HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-07/06/1976-RegularJuly 6, 1976
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO I
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, July 6, 1976, at 5:30 P.M. in the Council
Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell,
Suinn and Wilkinson.
Staff Members Present: Brunton, DiTullio, Bingman, Parsons,
Kaplan, Harding, Holmes, Liley and Lewis.
Also: City Attorney Arthur E. March, Jr.
Approval of Minutes Scheduled for July 20, 1976
Meeting
City Clerk Verna Lewis reported the minutes of the June 22 and
June 29, 1976 meetings were not back from the printing office. I
Mayor Wilkinson stated these minutes will be considered at the
July 20, 1976 meeting.
Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading Designating
the Andrews House as a Landmark
Councilman Suinn made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves
to adopt Ordinance No. 43, 1976 on second reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays:
Councilman Russell.
331
1
1
ORDINANCE NO. 43, 1976
BEING AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING CERTAIN
PROPERTY AS A LANDMARK
WHEREAS, the Cultural Resources Board has, by Resolution, recommended to
the City Council the designation of the property hereinafter described as a land-
mark; and
WHEREAS, the owners of said property have consented to the designation of the
same as a landmark; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Cultural
Resources Board and has heard a report by the members of said Board and desires
to accept such recommendation and designate said property as a landmark.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
that the structure located on lands described as follows, to -wit:
Lot 22, Block 141, City of Fort Collins also known as
324 East Oak Street;
be and the same hereby is designated as a landmark in accordance with the
Ordinances of the City of Fort Collins.
Introduced, considered favorably and ordered published this 22nd day
of June , 1976, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th
day of July 1976. L,
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1976
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this
"Flayor
382
6th day of July ,
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Dates Published
Attest:
City Clerk
June 22, 1976
July 6, 1976
June 27, 1976
(Vote: Yeas
(Vote: Yeas
and July 11, 1976
5, Nays: 0)
6, Nays: 1)
Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading Relating
to Deines-East Prospect Street Rezoning
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to adopt Ordinance No. 49, 1976 on second reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell and Wilkinson.
Nays: Councilman Suinn.
ORDINANCE NO. 49 , 1976
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
That the zoning district map of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, adopted by the zoning ordinance of the
City of Fort Collins, is hereby amended by changing the
zoning classification from R-M, Medium Density Residential
District to R-H, High Density Residential District for the
following described property in the City, to -wit:
A tract of land located in the NE 1/4 of Section 19,
Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer
County,_ Colorado, and being more particularly described
as follows:
Considering the North line of the NE 1/4 of said Section
19,to bear North 88059'40" East, with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto;
Commencing at the N 1/4 corner of said Section 19;
thence North 88059'40" East, along the North line of
the NE 1/4 of said Section 19, 536.13 feet to the true
point of beginning;
383
1
1
1
Thence North 88*59'.40".East, along the North line of
the NE 1/4 of said*Section 19, 474.18 feet; thence
South 00003120" East, 300.03 feet; thence South 88059'40"
West, 469.85 feet; thence North 01000'20" West, along
the East line of Edora Acres First Filing, 300.00 feet
to the true point of beginning.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and
ordered published this 22nd day of June, A.D. 1976, and to
be presented for final passage on the 6th day of July, A.D.
1976.
Mayor
ATTEST•
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 6th day of
July, A.D. 1976.
ai; z
Mayor
ATTEST:
i.P GtGam_
City Clerk
_o
First Reading: June 22, 1976
Second Reading: July 6, 1976
(sates Published: June 27, 1976
Attest:
r
y Cler
(Vote: Yeas
(Vote: Yeas
and July 11, 1976
6, Nays: 0)
6, Nays: 1)
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Amending
the Curfew Ordinance
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"At the May 18, 1976, meeting, the City Council discussed a
recommendation from the special Police -Community Relations Task
Force to amend the curfew ordinance. The Task Force recommended
that the age limit be reduced from 16 to 14 years and the hours
of prohibition be changed from 1 a.m. to S a.m. in place of
384
the present 11 p.m. to 3 a.m. At that time the Council requested
more input particularly from the School Administration and various
PTO's.
At their June 22, 1976, meeting, the Council held an unofficial
public hearing on this subject. Several persons appeared to
speak for or against the proposed recommendation. Subsequently,
the Council voted to change the hours of prohibition to 12 midnight
to S. a.m. They, however, voted not to reduce the age limit.
They requested the City Attorney to prepare the aforementioned
amendment to the curfew ordinance."
Councilwoman Gray requested the administration (Police Department)
over the next 9 months to a year, keep track of their confrontations
with juveniles and see if the confrontations were because of the
curfew ordinance. Councilman Suinn also inquired if Chief Smith
would make a report on Police Recreational Programs, directly
related with Police -youth relations.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn to
adopt Ordinance No. 51, 1976 on first reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: Councilwoman Gray.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Vacating
a Sanitary Sewer Easement
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"In May, 1959, the City of Fort Collins received an easement from
E. R. Betz for a 24" sewer line. Subsequently, an agreement was
obtained on January 16, 1969, concerning an alternate route for
this easement. In this 1969 agreement the City was obligated to
abandon the previous right of way. This was never done.
We recently received a request from E. R. Betz to officially
abandon this right of way between Elizabeth and Riverside so that
the title search and sale of the property can be completed."
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell
to adopt Ordinance No. 52, 1976 on first reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
38S
Resolution Adopted Approving Agreement
with Union Pacific Railroad Company
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The City has an existing right of way agreement for a 12" water
line in the area of North College Avenue with the Union Pacific.
They recently submitted an agreement to extend this which would
have required a rent of $62 per year. Since we had paid no rent
in the past and the line was in a dedicated street as well as the
railroad right of way, the Administration was instructed to
negotiate further with the Railroad to attempt to eliminate this
charge. The Railroad has now approved the extension without any
additional charge. The Resolution will approve and authorize the
agreement."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom
to adopt the resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
RESOLUTION 76-37
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
' WHEREAS, Union Pacific Railroad Company has tendered to
the City of Fort Collins,'Colorado, an agreement extending to
and including April 27. 1986, the term of contract dated
August 10, 1961, covering 12-inch water pipe line encroachment
between M.P. 25.36 and M.P. 25.81 near Fort Collins, Colorado,
such agreement being identified in the.records of the Railroad
Company as its C.D. No. 38606-4-C; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins has
said proposed agreement before it and has given it careful
review and consideration; and
WHEREAS, it is consideted that the best interests of said
City of Fort Collins will be subserved by the acceptance of
said agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS that the terms of the agreement submitted by
Union Pacific Railroad Company as aforesaid be, and the same
are hereby, accepted in behalf of said City; and
336
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of said City is
hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said
agreement on behalf of said City, and that the City Clerk of
said City is hereby authorized and directed to attest said
agreement and to attach to each.duplicate original of said
agreement a certified copy of this resolution.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council held this 6th day of July , A.D. 1976.
ATTEST:
If
LT—ty Cier
mayor/
Resolution Adopted Deleting a Portion of
Improvements in Street Improvement District No. 68
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"At the June 22, 1976, meeting, the City Council received a report '
and assessment roll in connection with the Street Improvement
District No. 68. The completion of this District has been delayed
for some time due to negotiations with Union Pacific Railway
Company over the right of way on the north side of Hickory Street
in connection with the extension of the sidewalk across the
railroad tracks. The City Attorney indicated that deletion of
this portion of the project should be passed by resolution.
Therefore, the City Council adopted the report from the Administration
and referred this matter back to the Administration for presentation
at the July 6 meeting.
The aforementioned resolution deletes the sidewalk on the north
side of Hickory Street crossing the right of way of the Union
Pacific Railway Company. We hope to be able to complete this
sidewalk in some future assessment district or as a special
construction project."
