Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/19/1971-Regular-. ---. -- Augus.t_1.9:, 1.97_1 MINUTES OF MEETING August 19, 1971 The City Council of the City of Fort Collins met in regular session at 1:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building on Thursday, August 19, 1971. Present: Councilmen Carson, Lopez, Councilwoman Preble, Councilmen Peterson and Fead. Also Present: Tom Coffey, City Manager Arthur E. March, City Attorney Charles Liquin, Director of Public Works. Mayor Carson presided. Mayor Carson expressed regret of the passing away of Bill Wilson who had been an Engineer in the Light and Power Department for 22 years, and asked those present to pause a moment in his memory. DISPENSING OF MINUTES Motion was made by Councilman Lopez, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that the reading of the minutes of August 5, 1971, be dispensed with. Upon a roll call, all members of.the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM..2A RENEWAL OF FERMENTED MALT B EVERAGE LICENSE REPORT FROM: Ralph M. Smith, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Vernie J. Valdez dba Pine Tavern 244 Pine Street Renewal 3.2 Beer Retail License Sir: I have checked the records, and find no violations regarding the above captioned place of business. I have checked with the Juvenile Division, and they advise that they have received no com- plaints regarding this establishment selling beer to minors. I know of no reason why this license should not be renewed. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ralph M. Smith Chief of Police Motion was made by Councilman Lopez, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that this application be approved. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. RENEWAL OF FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE LICENSE REPORT FROM: Ralph M. Smith, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Jesse Godinez and Gillermo Godinez dba El Burrito Cafe, 404 Linden. I have checked the records of the Fort Collins Police Department, and find no violations regarding the above captioned place of business. I have further checked with my Juvenile Division, and they adifise that they have received no complaints regarding this establishment selling beer to minors. Therefore, I know of no reason why this license should not be renewed. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ralph M. Smith Chief of Police Motion was made by Councilwoman Preble, seconded by Councilman Peterson, that this application be approved. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 3A ORDINANCE NO. 39, 1971 2 BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-43.67 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, 1958, AS AMENDED RELATING TO THE WATER UTILITY OF THE CITY. Mr. Alvin Miller, representing Mr. Fetner, was present and read the following communication: The City of Fort Collins TO: The City Manager Honorable Mayor City Council RE: New Ordinance on Tap Fees and Irrigation Water By order of the City Council, a study committee was formed made up of builders, developers, City administrative employees, and the City Council. The purpose of this study committee was to investiqate all aspects of costs and theory in land development and building in the City of Fort Collins. We met six or eight times and discussed such items as over -sized lines, street widths, the construction of City utilities, storm sewers, and many other items of interest to both the City and building communities. In all of the studies we found that there was a complete study about to get underway on the entire sewer system and the entire water system which the City Council had ordered done. At the insis- tence of the City, further discussion on sewer and water was post- poned until the results of the study could be evaluated by the City and study cmmi.ttee. For these reasons, it amazed us that the City Council would be considering passing an ordinance to raise water tap fees before a study is completed on how much they should be raised. We would ask that the City Council postpone these decisions until the study is completed. We see nothing wrong with closing present loop holes in the irrigation water portion of the ordinance and are in agreement with passing the portion of the ordinance having to do with water rights on net and gross acres. We are in disagreement with the pro- posed increase in water tap or plant investment fees. As a matter of fact, it was hoped a reduction could be made in this area based upon another study conducted by the City through Banner and Associates and made into an ordinance April 1965. This study indicated that these fees ($185.00 per tap) would accomplish a three fold purpose. They would pick up deficiencies of the past, provide funds for current expansion and provide reserves for future expansion. Since it has been in effect six years, it is felt that a reduction in fees would be in order. There has been no comprehensive report from the City indica- ting how much money has been received from these fees, how much money has been spent for this purpose intended or if a deficiency truly exists. We thank you very much for your consideration, and the special study COMILittee would look forward to helping establish future workable policies. i? Associ , Building Contractors Mr. Miller said the contractors felt that since the freeze by Mr. Nixon, this raise in tap fees should not be effective. There were several contractors present objecting to this ordinance. Mr. Miller said he understood this ordinance would be tabled until a study could be made. Councilman Fead stated that he served on this committee and did ask postponement of the water and sewer system fees. Mr. Miller stated that the contractors were going on what they were told six e rs ago, that