounded by the additional traffic generated by the drive-in restaurant. 3. The additional external traffic problems created by the drive-in restaurant will net only adversely effect the residential neighborhood east of Remington but also the general public. Council may want to note that. this proposal has problems as a P.U.D. Council rill recall that under the P.I1.D. Ordinance, a proposal is to provide a "uni- fied concept;" this proposal does not provide unity, With such a deficiency, it probably should not even be on the agenda nor be before Council. %.at only do we recommend denial on the issue before you because of the speci- fic problems, we recommend den .al because the proposal is not responsive to the adopted public policy. , -220- 1 January 16, 1979 ' Planning.and Developm nent Director, Chuck Mabrv, identified the area in questioand addressed the recommendation for denial. Attorney David Wood, representing the applicants, have a his- tory of the redesign in accordance with City staff recommenda- tions. The net effect is that the conditions recommended by the City staff are all matters of interior design; the essence of the final hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board, had little to do with the interior development of the property ex- cept for one feature, that was the drive -through window, for the proposed restaurant at the north end of the P.U.D. Attorney Wood then questioned the credibility of the City staff's estimates of increased traffic flow caused by drive up windows, the second problem, as he saw it, was that by denying the P.U.D. Council does not deny the applicants the right to utilize this property for commercial purposes. Mayor Suinn then requested those persons speaking in opposition to the request, to come forward. 1. Mrs. Beverly Michoski, 212 Del Clair road, representing several adjacent owners, spoke to two petitions in op- position submitted at the Planning and Zoning Board, and the potential traffic generated by the proposed development. 2. Mr. John Boulette, 205 Annabel Lane, presented a home movie illustrating the traffic problem. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Rus- sell, to deny the Preliminary Plan of Eagle I, Preliminary Plan P.U.D. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Preliminary Plan of Granada Heights Subdivision Withdrawal Approved Mayor Suinn stated he understood there was a request for with- drawal of this item. -221= January 16, 1979 Following is the request: ' James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors January 16, 1979 J Planning Department City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Gentlemen: This is to request that you withdraw the preliminary plat of Granada Heights, which we own, from the adgenda for the City Council meeting scheduled this date. We have decided to re-evaluate the plan which relocated the Arthur Ditch through the subdivision. ' We apologize for any inconvenience we have caused your staff. We will request a conceptual meeting with you as soon as we have formulated our plans. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. nc rel , l Ari�o Deines i or� Charles Lockman Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, to allow withdrawal of this item. Yeas: Councilmem- bers Bloom, Gray, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None, (Russell out of room), THE MOTION CARRIED. -222- January 16, 1979 I Ordinance Denied on Second Reading Rezoning Property Known as the Baetz-West Mulberry Property Assistant City Attorney, Don Deagle, reported the staff had met with the opponents to this rezoning, and he believed that those individuals in opposition understood that the same num- ber of dwellings could be accomplished in the two zones, they did, however, have concerns as to the development they perceive would occur if the change to R-L-P were granted, specifically, multifamily influence upon traffic and the number of people in the area. Attorney Kelsey Smith, representing the petitioner, stated he felt the primary concern was density which could be the same in either zone. However under the P.U.D. concept there would be a site plan, controlled access and greenbelt. Councilman Bloom recommended the Traffic Committee meet with the area residents. Mavor Suinn put the motion made prior to postponement: (Coun- cilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, to adopt Ordinance No. 4, 1979, on second reading.) Yeas: Coun- t cilmembers Bloom, St. Croix and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilmembers Gray, Russell and Suinn. THE MOTION FAILED City Attorney Liley stated that this motion failed and Council should understand that another rezoning petition could not be brought in front of the Council for one year. Decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals Relating to Interpretation of the Definition of Storage Upheld Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: On December 14, the Zoning Board of Appeals considered a request from Carl and Nancy Patton to review the Staff's interpretation of the definition of storage as it relates to a private parking lot. After consideration of Petitioners' arguments as well as the Staff's position, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted 2 to l that the term "storage" would be interpreted to mean any vehicle parked over 72 hours. The Pattons are appealing this decision to the Council. 