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling
to adopt the resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
387
1
1
1
RESOLUTION 76-38
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DELETING A PORTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN
STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 68
WHEREAS, heretofore the Council, by ordinance, initiated
Street Improvement District No. 68; and
WHEREAS, most of the work contemplated in such district
has been completed; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Engineering Services has
reported to the City Council that difficulties have arisen
in acquisition of right of way from the Union Pacific Railroad
Company for a portion of the improvements contemplated for
the north side of Hickory Street; and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City Council it is
necessary and desirable to delete from the improvements
contemplated in such district the installation of sidewalk
on the north side of Hickory Street crossing the right of
way of the Union Pacific Railroad Company.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby deleted from the
improvements to be constructed in Street Improvement District
No. 68 the installation of sidewalk on the north side of
Hickory Street crossing the right of way of the Union Pacific
Railroad Company.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council held this 6th day of July, A.D. 1976-
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
383
Resolution Approved Adopting the Report
of the City Engineer Respecting the Cost of
Improvements in Street Improvement District
No. 68 and the Schedule of Assessments
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This resolution accepts the report from the City Engineer with
regard to Street Improvement District No. 63 with the deletion
of the sidewalk on the north side of Hickory Street over the
Union Pacific railroad tracks. The financial statement and
assessment role have been prepared.
The resolution also provides for a period to object to the
amount of assessment. The official public hearing is established
for Tuesday, August 17, 1976, 5:30 p.m. At that time the final
ordinance spreading the assessment will be up for consideration
on first reading."
City Attorney March stated the figures on the notice should be
changed as follows:
On the fourth line, second paragraph, from $121,975.58 to
$122,910.43 and by changing in the fifth line, $22,483.52 to
$23,418.37. The reason for the increases is reflected in a
transfer from the Improvement District to the General Fund for
work done by Engineering and the Street Department.
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to approve the changes in the notice and adopt the resolution.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell,
Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
RESOLUTION 76-39
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ACCEPTING
THE IMPROVEMENTS IN STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 68
ADOPTING THE REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER RESPECTING THE
COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN SAID DISTRICT AND THE
SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERING NOTICE TO BE
PUBLISHED BY THE CITY CLERK OF THE ASSESSMENTS TO BE
MADE IN SAID DISTRICT, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City
Council that the improvements in Street Improvement District
No. 68 have been completed except those improvements which
the Council has by resolution heretofore deleted from his
district, and the City Engineer has recommended that the
improvements installed be accepted, and
389
1
1
1
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared a statement
showing the whole cost of the improvements in said District
and has further prepared'an assessment roll, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed such reports and
desires to accept the same and advertise and give notice of
assessment in accordance with the Ordinances of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, that the report of the City Engineer
regarding the completion of the improvements in Street
Improvement District No. 68, be and the same hereby is
accepted and the improvements in said district are hereby
accepted by the City Council, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the report of the City
Engineer regarding the whole cost of the improvements and
the assessment roll be and the same hereby are accepted and
the City Clerk is directed to notify the owners of property
to be assessed and all persons interested generally that
such improvements have been completed and accepted. Such
notice shall be made as required by the ordinances of the
City.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council held this 6th day of'July, A.D. 1976.
ATTEST: ayor
C ecr
y Clerk
390
NOTICE
TO: THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NO. 68, AND TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED GENERALLY,
OF THE COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE IMPROVE-
MENTS IN SAID DISTRICT, THE TOTAL COST THEREOF,
THE ASSESSMENTS TO BE MADE ON PROPERTY WITHIN SAID
DISTRICT TO PAY THE COST OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS, AND
THE DATE OF HEARING ON ANY OBJECTIONS THAT MAY BE
MADE IN WRITING BY OWNERS OF SUCH PROPERTY.
Notice is hereby given to the owners of property to be
assessed within the limits of Street Improvement District
No. 68, and to all persons interested generally, that the
improvements in said district have been completed and accepted.
Notice is further given that the whole cost of said
improvements, including the cost of collection, legal,
advertising, engineering, financing and other incidentals is
$122,910.43 that the portion of said cost to be paid by the '
City is $23,418.37 that the assessment roll showing the
share apportioned to each lot or tract of land in the District
is on file in the City Clerk's office and can be seen and
examined at any time during normal business hours; and that
any complaints or objections which may be made in writing by
the owner or owners of property in the District and filed in
the office of the City Clerk within 30 days from the publica-
tion of this notice will be heard and determined by the
Council before the passage of any ordinance assessing the
cost of such improvements; and that on Tuesday, August 17,
1976, at the hour of 5:30 o'clock P.M. or as soon thereafter
391
as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council chambers
of the City Hall, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, the City
Council will hear such complaints and objections and deter-
mine the same and act upon an ordinance assessing the cost
of such improvments.
Dated at Fort Collins, Colorado this 6th day of July,
A.D. 1976.
City Clerk
Resolution Adopted Setting Forth the Intent
of the City Council to Annex the Vance Properto
' Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This property is on the southeast corner of LeMay and Drake.
Two-thirds of the boundary of this property has been contiguous
to the city of Fort Collins for more than three years. Therefore,
the property is eligible for involuntary annexation.
Previous to this procedure of involuntary annexation, the owners
requested through a developer annexation of part of this property
with eventual annexation of the remaining portion. There appeared
to be no disagreement with regard to the annexation. Some
problems regarding the zoning of this property still remain and
should be determined prior to final or second reading of the
annexation ordinance.
This resolution further requires a public hearing regarding the
annexation. The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, August 17, 1976,
S:30 p.m."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to adopt the resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
392
RESOLUTION 76-40 '
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SETTING
FORTH THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ANNEX CERTAIN
AREA TO THE CITY
WHEREAS, the property hereinafter described has had for
more than three (3) years prior to this date two-thirds
(2/3) of its boundary contiguous to the boundary of the City
of Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fort Collins
desires to annex said area to said City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS:
1. That the City Council hereby sets forth its intent
to annex the following described property, situate in the
County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to -wit:
A tract of lard situate in the NW 1/4 of Section 30,
Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., ,
Larimer County, Colorado, which considering the North
line of said NW 1/4 as bearing S 89°47'00" E and with
all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is
contained within the boundary lines which begin at
the NW corner of said Section 30 and run thence
S 89047'00" E 1266.05 feet; thence S 00°15'03" W
150.00 feet; thence S 00030'04" W 2487.41 feet;
thence N 89051'55" W 1241.33 feet; thence N 00°03'00"
W 2639.29 feet to the point of beginning, containing
75.9515 acres, more or less;
2. The City Council hereby adopts as a part of this
resolution the notice attached hereto and establishes as the
date, time and place when it will hold a hearing to determine
if the proposed annexation complies with the provisions of
the laws of the State of Colorado the date, time and place
set forth in such notice and directs the City Clerk to
publish a copy of this resolution and said notice as provided
in C.R.S., 1973, Section 31-8=108.
Passed and adopted at a
Council held this 6th day of
ATTEST•
City Clerk
regular meeting of the City
July A.D., 1976.
/Cl
Mayor '
393
NOTICE
' TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of
Fort Collins has adopted a resolution of intent to annex
certain real property more particularly described in said
resolution, a copy of which precedes this notice.
THAT for more than three (3) years more than two-thirds
(2/3) of the boundary of said territory has been contiguous
with the boundary of the City of Fort Collins.