water rates would be reduced. Mayor Carson stated that this study was mad , ooking into the future, we are forced into more inflation, that the rates are inedaquate now. The City Manager stated that the plant investment fee was raised from $185.00 to $250.00, that we are getting a lot of 6" taps, and that the raise is based on Horsetooth water and is in line with the market. He said it was not as bad -Aug u.s.t19,_197_l as the contractors think, that the water requirements is based on three acres net and two acres gross, that a raiseof; $65.00 raise is on unmetered property, that it puts all devel- opers on a equal basis in the way of furnishing water to their developers and there was no' breach of promise. He said the City understands the problems with the developers, but water is going up instead of down and that he checked with Mr. Nixon's policy and it does not apply. Mr. Miller stated he would like to have the portion of tap fees tabled and pass the remainder of the ordinance. Bill Bartran was present and recommended that the ordinance in relation to water rights .tie passed and table the remainder for study, that he disagreed completel with the raise in the tap fees, that he was on the committee and that they postponed the study on water and sewer because a professional study was being made, that he was not sure that raising the tap fees will furnish the revenue needed, and asked why raise tap fees and not users fees. He said this ordinance does not give the contractor enough time to give notice of this and that $65.00 more per house will cost the home buyer that much more and suggested that this portion of the ordinance not pe passed, that it is a hardship on the home owner and developer. He said that between now and November, have houses on contract and cannot change. The City Manager stated this is not meant to raise the revenue, that it just makes unmetered and metered water more equitable, and that the Administration and Water Board approved the $65.00 increase. Chuck Davis,.'a contractor, stated he would like to point out that permits have been taken out and homes being built. Mr. Bartran also asked about Loan commitments. It was suggested that these meter rates not be applied to contracts made prior to this change, also loans. Don Reil said he did not understand the urgency of this ordinance if it is not to raise revenue. It was the consensus of the contractors present to table this ordinance for further study. Councilman Fead moved to eliminate the 3/4" tap until further study. This was seconded by Councilman Lopez. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. After discussion, motion was made by Peterscn, seconded by Councilman Fead, that Section 1 and 3 be amended and the.remainder of.the ordinance be adopted. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilman Lopez, that Ordinance No. 39, 1971, be adopted, as amended. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. The City Manager asked the cco�ntractors if they were willing to limit buying water taps for those houses thct.hadetracted for and not for those they were going to build in the future. They said they agreed. Councilman Fead said the contractors have been very cooperative. AGENDA 4A ORDINANCE NO. 38, 1971 VACCINATION OF DOGS IN THE CITY - Tabled from August 5, 1971 Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that this ordinance be removed from the table. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affir- mative. Mr. Doug Wiggle of the Larimer County Health Department, was present and said it was his recommendation that vaccination of animals on a yearly basis be initiated, that the Health Department would have a more reliable count, and they were trying to work something out with the County whereby this has to be done by both the City and County and suggested that the County and City get together on this matter. The City Manager recommended that Ordinance No. 38, 1971, be killed until Mr. Wiggle can work out an agreement with CSU, Loveland and others on this matter. Motion was made by Councilman Lopez, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that the recommendation of the City Manager be approved and the ordinance killed. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 4B ORDINANCE NO. 41, 1971 - Tabled from August 5;.1971 . Motion was made by Councilman Lopez, seconded by Councilman Fead, that this be removed from the table. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, 1958, AS AMENDED, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE SPRING CREEK FARMS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO The City Manager stated that this property has changed hands and the purchaser has bought additional land, stating that the Planning & Zoning approved of this. Motion was made by Councilman, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that Ordinance No. 41, 1971, be considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 19th day of August, 1971, and to be PRESENTED FOR FINAL PASSAGE ON THE 9TH DAY OF September, 1971. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 4D ORDINANCE NO. 46, 1971 BEING AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CREATION AND ORGANIZATION OF SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 57, PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS THEREIN, AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS TO PAY THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION THEREOF 1:0MMUNICATION August 18, 1971 1731 Yucca Court Members of City Council Dear Sirs: I am writing in reference to the proposed plans to pave and improve South Impala Drive from Mulberry Street to Poudre High School. We are buying a duplex at 420-424 South Impala Drive and are very concerned about the cost of this improvement. August 3, 1971, I talked to Mr. Bailey, head of the Sanitation Dept. for the City of Loveland, Colorado. He gave me the following price for an eight inch diameter lock joint sewer installed. In Loveland the sewer cost is $6.00 per foot total or $3.00 per foot per property owner. It is hard to understand why the street cost in Loveland is similiar to yours and the sewer cost is 1/3 your sewer cost. Sewer in Fort Collins at $18.00 per foot or $9.00 per property owner doesn't seem logical. We have just moved from 424 South Impala Drive and feel the new street and sewer would be a definite improvement, but not at this extremely high cost. Sincerely, /s/ Ted M. Brown Mayor Carson said the cost of sewer districts are very unpredictable, depending on the depth, and the condition of the ground, whether rock, dirt or water. Robert Jones , Ted Brown and Mrs. Robert Jones were present, all questioning the cost of this district. COMMUNICATION We, the undersigned property owners in proposed Sanitary Sewer Improvement District No. 57, ob- ject to the formation of said District for the reasons that (1) we do not want the district, (2) We do not need the district, (3) We can't afford the district, (4) there are only five property owners to pay the total cost, (5) there are only 4 homes that could be served at this time, and (6) the district will not benefit the undersigned at this time. Everett s. & Gladys R. Allen Robert W. Jones & Mildred Jones Ted M. Brown Stanley and Margaret Schultz Roy Bingman, City Engineer, explained how he had arrived at the estimate for the cost of this district, and that the property owners would pay for only the front footage. Mayor Carson said it was not the City's policy to create hardships for anyone but that the City was critized at different times for not providing services, that he thought eventually septic tanks would be condemned, and that the sewer has to be installed before the street is paved. After discussion, motion was made by Councilman Lopez, seconded by Councilwoman Preble that Ordinance No. 46, 1971, be considered favorably on first reading, an ordered published this 19th day of August, 1971, and to be presented for final passage on the 9th day of September, 1971. Upon a roll call, all members voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 4C ORDINANCE no. 45, 1971 BEING AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CREATION AND ORGANIZATION OF CONSOLIDATED STREET PAVING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT No. 64, .PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS THEREIN, AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS TO PAY THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION THEREOF COMMUNICATIONS: Wd, the UNDERSIGNED property owners in proposed Consolidated Street Paving and Street Lighting District No. 64 object to the formation of said District for the reasons that (1) we do not want the district, (2) we do not need the district, (3) we can't afford the district, (4) we have no need for the district, (5) traffic along the present road goes too fast now, (6) we gave the right of way to the School District without charge or compensation of any kind and (7) the district will benefit only the J Au g u s.t_1.9.,_7-97-1 School District and none of the undersigned. The East Elizabeth Development Co., Inc. is a duly constit- uted Colorado corporation. They are the owners of Lot 2, East Elizabeth Subdivision, which is located adjacent to East Elizabeth Street near the entrance of McHugh to East Elizabeth Street. They have received notice and information by way of legal publication that you propose to include them in a paving district. We believe that since there are plans to construct a build- ing on the premises owned by East Elizabeth Development Co., that this paving district should be deferred until the con- struction phase of this building is completed. We believe that if the paving district goes ahead at this time it will necessitate the tearing up of the street for installation of utilities, not to speak of the use of the street by construction vehicles which may adversely effect the newly paved surface. We believe that the delay in forming the paving district will in no way substantially effect the citizens of the area. The corporation does realize that eventually the paving will have to be done, but prefers to have it done at such time as development has proceeded further than it has at this point and time. It is anticipated that the area will be more ready for a street in two years than it would be at the present time, and that a premature paving of the street would adversely effect the interests of the citizens of Fort Collins, not to speak of those of the corporation. We would appreciate your consideration in tabling this paving district until such time as the area is further developed. Yours very truly, EAST ELIZABETH DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. By Dear Members: The Doctors' Center, Inc. is a duly constituted Colorado corporation, and is the owner of certain real estate located on East Elizabeth Street. The purpose of this letter is to note our strong objection to the formation of a paving district for the purposes of paving East Elizabeth Street as proposed in notices of legal publication by the City. The reasons for our objections are as follows: d August 19, 1971. 1. That we propose major construction along East Elizabeth Street on the premises owned by us, which will necessitate the digging up of the street for purposes of certain utilities, together with the use of the street by heavy construction and cement trucks. 2. That the area is undeveloped at the present time, and it would be more economical for the City to pave the street at such time as more development work in the area is completed. 