1 —223— January 16, 1979 Attached is a copy of Patton's request to appeal the decision of the Zoning , Board of Appeals, the verbatim transcript from the December 14 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals and a letter from Jim Gionfriddo, Zoning Administra- tor, setting forth the Staff's interpretation of the term "storage." An appeal from a decision,of the Zoning Board of Appeals should not be considered to be a hearing de novo, but rather it should be a review of the record and a decision made upon that record. It is not inappropriate for the Council, in an appeal of this nature, to listen to oral arguments by the Petitioner, persons in opposition to the Petitioner, and the Staff. However, no nee: evidence should be received or considered by the Council. The question appears to be two -fold. In the "R-H," High Density Residential District, parking lots and parking garages are allowed as principle uses. The first question is whether or not a parking lot or parking garage allows storage as well as parking. Secondly, how are the two terms "parking" and "storage" defined. (The Zoning Code does not define either.) The staff interpretation as set forth in Mr. Gionfriddo's letter of November 2, is that vehicles may be parked but not stored on a private parking lot and that the only difference between the parking of a vehicle and the storage of a vehicle is one of duration. Therefore, a 72-hour limit was set as the period of time in %•;hich a vehicle could be parked and parking in excess of the 72 hours would be considered storage. This is consistent with the treatment of vehicles parked on City streets under Section 114-185(a) of the Traffic I Cede. City Attorney Liley, presented the background and identified the following issues: 1. What is a parking lot and parking garage use, and what does it permit you to do in an R-H zone. 2. If it permits more than parking a vehicle, that if it permits storage, how does one define storage. 3. Should rental vehicles or vehicles which are for sale be treated differently than other vehicles. PIr. Carl Patton, 515 Remington, stated he represented all the adjacent property owners, He stated the issue was whether Council is going to allow a de -facto business use in R-H zone. He further stated this lot is used to hold rentals between con- tracts; he believed the use is inappropriate, illegal and de- grades the neighborhood, He then addressed the staff's interpretation of "storage" as I being more that 72 hours. -224- January 16, 1979 ' City Attorney Liley stated Council is being asked to make an across the board interpretation that would be applicable in more that this one instance. Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom, to uphold the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilmembers Gray and St. Croix. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Liley suggested staff be allowed to bring back an Ordinance dealing with parking lots and parking garages. Ordinance Adopted as Amended Assessing the Cost of Improvements in Street Improvement District No. 71 Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "On Janaury 2, Council approved, on second reading, the Ordi- nance assessing the costs of improvements in this District and providing for payment and collection. There were some changes that should have been made on the assess- ment roll prior to final passage. However, this was not done. Therefore, we are bringing the corrected assessment roll back to Council in an Emergency Ordinance. Staff recommends approval." City Attorney Liley stated that on Page one of the assessment role, under the assessment for George 14. and Samuel C. Devers, the figure $515.24 should be changed to $524.04. Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom, to amend the Ordinance as recommended. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell, to adopt Ordinance No. 12, 1979 on first and final reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wil- kinson. Nays: Councilman Bloom. I THE MOTION CARRIED. -225= January 16, 1979 Other Business Attorney Kelsey Smith, representing Mr. George Baetz requested that Council reconsider, the previous action of the Council in not affirmatively denying Ordinance No. 4, 1979, with all of the Councilmembers present. Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkin- son that the item be reconsidered with a full panel present pro- viding that all interested parties are notified. Yeas: Coun- cilmembers Russell and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, St. Croix and Suinn. THE MOTION FAILED. Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Authorizing the City Attorney to Set the Salaries of the Assis- tant Citv Attornevs Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: "At the last Council meeting, the Council designated certain senior City employees as nonclassified service employees and authorized the Manager to set their salaries. The Assistant City Attorneys are presently not included in the position compensation plan. Staff recommends that the Assistant City Attorneys be designated as nonclassified service employees and that the City Attorney be authorized to set their salaries." City Clerk, Verna Lewis, read the Ordinance at length. Councilman Bloom made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn, to adopt Ordinance No. 13, 1979 on first reading. Yeas: Coun- cilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: St. Croix. THE MOTION CARRIED. -226- 1 January 16, 1979 City Manager's Report City Manager Arnold stated he had given Council written reports on the Taxi Response, status report on Land Use Planning Pro- cess and a status report on the Lemay Avenue Extension. Executive Session Authorized Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of dis- cussing personnel matters. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. Adjournment At the conclusion of the executive session, Council reconvened into Open Meeting. Councilman St. Croix made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wil- kinson to Adjourn the meeting to 1:00 p.m. January 17, 1979. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. ATTEST: City Clerk -227- 1