THAT on August 17, 1976, at the hour of 5:30 o'clock
P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for
hearing, before the City Council in the Council Chambers of
the City
Hall
of the
City of Fort Collins
at 300
LaPorte
'
Avenue,
Fort
Collins,
Colorado, the City
Council
will hold a
hearing upon said resolution for the purpose of determining
and finding whether said territory proposed to be annexed
meets the applicable requirements of Colorado law and is
eligible for annexation. At such hearing, any person living
within the area proposed to be annexed, and any landowner of
lands therein, and any resident of the City of Fort Collins,
and all other interested persons may appear and present such
evidence as they may desire.
a
Ci y Clerk
1
394
Resolution Adopted Approving a Lease Agreement
With the Colorado and Southern Railway Company '
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The City Service Center at 700 Wood Street is planning to utilize
some Colorado and Southern property for parking purposes. This
is a continuous lease with a 30-day termination clause. The
rent for this property is $250 per year."
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn
to adopt the resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
RESOLUTION 76-41
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE
COLORADO AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins desires to lease
lands to be used for a parking lot from the Colorado and
Southern Railway Company; and
WHEREAS, a lease agreement has been prepared and presented
by the railway company to the City providing for the leasing
of such lands by the City at an annual rental of $250.00;
and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City Council it is in
the best interests of the City of Fort Collins to enter into
such lease agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the terms and conditions of the
lease agreement with the Colorado and Southern Railway be,
and the same hereby are, accepted and approved; and
39S I
r F
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk
' be, and they hereby 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 6th day of July, A.D. 1976.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
Making Request for Street Improvements Approved
Following is the City Manager's memorandum and recommendation
on this' item:
"The City of Fort Collins and Larimer County are presently working
' on their 1977 budgets. At the June 29, 1976, work session, the
City Council reviewed various street programs. At that time there
was discussion concerning the poor condition of Prospect from
I-2S west to the City Limits. The road is narrowed down in
many areas and has a great deal of "wash board" and "alligator"
effects. This street is one of the main entrances into the city
of Fort Collins. It was suggested that the City Council officially
request the Larimer County Commissioners to consider some improve-
ments to this street in their 1977 budget.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council
request the Larimer County Commissioners to consider improvements
to Prospect Street from I-25 west to the city limits in its 1977
budget."
Councilman Suinn made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves
to adopt the recommendation. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
1
396
Retaining the Firm of Kruchten and Magnuson
to Provide the Audit for the Year '
Ending December 31, 1976 Approved
Following is the City Manager's memorandum and recommendation
on this item:
"Enclosed is the proposal from Kruchten and Magnuson to provide
the audit and examination of financial statements of the City
of Fort Collins for the year ending December 31, 1976. Kruchten
and Magnuson have provided the audit services to the City of Fort
Collins for the past three years. Prior to that time the City
used the firm of St. Croix and Ray. The cost of the audit for
the last three years is as follows:
1973 - $22,750
1974 - $20,000
1975 - $23,000
Also enclosed is a copy of the audit costs of comparable Colorado
cities. Our 1975 budget was $24,1OS,968. On a cost per million
dollars, we have a favorable price. Kruchten and Magnuson also
provide many additional services such as a clerical review of the
operations including a letter to the City Council and management
on how to improve services. Also, 30% of our audit costs is for
our Electric Utility Department. ,
The selection of an audit is one of the most important jobs of
the City Council. It is the auditor's responsibility to examine
the financial transactions of the entire administration.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that Kruchten and
Magnuson be retained to perform the audit services for the fiscal
,year ending December 31, 1976."
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling
to approve the recommendation of the administration. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Amendment to Agreement with Mountain Air, Inc.
Denied
Following is the City Manager's memorandum and recommendation
on this item:
"On March 11, 1972, the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland entered
into an agreement with the Goodrich Aviation Company of Colorado,
Inc. This agreement is for twenty years. Subsequently, Mountain '
397
Inc., purchased the assets and rights of Goodrich and thereby
became party to this agreement.
Page 5 of the agreement indicates that, on the behalf of the
two Cities, the operator of the Airport is paid a fee of
$3,600 per year payable $300 per month. For some time, Mountain
Air, Inc., has been requesting an increase in this amount.
The entire Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Board feels Mountain
Air deserves some increase. Some felt the fee should be $700
per month; some felt it should be less. Finally, on a five -
to -three vote, the Airport Board recommended that the management
fee be increased from $300 to $S00 per month retroactive to
January 1, 1976.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the Airport
agreement be amended to read: "the Cities agree to pay for
such service of operator a fee of $6,000 per year payable
$S00 per month commencing the first day of January, 1976, and
on the first day of each month thereafter."
Councilmembers inquired into the amount paid by each city and
if the Citv of Loveland would vote on the same issue. Citv Attorney
March stated the proposed amendment was an amendment to the
existing contract, and if Council desires to accept the recom-
mendation or take steps which would change the arrangement with
the operator, a motion would be required authorizing a change
in the contract, and further authorizing the administration to
draft and execute such an amendment.
Councilmembers expressed their desire to view the entire contract
prior to voting on one portion of it. City Attorney March stated
the "basic rights under this section is, that if the operator
requests renegotiation on this term, and the cities refuse to
agree on the request then the operator must continue to take
what is in the present contract or resign as airport manager
and the cities would then have to find a new manager."
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves
to approve the amendment to the agreement and adopt the recommenda-
tion of the administration.
City Attorney March expressed concern upon hearing prior Council
discussion on this item on leaning toward revamping the entire
agreement; his concern is for giving a concession in one area of
the agreement and then going on renegotiating the rest of the
agreement.
Mayor Wilkinson put the motion with the following vote: Yeas:
Councilmembers Gray and Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers Bloom,
Bowling, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
1
398
Upon further consideration of this matter, Councilman Russell
made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling to direct the
staff to prepare and get to the City Council copies of the '
agreement of the Cities and Goodrich Aviation for fixed base
operation, copies of any agreements between the City of Fort
Collins and the City of Loveland relating to the airport,
copies of any agreements relating to the form of operation of
the airport and a study of effect of showing expenses on the
airport on the basis of uses as opposed to the basis of
population. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray,
Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Sole Source Justification for Fiberglass Vaults
Approved
Following is a portion of the City Manager's memorandum on this
item:
"On November 29, 1973, the City Council approved a sole source
purchase for fiberglass vaults from Mesa Fiberglass Products
Company of Commerce City, Colorado.
To inform Council of our relationship, the following brief
history is provided. Our Senior Electrical Engineer, Robert Kost,
invented the fiberglass vault system used by the City. As a
joint project, the City and Mr. Kost secured patent rights to ,
the components and worked to secure a company who would manufacture
them. Mesa Fiberglass was selected and they have invested
considerable sums of money in plant equipment. The vaults are
now being manufactured commercially and marketed throughout the
City. The City and Mr. Kost receive royalty payments, and to
alter the arrangement now would result in considerable legal
problems."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to approve the sole source justification. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
Other Business
Mr. David Dietemann, Professor of Art at Colorado State University,
stated he had undertaken the restoration of a painting, purchased
by Councilman Russell which he in turn had given to the City.
The painting is of Fort Collins Founder, William 0. Collins.
Professor Deitemann spoke at length to the restoration. Approximately
50 hours were required and donated as a service to the City.
399 '
'11 � .,
Councilman Russell stated he would officially like to present
' the portrait on behalf of himself and Mr. Dietemann to the
City of Fort Collins to be placed in an appropriate place.
Mayor Wilkinson accepted the portrait on behalf of the City.
ort from City Manager
a. City Manager Brunton stated the total cost of the fiberglass
vaults just approved by Council is $15,166.00.
b. A report on the tennis courts at Edora Park will be presented
at the July 13, work session.
C. By August 2, 1976, the Administration will get a cost estimate
on the Joe Wright Reservoir.
d. Estimated costs, by Reid Burton, have been received for the
new construction and the costs for the remodeling will be
forthcoming on the auditorium project.
e. A letter of resignation has been received from Bruce Vandergaw
as Equipment Superintendent.