3. That although construction plans are underway, it is impossible for us to designate at this time such areas as could be omitted from the paving district for purposes of paving the street at this time. 4. That there is no substantial hardship to any parties utilizing the street at this time, and that a delay would ultimately save money to those property owners who have to pay for the paving. Based on the above reasons, we respectfully urge the City Council to defer the paving district at this time, or at least exclude that portion of East Elizabeth Street from Luke Street to the entrance of McHugh Street. Thank you for your consideration of our problem. Sincerely yours, DOCTORS' ENTER, INC. � F The City Attorney stated that if more than 50% of the property owners objected to an improve- ment District, if there was a need for for it, the district could be approved by an affirmative vote of all the Council members. Vernon Morris was present stating there no street light on Clover Lane on two blocks and none on Laporte and Maple, requesting a light in the middle of block at crest of hill on Laporte so they coulip ]d see. He said there had been a communication problem with the City and since there woulc' aving, they would like to pay for both, rather than one thing at a time. The City Manager asked Mr. Morris to see him, that he would see that the light was installed, that it would cost $350.00, the City would pay one-half and the property owner one-half. Eler y Wilmarth, Attorney, representing 50% of the property owners objecting to this Improve- ment District in the area of Elizabeth and McHugh Street, was present stating that this area will have to be paved but asked that this not be included in this paving district at this time. He said that most of the residents hate to see paving put in and then tore out for sewer and did not think the expense justified. He also stated that, though he was not representing Mr. Betz, who was in the audience, that he claimed the agreement between he and the City for a right of way dedication, and in return the City was to pave a small area on McHugh Street, had not been honored., stating we feel that this ordinance should be tabled until this matter has been cleared up. Mr. Ezra Betz appeared before the Council and stated that a verbal agreement was made between he and Eddie Hilgenberg, whereas he agreed that if I gave the easement, the City would pave it at no expense to himself, that the work would be completed.when water and sewer lines were installed. He requested a copy.of the letter from Mr. Bingman. This was presented and read. Mr. Betz denied that the signature on the memo was his. Mr. Wilmarth suggested a handwriting expert examine these signatures. Mr. Hilgenberg was called for his version of the agreement. He appeared and stated he did not have the authority to enter an agreement with Mr. Betz to have the area paved, that a right of way for sewer on McHugh Street to East Elizabeth would be installed, but there was no agreement to pave the street, just to grade and gravel for roadway, and that he made no promises to Mr. Betz. The City Manager stated that there is on file a petition circulated by the Ambulance Service and the Four -Seasons Nursing Home pleading that this area be paved. Mr. Wilmarth stated he would like to with draw the Four -Seasons Nursing Home at this time. Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that Ordirence No. 45, 1971 be considered favora bly on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of August, 1971, and to be presented for final passage on the 9th day of September, 1971. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. Augus:t_1.9:, 1:97-1 AGENDA ITEM 4E ORDINANCE No. 47, 1971 BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, 1958, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAXES IN CONNECTION WITH FERMEN- TED MALT BEVERAGES Motion was. made by Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Fead, that Ordinance No. 47, 1971, be considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 19th day of August, 1971, and to be presented for final passage on the 9th day of September, 1971. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 4F ORDINANCE NO. 48, 1971 BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COLORADO, 1958, AS AMENDED, AND CONCERNING TEMPORARY PERMITS FOR THE SALE OF LIQUORS AND BEV- ERAGES DURING SPECIAL EVENTS OF CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilman Peterson, that Ordinance No. 48, 1971, be considered published this 19th day of August, 1971, and to be presented for final reading on the 9th day of September, 1971. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 4G ORDINANCE NO. 49, 1971 BEING AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilman Lopez, that Ordinance No. 49, 1971, be considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of August, 1971, and to be presented for final passage on the 9th day of September, 1971. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEf'i 5A RESOLUTION 71-75 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS GIVING NOTICE CONCERNING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, 1958, AS AMENDED, COMMONLY KNOI�N AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IN ORDER TO CLASSIFY FOR ZONING PURPOSES CERTAIN PROPERTY BEING ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, heretofore the City Council of the City of Fort Collins initiated annexation procedures for certain property known as the Greenwalt Seventh Annexation to the City of Fort Collins more particularly. described in the "Notice of Public Hearing" attached hereto, and WHEREAS, the owners of said property have petitioned that said property be included in the R—P Planned Residential District. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has made a study of said zoning request and has held a hearing and has made a report and recommendation thereon, all in accordance with Section 19-46 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, 1958, as amended, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to hold a hearing on said zoning request as required by said Section 19-46. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THECITYOF FORT COLLINS that September 9, 1971 at 1:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing, in the Council Chambers in the City Hall of the City of Fort Collins, is hereby set as the time and place for a public hearing on said e 197 zoning request; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to publish a notice of said hearing as provided in Section 19-46 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, 1958, as amended, in the form attached hereto. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 19th day of August, A. D. 1971. r ATTEST: City Clerk Motion was made by Councilman Lopez, secon ded by Councilwoman . Preble, that this resolution be adopted. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 4B RESOLUTION 71-76 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS GIVING PUBLIC NOTICE CONCERNING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, 1958, AS AMENDED, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, a written_ petition has been presented to the City Council requesting that the zoning classification for the property more particularly described in the "Notice of Public Hearing" attached hereto be changed from R-L, Low Density Residential District, to R-L-M, Low Density Multiple Family District; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has made a study of said rezoning request and has held a hearing and made a report and recommendation thereon, all in accordance with the provisions of Section 19-46 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, 1958, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to hold a public hearing on said rezoning request as required by Section 19-46.1 (5) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, 1958, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that September 9, 1971, at 1:30 P. M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing, in the Council Chambers in the City Hall of the City of Fort Collins is hereby set as the time and place for a publichearing on said rezoning request; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to publish a notice of said hearing as provided in Section 19-46.1 (5) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, 1958, as amended, in the form attached hereto. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 1,9th. day of August_, A.. D, 14�h. 9 /s/ Karl E. Carson Mayor ATTEST: August 19, 1971 /s/ John Bartel City Clerk Motion was made by Councilman Lopez, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that this resolution be adopted. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in th@ affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 5C RESOLUTION 71-77 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS GIVING PUBLIC NOTICE CONCERNING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, 19S8, AS AMENDED, CONPIONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, a written petition has been presented to the City Council requesting that the zoning classification for the property more particularly described in the "Notice of Public Hearing" attached hereto bechanged from H-B, Highway Business District, to M-M, Medium Density Mobile Home District; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has made a study of said rezoning request and has held a hearing and made a report and recommendation thereon, all in accordance with the provisions of Section.19-46 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, 1958, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to hold a public hearing on said rezoning request as required by Section 19-46.1 (5) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, 1958, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that September 9, 1971, at 1:30 P. M., or as soon thereafter.as the matter may come on for hearing, in the Council Chambers in the City Hall of the City of Fort Collins is hereby set as the time and place for a public hearing on said rezoning request; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to publish a notice of said hearing as provided in Section 19-46.1 (S) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, 1958. as amended, in the form attached hereto Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 19th day of August, A. D. 1971. /s/ Karl E. Carson Mayor ATTEST: /s/ John Bartel City Clerk Motion was made by Councilwoman Preble, seconded by Councilman Lopez, that this resolution be adopted. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 5D RESOLUTION 71-78 OF THE COUNCIL OF 7:11: CITY O: 'rG;:"; COLLiNS ACCL :«NG A i2EC01\;1 NDA1'IU?; .:Wt; 15.016KS REGARDING TiiE INITIATION OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT, S:AT:NG :'ii;i N1;ii;i :J , .:;i: NATUii:: OF, AND Tifl'. LOCATION OF Ti;E iAi::2uVE� N'1'S 0 BE ? 1DE, DESC;2I3iSG 761E AREA TU 3E ASSESSED 03 THE S,W;ii, AND DIR C:ING T..i: CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARii AND PR::SENT TO Ti1E CITY COUNCIL THE NECESSARY :SFOtL \ GN FOR TiiZ OF SAID DISTRICT 144:EREAS, the Director o2 : U «iC IOr ias rocoiiGiienC.ed L:o ti.e City Council that a special i TOY C•.e:lt 4iStT1Ct be created a`or the purpose of ins tallino certai:l pnbalc im- prove.nents il: tae City; aa6 'XiEREAS, the City Couac:l i:as recelve4 such reco'uu7•encatior. and desires to continue With the for:aatioa of such special i.