If. The Administration hopes to have people from the Student
Activity Council present a check for the Library in the
amount of $517.72.
g. City Manager Brunton passed out a revised schedule for the
work sessions on the budget.
h. A certificate of commendation was given to the City Clerk
for safe keeping, presented the City of Fort Collins by the
United States Conference of Mayors for its participation in
the Community Bicentennial.
i. City Manager Brunton expressed the gratitude of the Administra-
tion to H.R. Phillips and his department for the outstanding
job in the'July 4th celebration at the park.
Reoort from City Council Representatives on Committees
1. Councilman Bowling reported he had been appointed to the
Regional Air Quality Maintenance Board by the Governor.
2. Councilwoman Reeves stated Buford Plemmons will be reporting
on the Sister City Program.
1
400
Resolution Adopted Regarding a Report from
the City Engineer Respecting the Cost of
Improvements in Sidewalk Improvement Dist. No. S
City Manager Brunton stated an item not on the agenda is the '
City Engineer's report on the costs of Sidewalk Improvement
District No. S.
Director of Engineering Services, Roy A. Bingman, stated
there was a great deal of earth work on this project which
can be incorporated into the future street alignment, near
Prospect Street at the north end, and along Rolland Moore
Park.
City Engineer, Don Parsons, reviewed the report which had been
handed to the Council; the total project cost is $230,924.79.
The earth work and the acquisition of the right-of-ways have
contributed to the increase in the cost.
City Clerk, Verna Lewis read the resolution at length.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to adopt the resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
RESOLUTION
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFF FORT COLLINS ACCEPTING
THE IMPROVEMENTS IN SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. S
ADOPTING THE REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER RESPECTING THE
COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN SAID DISTRICT AND THE
SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERING NOTICE TO BE
PUBLISHED BY THE CITY CLERK OF THE ASSESSMENTS TO BE
MADE IN SAID DISTRICT, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City
Council that the improvements in Sidewalk Improvement.District
No. S have been completed and the City Engineer has recommended
that the improvements installed be accepted, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared a statement
showing the whole cost of the improvements in said District and
has further prepared an assessment roll, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed such reports and
desires to accept the same and advertise and give notice of
assessment in accordance with the ordinances of the City.
401 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, that the report of the City Engineer regarding
the completion of the improvements in Sidewalk Improvement District
No. 5, be and the same hereby is accepted and the improvements
in said District are hereby accepted by the City Council, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the report of the City Engineer
regarding the whole cost of the improvements and the assessment
roll be and the same hereby are accepted and the City Clerk is
directed to notify the owners of property to be assessed and all
persons interested generally that such improvements have been
completed and accepted. Such notice shall be made as required
by the ordinances of the City.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held this 6th day of July, A.D. 1976.
ATTEST:
City
Clerk
M
Citizen Participation
a. Members of the Baha is Church of Fort Collins presented copies
of the church's magazine entitled The World Order.
b. Clifford H. Hart,;member of the Codes Committee of the Contractor's
Association of Fort Collins read from a prepared statement
"Contractors Association Viewpoints on the City of Fort Collins
Building Inspection Department and Recent Criticism of the
Inspection`Department."
C. David Neenan, of Burton Builders Company in Fort Collins, also
read from a prepared letter regarding the Building Inspection
Department.
d. Councilwoman Reeves stated she had received an inquiry from
a citizen on Oak Street regarding the tree assessment for
property owners of trees on the city right-of-way.
402
e. Kirt James, President of Student Associated Tech Council,
stated there is a group of students who get together four
times a year and organize a fund drive for a week. The ,
money that is received is given to different -agencies -
within the community. The students had voted to give the
$517.72 to the Fort Collins Library.
f. Mayor Wilkinson presented a plaque in recognition of
50,000 miles of safe driving to Officer Don Williams of
the Fort Collins Police Department.
Response to Patricia Hoffman Complaint
Referred to the Administration
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"At the June 22, 1976, meeting, Mrs. Hoffman appeared before
the City Council regarding alleged abuses by the Administration
regarding zoning and building. The staff will have a report on
this matter at the July 6th meeting."
Director of Engineering Services, Roy A. Bingman, then read the
following memorandum into the record:
"The letter which the Hoffmans presented to the Council
at the last meeting relates to two separate issues: first, the
construction of a house at 2211 Nest Mulberry near the entrance I
to the Mobile Home Park, and second, to the construction of
a garage at the south end of the mobile home park.
As Mr. Waldo's attached memo indicates, the home is on
land not previously subdivided in the City. Under City ordinances
building permits may be issued only for land which is part of an
approved subdivision, unless it is a single lot, for a single
building, and:
a. all normal subdivision improvements are constructed.
b. all rights -of -way and easements are provided.
C. normal design standards have been met.
Although.the site did not meet the requirements as stated,
since the required street right-of-way was not dedicated, and the
improvements not constructed, the Hoffmans were not requested to
go through the subdivision process (which would require one to
two months) put up a bond or escrow account to cover the installa-
tion of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street paving.
The building permit was issued on December 20, 1974, after
plans were submitted on December 3, 1974.
The escrow account was set up for the street construction
and a utility plan was submitted and approved, indicating the
403
curb and gutter on the opposite side of the street to establish
' the street cross section, and the grades a short distance east
and west on Mulberry .in order to establish the curb and gutter
grades.
The house was completed in May of 197S. The Engineering
Office delayed the release of the certificate of occupancy on
the anticipation that the street improvements were to be con-
structed. After several months of waiting, the C.O. was
released at the request of the Hoffmans and a refund paid on
the commercial electric rate, since the work was covered by the
escrow account (in the name of the Hoffmans, so that they
receive the interest on the account).
Itshould be explained that the Engineering Office does
not act as project managers for subdividers, developers or
homeowners. Inspections are made on construction to ensure
that it meets City standards. With a large workload we have
therefore not monitored the completion of the street improve-
ments, since there was no longer a certificate of occupancy
pending.
There is some question as to whether the street improvements
should be required for individual properties such as this,
where only a portion of the street construction will be installed.
' The City Attorney has suggested that is always possible to have
the street constructed under an improvement district. My feeling
is that the establishment of an improvement district is a lengthy,
involved process at best. It is conceivable that future districts
could be delayed for years on the basis of unanimous vote require-
ment to override a large protest.
I would therefore recommend that the procedure we follow
be the following:
1. that street improvements such as in this case be
installed if the construction will match other improvements
without difficulty, or not cause hardship to the property owner.
2. if there are construction difficulties or some other
hardship, that the construction be delayed, but that an agreement
be executed providing for completion at some future date, or as
part of an improvement district without protest.
In this case, based upon our last conversation with Mr. Hoffman,
he wanted to go ahead with the paving in order to improve the
appearance of the mobile home park entrance. His attorney insists
to Art March that they do not want to go ahead with the paving.
There is no pressing need for this paving at this time.
However, if they do not proceed with it I recommend that an agree-
ment be concluded as outlined above.
404
The second portion of the Hoffman letter relates to a
garage to be constructed at the south end of the mobile home
park.
The land was originally zoned PL, without street access.
The land was rezoned to ML to permit construction of the garage
as an accessory use to the mobile home park. Mr. Hoffman applied
for a building permit and in normal checks for utility adequacy
both the Engineering Office and the Fire Department felt there
was inadequate fire protection for not only the proposed garage,
but most of the south end of the mobile home park. I believe
the Fire Prevention Bureau has been aware of this problem for
some time and has been previously in contact with Mr. Hoffman
about it.
In connection with the garage permit it was requested that
Mr. Hoffman attempt to obtain an easement from Taft Hill to
install the hydrant, but the cost would have been prohibitive.
We agreed to forego the hydrant if he would agree to install it
when practicable. I indicated that I would have an agreement
prepared to conform this. I also said that I would not hold
up the building permit for the agreement, since it might take
a while to complete it because of workload.
The impasse at this point, as Mr. Waldo's memo indicates,
is over engineering certification of the metal building and
foundation for wind loads, which is a standard requirement for
all buildings of this type.
Mr. Hoffman proceeded without a permit to construct the
building foundation. Mr. Waldo issued a summons, which was not
upheld by the municipal judge on the basis that a concrete slab
(rather than a foundation) does not require a building permit.
The judge did warn Mr. Hoffman that is was not to be used for
building construction without a permit.
Mr. Hoffman was quoted as having said to Mr. Waldo after
the court appearance, words to the effect, "that you had better
keep your eye.on me, because when that building comes in I'm
going to put it up."
Throughout these two episodes, we have at times not been
as responsive as we would like to be, or should have been.
A good portion of the confusion has been a result of commnuication
difficulties with the Hoffmans. "
Following is the verbatim transcript of further action on this
item:
405 1
MAYOR WILKINSON: Air. and.Mrs. Hoffman, do you have any
comments?
MR. HOFFNLAN: Yes sir. I would like to ask Mr. Bingman
if he had checked, I'll admit and I will agree that I told him
that I would put in a fire plug or fire hydrant at my expense,
which I am sure that you people have a copy of his agreement
that he sent to me stating that they would ignore the fact that
the fact that the fire plug wasn't there and I could get my
building permit if I would, at a later date, put in a fire
hydrant at my expense. If you read further on that, it does
state that I would then, therefore, loop this line to the mobile
home park line. Now if you know anything about this while I
hook this water line onto the trailer park. This means another
' four inch water tap, four inch meter installation and your folks
know that if I get another water tap and another permit from
the City, I gotta pay $16,000 just for the right to get a water
tap. Now this wasn't said before, before he asked me, he said
just put a fire plug in and then it just keeps getting to be like
a snowball, it just adds on to more and more and more. Now I
gotta hook it on to the trailer park line; $16,000 more. Any
kind of response that he has, I can show you where this thing
costs more and more. My wife read the letter to you last week
and she completely misjudged this. She said it would cost around
$5,000 for the cost of the permit. Now I can show you, if you
folks want to sit down, if you want to take the time, I can show
406
you where if I would get this building permit for every thing
that the City has asked for, it would cost me $20,000 just for '
the right to get the building permit to build my garage. And
I can show you that. And as far as that fire plug was concerned,
Mr. Hisam, from the Fire Department, asked for this and I told
him I would put it in. There's no streets down there, there's
no right of ways, I have to run a six inch water line from Taft
Hill, which would be three to four hundred feet at my expense,
plus put the fire hydrant in which, therefore, I gotta give it
to you; $16,000, just for the cost to get a "doggone" building
permit. I don't really know, I was a little bit late when he
made these comments, but I can answer anything that he has to
say. It costs me fantastic amount of money. Just to build a
garage! '
MAYOR WILKINSON: He indicates here, Chuck, we agreed to
forego the hydrant if we would agree to install when practicable.
MR. HOFFMAN: Right.
MAYOR WILKINSON: In other words, there was no time limit
put on you in any way. They had gone ahead and issued a building
permit which you say came in late...
MR. HOFFMAN: Right.
MAYOR WILKINSON: and based on this, so you, at the time
there was no time set on the fire hydrant.
MR. HOFFMAN: The agreement was right here in front of me
and you folks, I am sure, have one there. And it states down here, '
407
"owner further agrees at that time to loop water meter extension
' and tie the same into a four inch line which presently serves
owner mobile home park"; $16,000, meter, installation, so on.
ART KARCH: I think the main thing was plant investment
fees, which I am sure there wouldn't be another plant investment
fee and I think that is probably a communication problem in
connection with looping a line into an existing service there,
so it is a one time charge by ordinance of that type and there
wouldn't be any duplication.
MRS. HOFFDL4N: Well, there's no need to loop it so that's
an expense for a meter and other things, but, I think the thing
that we pointed out amongst this was the fact that every time
we agreed to something, something more was asked and that some-
thing more always cost more money. That's the main reason we
brought this out because I feel this agreement should be re -written
to what we originally, verbally, agreed on instead of all of these
other little things added. I feel that, we did not mention the
summons into court when we were here last time because we felt
like we wanted to find out what came out in court. And obviously,
this is not a City practice because the summons were first dismissed
because they were improperly written and that's really too bad
because it took two police cars and three policemen to issue the
two summons to get us into court and then we got down there and
the judge dismissed them immediately because they were improperly
1
408
written. Now this would indicate to me that we are one of the
very very few people that are ever taken to court for building ,
without a permit. And I think this brings out the point that
we said last time we were here, that it seems to be just a
little bit personal. And so the judge gave Chuck the option
of having the whole thing dismissed and come back another time,
or to sit and wait while new summons were issued that could be
heard in front of the court and Chuck wanted the thing settled
because he didn't feel that he had violated any City ordinances
as they were written at that time, so we sat and waited and
Judge Tobin helped the Assistant City Attorney write the
summons so he could even hear them. And we went in and
Mr. Michaud and Mr. Waldo testified and Judge Tobin just dismissed
because.he said at this point there were no ordinances according ,
to your City book that had been violated and Mr. Waldo was very
angry when he left. If the look on his face was any indication
of how he felt, because he went into court with absolutely no
substantial case and I consider this just a little more of what
we tried to point out into the letter. That's more time down
the drain and here we are trooping into court, and it really
doesn't look very good to have two police cars and three policemen
pull up in front of your house to issue two little summons that
aren't even issued properly. But this is just, you know, Chuck
hasn't done anything illegal ,vet and he doesn't.want to. We have
tried for over a year to build this garage legally, but we have
to build it within a certain budget. Unfortunately, we can't '
409
go out and find other means to raise all the extra money and
the ordinance on the engineer stamp, if you've read that
ordinance, it says the City'fnay or may not; and in the front
of your ordinance book, it says that's'bptional"and the word
"shall" is mandatory. Now if Chuck is willing to get a
contractor, if this has to be done, if you'll waive the City
Engineer stamp; because there is no real purpose for it, it
isn't a commercial building and if we were building this
directly behind our new home, we would not have to have either
one; either a contractor or an engineer stamp.
MR. HOFFMAN: Let me say a little something about this.
As far as waiving the stamp is concerned, if Roy will admit this,
' Roy and I and Waldo, we had a big meeting in his office many many
months ago about this building and they was talking about the
wind load and the snow load and they stated that it had to have
an engineer's stamp on the building. That building has an
engineer's stamp on it. I told them the building would have
an engineer's stamp. It does. The only thing is, the foundation
doesn't have an engineer's stamp. They sent me across the street
to Stewart's'office. I went across to Stewart's office to get
him to stamp the foundation. He says "yes, I'll stamp the founda-
tion, but I've got to completely re -engineer the entire building because
you've got a lot at stake here. It'll cost you three thousand
dollars for me just to stamp the foundation alone even if the
building has a stamp on it;' and it does.
410
It looks like to me, all you've got to do to live in the City
of Fort Collins is just keep paying. Also, excuse me, one other
thing, you folks were right here, I was at Council, when I applied
for this permit to get this garage building built. I did not
come to the City with the idea of having this rezoned for a
mobile home park. I had to get this rezoned so I could get my
permit to build a garage. So I rezoned it, to get my permit to
build a garage and it's been a year ago, and I still haven't got
it. Now you're trying to tell me it's commercial, now one other
thing, Earl, as being a mayor and a contractor, you know this,
if you consider this as a commercial building, all my wires have
to be in conduit, in other words, the building has to be built
commercially, it has to be inspected as commercial, it's going
to cost me another, oh, many thousands of dollars to get this
thing
as
a
commercial building where all I want to do is put my
truck
in
a
garage.