-::2rovement district. NOW, TLEREF"ORE, BE IT nESOLVED 3Y Ti:E COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS: Section 1. ':-,:at tits TeCOliwieildotlO7: Oi t:le Director O� Pw"Ob' is Works is hereby received and acce2ted. Section 2. That the im2rover.eats to be constructed are t:.e following: Installation of sidewalks, and curb and gutter when necessary. and that such improvements are needed in order to provide a safe pedestrian route of travel along the streets hereinafter described. Section 3. The location of the improvements to be made is as follows: On the streets hereinafter listed except any portion of said street having sidewalk already existing. (a) The South side of Prospect Street from Sheeley Drive to Shields Street. (b) The West side of Remington Street from Lake Street to Spring Park -Drive and the East.side of Remington Street from Lake Street to Prospect. (c) The East and West sides of Matthew Street from Lake Street to Prospect Street. (d) The North side of Lake Street from Peterson Street to the alley East of Whedoee Street. (e) The West side of Whedbee Street from Prospect Street to Pitkin Street. (f) The West side of Peterson Street from Pitkin Street to Edwards Street. 1� August 19, 1971 (J;) the North side of Pitkia Street from heLerson Street to Whedbee ;Street. (h) The North side of Pitkiu Sl:reeL Lrow. SxiLi Street to Stover Street. (i) The East side of Whedbee SLreeL f o,l %dwards Street to Garfield Street. The West side of Sn:ith from L,:wa;-�s Lo Garfield. (k) Tile East side of Sruiiil fro;u Pitk . Lo ZLwarGs. (1) The West side of Stover frog ElizabeL:; to ;.ocust. (m) The East side of Stover fro-,.:,ocsL to Mulberry. (n) The North side of Myrtle Street fran: Loo;i;is SLreeL to GraaL Avenue. (o) Tne West side of Washington Street u.:owKuibery Street to hagnolia Street. (h) The West side of WashillgLoil SLreot Prow Woodford SLreeL to Akiu Street. (q) The West side of Viitcomb Street fro.-,: LaPorte Avenue to Maple Street. (r) The South side of Maple Street fro;a Shields Street to Mason Street. (s) The North side of Cherry Street frog; West Street to Wood Street. (t) The South side of Cherry Street from Wood Street to N,eldrum Street. (u) 'Chu South oido of Larorte from Sylva;; to McKtilley. (v) Tho South aLdu of i-aiorL0 Avalluc f.om Zool:CVeI.L SLrceL to Fishb;..ci. '.L;r_e:.. (w) The Soucli stdo of MuU)orry SLrcct Prom Cook Drive Lo liry:;i::".vcncc. Section 4. he City :;d l;;eer i5 hereby directed to pre are and present to the Council tl;e following: meats proposed. A. Preliminary pla;is and specifications of the improve - 5. An estimate of the total cost of such improvements, including the cost of constructing the same, engineering, legal and advertising costs, interest during construction and until assesstaen•ts are.made by ordinance against t`.e properties benefited, and otlher incidental costs. C. A slap of the district to be assessed for tihe cost of the improvements. Section s. .Ile City Council ;hereby finds a;;d determines that the improvements proposed to be installed on all of the locations 4esignated under Section. 3 above are substantially the sar�e, a;hd Such improvements are to be consolidated into one improvement district to be known as Consolidated S.c%'•✓a/k ��Pro�er•rra� %�j%r�c/ but each separate location as designated in Section 3 above shall be considered as a separate area for the purpose of remonstrance and assessment. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 19th day of August, A. D. 1971. /s/ Karl E. Carson Mayor ATTEST: /s/ John Bartel City Clerk Motion was made by Councilman Lopez, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that this resolution be adopted. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 5E' RESOLUTION 71-79 use tax; and OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY COIIC£RNING THE RELATION OF USE TAX UPON LICENSING OF MOTOR VEHICLES. WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins has heretofore adopted a sales and WHEREAS, the laws of the State of Colorado now authorize the collection by County Clerks of municipal sales and use taxes in connection with the licensing of motor vehicles; and WHEREAS, an agreement has been negotiated between The Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County and The City of Fort Collins, which agreement pro- vides for the collection by the County Clark of city sales and use tax in connection with the licensing and titling of motor vehicles; and WHEREAS, said agreement has been approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the terms and conditions of said agreement be and the same hereby are accepted and approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk be and they here- by are authorized and directed to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Fort Collins. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this ztn day of August, A. D. 1971. /s/ Karl E. Carson Mayor Attest; /s/ John Bartel City Clerk Motion was made by Councilwoman Preble, seconded by Councilman Fead, that this resolution be adopted. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6L PINE TREE SUBDIVISION PLAT Hr. Stan Brown, the developer, presented this plat. Motion was made by Councilman Peterson,. seconded by Councilman Lopez, that this plat be approved. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6P BROWN FARM FIRST SUBDIVISION PLAT Don Reynolds, Planning Director, explained this development and the changes and improvements. After discussion, motion was made by Councilman Lopez, seconded by Councilman Fead, that this be approved. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6A COVENANT Py Pat Griffin whereby he covenants that no building or improvement shall be erected on the East 10 feet of the described property in said covenant, except for parking, access . 6 August 19, 1971 and utility and service purposes. Motion was made by Councilman uopex, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that this covenant be accepted. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6B AGREEMENT Between the City of Fort Collins and the State Department of Highways whereby the Division of Highways agrees to provide for installation of a 54" storm sewer in the City and on com- pletion will bill the City for the difference in cost between an 18" pipe and a 54" pipe, but the total cost shall not be in excess of $5,000 without further agreement in writing. After discussion, motion was made by Councilwoman Preble, seconded by Councilman Peterson, that this agreement be approved. This motion was certified by the City Clerk. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6 C S - WELCH STREET BRIDGE Mr. Roy Bingman, City Engineer, has evaluated the bids and specifications have been met by the low bidder. The recommendation is that Concrete Contractors, Inc. be awarded the contract in the amount of $13,200.00. Respectfully submitted, /s/ E. M. Kuppinger Purchasing Agent Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilman Peterson, that the recommendation of the Purchasing agent be approved. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6D BIDS - 5,880 feet 3/4" COPPER PIPE Mr. Roger Hanson, Warehouse Manager, has evaluated the bids and all specifications have been met by the low bidder. The recommendation is that Southwestern Supply be awarded the con- tract in the amount of $2,998.80. Respectfully submitted, E. M. Kuppinger Purchasing Agent Motion was made by Councilman Peterson, seconded by Councilman Fead, that the recommendation of the Purchasing agent be approved. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6 E BIDS - 2 - 150 KVA PAD MOUNT TRANSFORMERS Total award as recommended $3,380.00 Engineering estimate �1760.00 Differnece (est. high) 380.00 Mr. Tim Sagen, Electrical Engineer, has evaluated the bids and all specifications have been met by the low bidder. The recommendation is that R.T.E. Corporation, & Lewis Asso., Inc. be awarded the contract in the amount of $3,380.00. Respectfully submitted, /s/ E. M. Kuppinger Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that the recommendation of the Purchasing Agent be approved. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6F BIDS - 122,500 FEET 15 KV UNDERGROUND CABLE Tim M. Sagen, Electrical Engineer, has evaluated the bids and all specifications have been met by the low bidder. The recommendation is that Rome Cable Co., be awarded the contract in the amount of $45,829.70. Respectfully submitted, /s/ P6tjdsTAg1XQ8;Eger August 19, 1971 Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that the recommendation of the Purchasing agent be approved. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6G BIDS- CONTRACT FOR CITY TRASH HAULING REQUIREMENTS have Mr. Harvey Bloom, Director of General Services, has evaluated the bids and all specifications / been met by the low bidder.. The recommendation is that Allied Sanitation, Inc. be awarded the contract in the amount of $458.00 per month. Respectfully submitted, /s/ E. M. Kuppinger Purchasing Agent The City Manager said this was a slight raise over last year's bid. Motion was made by Councilman Lopez, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that the recommendation of the Purchasing Agent be approved. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6H VA16"Ok To the Honorable City Council of the City of Fort Collins: Gentlemen: The undersigned petitioner being the owner of property within the City of Fort Collins at 1808 W. Mountain respectfully petitions the City Council to institute the necessary proceedings for the organization of an improvement district for the construction of the above described sewer line under the provisions of Ordinance No. 32, 1961, as amended, relating to local public improvements. 6-11-71 /s/ William V. Lumb Lilly C. Lumb Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that this petition be accepted. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6I PETITION We, the undersigned property owners and permanent residents of the City of Fort Collins, hereby petition said city through its Council and/or Police Department for more strict control of dogs abounding in our neighborhood. We all reside within a two block radius of the intersection of East Myrtle and Remington streets and experience an undue amount of inconvenience thru escess noise and unsightly and unsanitary waste deposits to our lawns. Additionally we have experienced and again threatened with the discontinuance of mail service due to thL- harrassment of the mailman by the dogs found in the neighborhood. We therefore request enforcement of the laws of the city requiring confinment of these animals to alleviate the above described conditions. This petition contained 85 signatures. The City Manager presented and read the following report OM: Tom Co::ey, Ci.y SUEJLCi': Dog Ordinance Lie dog 5'tuatl Oil ii. i70" l.G:. 1:15 is lL:� G$ti �)1e, �'." C. elecil0:: O:1 April 4, 1961, Peoples Or(,i-iance No. 1, i)61, was voicil oi. by t:.J 1?Qupie; It passed 4,575 So 1,511, t:.e (ir C: ::a:iCe rea" as "PeO21e's Ord:,;ance No. :, -D7: r50.i.ilg ail ordin:tilee t0 .7 J,- i..io Co,.c Gi Ordinances relatir-•� to (ci ." j;S Ualawfuli for a 60gls Owl,,' iu ..LO GJ. �o i7." UPC)" pre- mises not his owii u.-,"ess uii(i.