MAYOR WILKINSON: Okay, Chuck. Is there anything else?
MRS. HOFFMAN: I do have one other comment, I think that
the last Council meeting Mr. March made the comment that the
reason that we had to have a contractor is because of the zoning,
is that right?
ART M-ARCH: No, I don't think per se, I don't think the
zoning has any more to do with the question of what's being built
and again I have to go back and check the:`minutes to prove, I
know they would reflect it, but I know that there were statements
made in asking for the zoning, the thing was going to be used
411
1
1
1
itr
in connection with the mobile home park which would make
it a commercial building. I don't know how you are ever
going to separate out the use, it is a part of the mobile
home park as such. If there was some way of assuring, I
guess, that, well ... I don't see how you can separate it.
The statement was made last time that you were going to
use it also for storage of equipment and that sort of
thing on the mobile home park.
MRS. HOFFMAN: Well, we have the minutes and there
wasn't anything, we went down and picked up the minutes from
both the P&Z Board and the City Council and it was asked about
it being an accessory building and they said it had to be that
way because of the mobile home park and not its use, and the
use didn't affect it.as such so it's sort of like a little
"ring around the mulberry bush" and you don't ever let go type
of thing. But all Chuck wants to do is build the building
and it isn't, we didn't go through this much trouble to build
the recreation building for the mobile home park and it is a
public use building and not a private use building and we didn't
have to do all the things for that that you're asking that we
do for our own garage.
COUNCILWOMAN REEVES: Alright, is this part of the problem
that we can't zone for use, use contract...
ART MARCH: No, it has nothing to do with that.
COUNCI1110MAN REEVES: and limit it and say that it will only
412
be used for personal use and not for business use?
ART MARCH: Well, that has nothing to do with the zoning
per se...
COUNCILWOMAN REEVES: Yes, that's right.
ART MARCH: the problem is, and again, may I reflect
that they are not verbatim minutes or anything else, I know
that there has been discussion about keeping equipment for the
mobile home park there.
COUNCILWOMAN REEVES: Oh, like lawnmowers or something
like that?
ART MARCH: Yeah, that's right, that sort of thing, and
there's also discussion, talk about keeping the campers that
other people may own in this area and the whole bit, the whole
bit.
MRS. HOFFMAN: They are stored back, well, the campers
are not stored in the garage, they are stored on the land.
ART MARCH: We're talking about the use of the land,
that's why it was rezoned, now the zoning, if you happen to have
a big piece of commercial zoning with a house on it, you are
entitled to build a garage on it as an accessory use to that
nonconforming house, that's nonconforming. There's no problem
with that. As I understand, this isn't.the piece that the house
is on but that's not, that's probably where part.of the problem
comes from. But I suppose that if there was some way of assuring
that this was purely a usage mixed with the house and not the
mobile home park, if you could ever figure out how to do that,
413
1
1
then I suppose we might be able to waive the requirement. I
don't see how it's possible, I really don't. The problem is,
obviously, is a combination of two uses, I suppose.
COUNCILMAN RUSSELL: What are the dimensions of the
proposed garage?
MRS. HOFFMAN: Thirty by fifty.
COUNCILMAN RUSSELL: Thirty by fifty and that's to
house what?
MR. HOFFMAN: Basically, for lawnmowers and I've got
a truck and cars, that's all.
MRS. HOFFILAN: We've got a number of vehicles and we
have just a small garage up by the house which doesn't begin
to take care of things.
COUNCILMAN RUSSELL: Are you talking about the truck or
the cars?
MR. HOFFMAN: Well, I've got a brand new pickup, I've
got a 172 Thunderbird, I've got many...
MRS. HOFFMAN: Okay, he has a trash truck too that sits
out and we'd like to put that in particularly in the winter time
so that when the trash is picked up the gears all function, it
gets a little cold outside.
COUNCILMAN RUSSELL: You could haul that trash in that
Thunderbird.
MR. HOFFMAN: That would be an idea, but it's hers.
The thing of it is we can't get all of this stuff in the garage
we've got at the house.
414
MRS. HOFFMAN: Actually, the garage would not be used
for anything that our present garage at the house is now used
for, I mean, that's all; other than that it will be much larger
and we can get more inside and we won't have to park it on our
lawns and in our driveways.
COUNCILMAN SUINN: What is asked for, a five car garage?
MAYOR WILKINSON: A car space takes about nine feet, I
mean to get the doors open and get out and be usable, so fifty
feet would be a reasonable figure but it wouldn't leave much
space for anything else. Now that's the width, now what is
the depth?
MR. HOFFMAN: Thirty.
MAYOR WILKINSON: This would leave about ten feet in the
back of depth. I think I'll ask Council if they have any questions I
of the Hoffmans. Mr. Bloom?
COUNCILMAN BLOOM: No.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: In the packet we were just handed,
Chuck, the memorandum dated 29th of September, 1975, the first
paragraph, Discussion, the first paragraph of the first page of
the memorandum. From the Planning and Zoning Board report, and
this is pretty much the way I remember it, I try to go back and
find some of my materials too, bringing some parts that I've
underlined'for use as a parking garage in camper, trailer, storage
area."
MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
MRS. HOFFMAN: That was what part of the...
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: If I remember right, when this came
before Council, did you not also state that you were going to do
413
repair work and that type of thing in the garage too?
�iR. HOFFMAN: To a degree. Now, what I asked or what
I said is the fact that this will be used as an area to park
the campers. In other words, in my mobile home park, I have
several people that have overnight campers that they pull behind
their trailer, behind their...
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: At that time you discussed some
screening and that type of thing.which was going to be done too?
MR. HOFFMAN: Right. Which I did.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: This was going to be a general
maintenance area for your mobile home park too, is that not
correct?
MR. HOFFMAN: Well, not exactly. What the situation is
in concern with, I was going to use this half acre land to park
the campers which the people have which I did. I don't need a
garage to park it, but I parked them off of the lawn which was
in the park area.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: I kind of remember the discussion
of what my notes said that went clear back to that time, but I
remember that you mentioned that this garage was also going to
be used for your general maintenance and that type of thing
for the mobile home park of your own, but the problem was...
MRS. HOFFMAN: But that would be just Chuck working at it.
MR. HOFFMAN: It would just be myself working on my lawn-
mowers, I work on these in the winter time to keep them going
through the summer time. See I mow everybody's lawn and I have
416
to keep the lawnmowers in pretty good shape.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: Yes. The problem was it was an
PMP area and it had to be changed because the rezoning is
being requested because an accessory use must be zoned the
same as a
principle use to which
it pertains.
I think this
was what
Peggy was mentioning.
Those are the
things that I
too remember from those discussions from that time and so my
concern basically is where we fell down in this procedure
because some of the things that this City has insisted upon
in my reading this memorandum just now without studying it
are the same things that we insist upon from any other person
who comes before any boards or commissions requesting these
particular items. And secondly, as I say I don't see any
differences there except the thing that bothers me is, one,
the fire hydrant, and a statement that Mr. Bingman made a
few minutes ago about the underwriters having conferred with
you concerning this in the past about its need, and two, the
loopline and the part we started to address about the permit
fees that they would not be required. Now, what I'm trying to
get at is this, if the City said, included in our memorandum
that if it was issued saying that that could be accomplished
at a later time, and one, like you, that first paragraph, I
see nothing wrong with that, but then I'd like to know why
we are required to be put on the belt loop and what the reason
for that was on the fire hydrant?
417
1
1
1
ART MARCH: You have to get accurate pressure is the
reason for the line.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: Well, that's what I understood, but
you can't get in the line that way, is that correct?
MR. HOFFMAN: You what?
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: You can't just dump the line in
without having the belt?
ART MARCH: Well, you won't necessarily get adequate
pressure unless you do loop the line to support a fire hydrant.
It obviously takes more water going through it than you can
get through a typical service.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: So, correct me if I'm wrong then,
what was being said to you was, at a later date when the use
and the area is developed you will have to install a fire hydrant
as you would anyway to get a further permit to put more use
upon the land, and you would have had to do it correctly at
a later date. Is that what your letter said, Mr'. Bingman?
ROY BINGMAN: Yes. I should say also that it is very
typical that you do loop firelines, for instance in subdivisions.
We do this all the time to balance the water and I may well not
have discussed at the meeting and included in the agreement
inadvertently. I could well have done that, I don't know.
MR. HOFFMAN: Chuck, getting back to this, now I have
no ill feelings about putting the fire hydrant in. As I told
them, I will put a fire hydrant in and I will put it in at my
expense, but I feel that if I put this fire hydrant in for
418
everyone in the area to use other than myself, I don't feel
that I should spend another $16,000 for a meter and a water
tap.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: Let's discuss this $16,000 bit
because I don't understand this. Mr. March, would you respond to
that?
ART MARCH: I assume that he is referring to the plant
investment fee. There is a plant investment fee required for
original water service to any property. If he's got that water
service, there would not be another plant investment fee. Now
I don't know whether somebody in the Water Department indicated
to you there would be one or not, but I think again, it's a
- communication problem. It probably really explained that they
do have service. Now if they were going to increase their water
use, put more improvements on some land or that land or whatever,
then there might well be an additional plant investment fee due
because of the increased use, but assuming that that isn't the
case then just to loop the line for the existing use and it would
serve the same property way that it was served before except you
would get better pressure to it, would not cost another plant
investment fee. The easiest problem now that we have to consider
when they asked me to draw up the agreement, someway I suppose
we would have to take care of a meter, I think just off -hand my
approach to things which is partly our request would be to try
to work it out where that we pay the cost of the meter, we split
it or something like that. But that really was not an area that
419
was discussed, even at least, within my knowledge. And it
certainly is an area which would be open to discussion. It's
just something that just didn't come up.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: One last question that I have and
then that will be all for me. Roy, perhaps you can answer this
as well as Mr. Hoffman. I would assume that this is a pre-
packaged metal building that you are buying? Aren't most of
those already engineered and aren't specifications given as to
what wind load and as to snow loads and this type of thing?
MR. HOFFMAN: Yes. The building that I bought was
engineered this way and I did ask for an engineering stamp and
they said that they would give me one and I did discuss this
when we were at this meeting with Rov that I cannot supply the
engineering stamp until the building gets here. They send all
the information with it and I asked them if I could order the
building, which I ordered it and I paid for it and they said
I could get the foundation plans just right away which I didn't,
I didn't get my foundations authorized at all.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: I don't know anything about that
Chuck, but that sounds a little strange to me because I was able
to get one, I told them I want it and got it, but I don't under-
stand...
MRS. HOFFMAN: We know some other people that have too,
that's why we came before the City Council because we found a
lot of people that have been able to do a lot of things that we
haven't been able to do.
420
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: I'm talking about the engineering
report on this fundamental building because usually it is part
of the specifications under which they are sold.
MR. HOFFMAN: I bought my building through Frank Just
and he told me that I wouldn't get the engineer's stamp until
the building came in as a complete package. And also, not that
I'm saying he told me this, Mr. Fischer, from the Water
Department, I contacted him and asked him how much it would
cost to put in the fire hydrant and the water line and he told
me that this is what it would cost through the City, it would
cost me $16,000 for the permit and that would give me the
meter and the location.of the fire hydrant. They have to put
the fire hydrant in themselves.
ART MARCH: This is obviously a communication problem '
again because I'm sure nobody was up on the exact extent of
this thing or what was being discussed and I'm sure that if
they just got an inquiry, what's it cost for this size line,
they'd give a routine answer of what the charge is. But
certainly, in this circumstance, there would not be such a
Charge. I have no problem in amending the agreement to show
that, that's really of no concern, it's just that as far as
I know until they appear before Council. One thing too, well,
but I think there is going to be a problem that I can foresee
that probably ought to come out now. There may be a difficulty
I have not discussed with anybody on the foundation in that
there was no building permit at the time that the slab out
421
there was poured so I'm sure there tvas no inspection of the
slab in the process of pouring and I don't know how we go
back and inspect it because they didn't want an inspection
ahead of time now to see that it meets the requirement.
I only raised so I won't be accused of not raising it when
earlier when it comes up at some future date, but I really
do see some problem along this line.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: Who poured the slab?
MR. HOFFMAN: Krug Concrete.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: Wouldn't they have records available?
ART MARCH: Could be, I don't know. Again, I don't know
that it's a problem, again I just foresee the possiblity and
its been said that problems keep coming in the future so I'm
' trying to get one put away as fast as possible.
MR. HOFFMAN: Chuck, just to give you another
little problem that's going to come up, I did pour the slab
and with this slab, before I can get a building permit I have
to have the ground soil sample underneath it, I have to have
an engineer stamp on it and there is only one way that the
Citv can do and that is to make me go out there with a jack
hammer and jack hammer it up before I get a soil sample.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: That's the problem I'm discussing.
there is going to be a real problem in this area at this time
now.
MR. HOFFNLAN: Those soil samples cost a thousand dollars.
422
MRS. HOFFMAN: And again, if this was in our backyard
it wouldn't be required and we'd be using it for the same
function.
ART MARCH: I'd point out that's not totally, well
maybe that is true, but they could not use it for the lawnmower
business for instance in connection with a mobile home park
in their backyard if it is in a residential zone.
MRS. HOFFMAN: We're doing it right now.
ART MARCH: If the neighbors complain, you can't do it,
maybe I should say it that way.
MR. HOFFMAN: Art, it's not a lawnmower business, I'm
just putting in new spark plugs and keeping my mowers going but
on the same hand I can walk down to the City Building Inspection
Department and I can get a business home occupancy permit
business permit to work a lawnmower business in the garage I've
got by my house. They told me that they could give me one and
they would give me one because it would be a home occupancy.
So what makes the difference if I build a garage way out back
in the "doggone" horse pasture?
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: The zoning change that you requested
makes a difference. The zoning change is an accessory use to
your mobile home park, Chuck, you see this is what I'm trying
to question because this is what I remember when it came to us.
It was not a home occupation in conjunction with your mobile
home park, it is service and to do those things connected with
it and trailer storage and that type of thing and so what the
423
thing that confused me when I gat your letter originally
and when I went through what I try to remember, piece
together, was that what you're saving now and what you said
to us as I remember it when you came before the Council,
it's not the same thing.
MR. HOFFMAN: Chuck, let me, let me pose another little
problem here. When I brought this before the Council and the
Planning and Zoning Board, I asked, what I told you was that
I was going to move my campers down there, store my campers
on this piece of land, and build a garage. And if you will
remember, you and Mr. Russell, I asked, I came before the
Council, I was only there for just a couple minutes and I
says, I went down to get a building permit, and I could not
get a building permit to build this garage until I rezoned
the land, therefore, I'm asking for rezoning so I can build
a garage and at the same time I'm going to move the campers
down there and store the camper trailers down there, and
Mr. March will tell you the same thing if he wants to.
Now I do not have to have low density mobile home zoning to
park the campers down there and Art and I went into this.