^.:' C01'.tro. OV ).C(isil 0r su'erv�sion Or UaiCss t170rC is cOa0.,jt The ordinance was placed Oi: uic' Ja..Ot F.S a j:os6ai: Of a petit-, by 550 qualified electors Of %,le City of l'0l'-6 Col—ils. 15 Aiinimt 19__ 1971 ___ The City Attorney advises me you C..r.not c11ange one Wort/ of these provisions without a vote of the peop o. Tile areas that are being coSiPiai::ei. about are .::i0 530 :al," 6uO iiwck on Remington and the same blocks on Mathews. At the request of the mail carrier in that area, we sent a Police Officer to accoimpaay the mail car- rier; no dogs showed up. Since then, each time I have an opportunity, I drive through this area, I have never seen more than a couple of dogs in the area at one time though I am reasonably sure that there are more dogs than this in the area, and these dogs were wondering around in the yard. They have collars on them and what appears to be license tags. A Dog Warden would have no way of knowing whether this dog was in his own yard or whether or not he had permission to be in that yard as provided in the ordinance, or whether or not the owner was in the area su ervisira the do-. it is obvious that you couldn't possibly provide enough Dog Wardens to check every dog that they see loose in somebody's yard and if you did, you would have a revolu- tion of dog owners complaining that the dog was in his yard and the nosy Dog Warden was harassing them by inquiring about their dog who never bothered anybody. You do have some remedies open to you, you could increase the charges for getting a dog out of the pound; instead of $7 and a $1 a day keep, you could make it $25 and $5 a day keep, but what are you going to do about Mrs. Jones whose poodle accidentally gets away and she has to pay an ex- orbitant fine to get it back. This still is not going to cure the basic problem. Until this ordinance is repealed by a vote of the people and an ordinance passed making it illegal for any dog to run at large, at any place in the City of Fort Collins, then ai-.d only t'ilen would it be possible to give more than token enforcement to the dog problem in Fort Collins. Dear Mr. Dickson: I am enclosing a copy oZ my :ieport to the City Coul:cii COnCe.'•i'�iiy the petition which you submitted to the City Council t:arough the Police Department. I am in no way attempting to duck the issue of make excuses, the facts are that until this ordinance is repealed by a vote of the people so that the Council can pass a workable Dog Ordinance, we are bo- ing to have the dog problem with us. Since this problem seems to be a particular problem with mail car- riers, perhaps the mail carriers would like to spearhead a petition drive to repeal this ordinance. If this is true, I will be happy to help you with this petition form and give you the correct instructions for petition circulation. I am sending a copy of this 'Letter and my report to each family who signed this petition. Respe�`u7 y�rrs, �yTom Coffey City Manager The City Manager stated that we have tried putting on more dog wardens, that he felt sorry for these people, but there is just no way we can cure it.. Councilman Lopez said we are not doing as good as we could to curb this problem. Mayor Carson suggested this ordinance could perhaps be rescinded at the next election. Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilman Lopez, that no action be taken but suggest that the people initiate another ordinance, rescinding this ordinance and refer the interested people to the City Manager for direction in this matter. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6J MEMORANDUM THROUGH: Tom Coffey, City Manager TO: Honorable Mayor and Council plembers FROM: Stan Case, Director of Utilities SUBJECT: Revision No. 11 to Exhibit A, USBR Contract 14-06-700-6155 dRted 25 February 1966. f1 - ---- - - - -August 19, 1971 - Attached herewith is the proposed Revision No. 11 of Exhibit A to our power contract outlining the next six month's power require- ments from the Colorado River Storage Project. The change as outlined in Paragraph three increases our contractual amount for the winter season from 20,300 kilowatts to 22,700 kilo-iatts. This is the standard six month's administrative change, and it is therefore recommended that the Council approve this revision and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same on behalf of the City. Stan Case Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that this contract be approved. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6K - REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 6 M SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE LEXINGTON GREEN FOURTH Motion was made by Councilman Fead, seconded by Councilman Peterson, that this plat be approved. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 6N PLAT OF LAKE SHERWOOD SUBDIVISION, SECOND FILING Motion was made by Councilman Lopez, seconded by Councilwoman Preble, that this plat be approved. Upon a roll call, all members of the Council voted in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEM 60 UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LAKE SHERWOOD DUPLEX AREA This matter was explained by the Director of Planning, stating that each living unit has two off street parking spaces, that these duplex' are two and three bedrooms. After discus- sion, Councilman Fead stated he objected to this plan. Mayor Carson stated he was con- cerned about where visitors were going to park, that .it would be well to table this matter for alternatives, that he would like to see more green area and not so much paving. Motion was made by Councilman Lopez, that the Council get in touch with the people that are planning this area and express our concern about this, and table the matter until next week. This was seconded by Councilwoman Preble. Upon a roll call, all members voted in the affirmative with the exception of Councilman Fead, who voted no. CITY MANAGER REPORTS The City Manager said he had an offer for 437 shares of North Poudre Irrigation Co. stock equal to 2,500 acre feet of water, the cost amounting to over $500,000.00. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Councilman Lopez, seconded by Council n Fead, that the Council adjourn Upon a roll call, all members voted in the affirmative aid the Council adjourned.