I could put them on any kind of zoning because all they are
is just there for storage. Now to eliminate all of this,
to eliminate the big problem, I have an answer to the whole
thing. Now this may not meet with the Council but why don't
we just go back and rezone this thing for low density residential
and get if off the mobile home residential zoning and I can
424
just build what I want to build. That's all I ask, is just
to build it for us. So let's rezone it to another zoning
and then I can't build it but the Council won't go along
with this and the City Building Inspection won't go along
with this so what have I done, I'm stuck again?
ART MARCH: Well, problems come up because, laws
draw lines, and the:.line might not always be logical in a
given situation and there's a provision in the zoning
ordinance that says that ,you can't have a use variance.
It is not a permissible use to use a piece of RML or
what,was it zoned before Chuck?
MR. HOFFMAN: Medium densit
ART MARCH: Okay, it is not
to use that zoned land as a garage
you can use it as an accessory use
put a house there and then put a g
just use it as principle use for a
dumb rule, but it's the law and as
y residential.
within the zoning laws
site. It isn't something,
as a garage site, you can
arage with it but you can't
garage. Now, it maybe a
I say, laws draw strange
lines at times when you put them in a particular application
on a particular application on a particular piece of ground.
So if you can't rezone it and be able to use the garage we'd
be right back with the same problem. It has to be an accessory
use of something and the only thing there that we could put
it with that the Hoffman's own is the mobile home park. So
again, because of the line that the ordinance draws, that's
where you are. Now we can go through it, I mean with the
425
zoning ordinance maybe and come up with another scheme of
zoning that doesn't do that to it. But, I'm not sure that's
real logical either.
MRS. HOFFMAN: I do have one question that was never
asked and that's how come all these things weren't told to us
to begin because at one point, a half of a permit was already
written out when someone in the zoning, in the permit office
told the guy to stop, so evidently, not everybody knows what
they want down there because Chuck had half of the permit
already written when they told the guy to stop writing the
permit. And he was going to give Chuck his permit, months
ago until one of his superiors told him "don't do that" and
then that's when we started, and the thing that has bothered
' me from the beginning, both with the house and with the garage
is when you go into the City office, they do not tell you what
you need, they say "you do this" and when you do it, you go
back and you say "okay, I did it, I want my permit". And
then they say "well now you gotta do this". And this is what's
happened in both the house and the garage situation that has
been very upsetting each time we do what is requested, each
time we go back they want something else and each time it costs
more money and I think some things should be done so that when
somebody goes in and, I honestly believe Chuck should have been
told when he first went before the rezoning you know, that this
is what you're going to have to do and this is what ,you're going
to need. 426
ROY BINGMAN: I think the only answer to that is that
zoning, building inspection, and subdivision and planning are
all inter -related and we do the best we can in explaining the
inter -relationships and what you have to do to get your permit
but people don't always understand, we do try, we really do try
and tell people.
MR. HOFFMAN: Let me ask one other question and maybe
Mr. Bingman can answer this. On this land that is zoned low
density mobile home, I can show ,you right now another piece
of land that is right beside mine that is zoned exactly the
same as mine, that is on the same plan as mine, that is not
totally owned by me, and he went down a week ago, walked into
the building inspection department, got a permit and walked
out and he is doing his own work at the present time on the
same land that is zoned exactly the same way and he is doing
it himself, he doesn't have a general contractor, he had no
permit, or he had no plan I should say, and that permit number
is 25671 on exactly the same zoned land. Now why could he do
it and I can't? Because it's exactly the same type of land,
zoned exactly the same.
ROY BINGMAN: I'll check it out and let you know on the
answer. I can't tell you, obviously, here.
Nancy?
MAYOR WILKINSON: Ah, Chuck, do you have anything further?
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: Well I remember very clearly as a
matter of fact, this rezoning, it wasn't that long ago and I
427
1
can almost remember some of the verbatim things that were
brought out at that time so I know what my understanding of
the use was and it was as is stated in this particular memo.
First of all, are you comfortable now $16,000 that you do
not have to pay another plant investment fee? Well, I know
with some of your past experience that you may not feel
comfortable but it seemed to me that when you came tonight
that you were convinced that you would have to put out more
money for a plant investment fee.
MR. HOFFMAN: I really don't understand what you mean
by a plant investment fee. The whole situation is the City
forced me to put a fire hydrant in there and it is going to
cost me at least $16,000 just for the right to put it in.
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: No, but you do not. As Art explained
to you, excuse me, Art, you explained the plant investment fee,
I thought that this is what you were talking about.
MRS. HOFFMAN: They called it a "tap fee".
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: Okay the "tap fee" pardon me
MRS. HOFFMAN: "Tap fee", yeah, that's what they called
it when he called down to check.
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: Alright the "tap fee". Now do you
understand that now that the tap fee will not be required of you?
MRS. HOFFMAN: I'd accept it if it's in writing with
Mr. Brunton's signature.
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: Okay, I can understand that. But for
the purposes of our conversation, tonight, let's assume that it's
428
not required.
b1R. HOFFMAN: In other words, let's put that another
way, if it's not required, let's put it down in writing but
the fact is, I don't mind putting the fire hydrant in, at
my expense, which Don Hisam, sitting back there will agree
to. That's what I agreed to when he was at the meeting.
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: That's right, but $16,000 though,
if you figured it out, included the tap fee.
MRS. HOFFMAN: Right and neither that we don't feel we
need.
MR. HOFFMAN: Somewhere along the line, somebody's going
to have to buy a meter.
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: That right, and we were talking a
little bit earlier in the conversation that until it's in '
writing, you will not require a tap fee, or what we call a
plant investment fee. So that's a minus and it's obvious from
Art's statement that we might be able to work out something on
the meter.
MRS. HOFFMAN: We'd like something worked out that didn't
cost us anything because we already paid for one meter and we
have sufficient water pressure in the park so I can't see any
reason why we should have to put in, you know, anything more
than pay for the water line and the -fire hydrant installation.
I mean that's the way we feel about it.
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: Are ,you saying now that you do not
want to sit down and negotiate over a meter? Refuse to pay the
429
for the meter, or what?
MRS. HOFFMAN: I can't see why we should have to pay
for a meter to build a garage. I mean we do not need it for
the park.
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: I guess what I'm really trying to
find out.
ART MARCH: On that point, it should be brought up
that I think one reason for the requirement of the fire hydrant
wasn't really related to the garage other than the garage is
what triggered it. But it relates to the fact that there is
an increased number of mobile home pads created on that park
after it was originally put in, isn't that right, Don? And
that's where it comes from is the fact that they increased
the density of their mobile home use, I don't know with a
permit or without a permit or what, but in any event, I
can understand kind of what happened.
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: I think that was made clear
throughout this whole thing that this was the reason for the
requirement. I guess what I'm really getting at is trying
to find out exactly what you're asking for specifically.
Now I realize your frustrations and there have been a great
deal of communication problems but things can lead to a lot
Of frustrations and this sometimes happens and we think there
have been some good changes in the Building Inspection Department,
we hope that.improvements will come elsewhere, we see these
everyday. But I think it really boils down to my question of
430
you; what are you asking of the Council? I heard you
mention something about asking us to waive an engineer's
stamp..
MRS. HOFFMAN: On the foundation, and we'll get a
contractor.
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: What else?
MRS. HOFFMAN: Well, that's what there's three
requirements, we want the hydrant agreement to be what was
originally agreed to...
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: And that was?
MRS. HOFFMAN: and that was
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: That was that you could put it in
at your own expense without a loop?
MRS. HOFFMAN: The original agreement says, the day
Mr. Hisam was there and Mr. Bingman and I believe the
Assistant City Manager was there and Chuck and I were there
and we would like the agreement to read what it said that day,
but when they got the city line down there that we would at
our expense put in the fire hydrant, period.
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: Just the fire hydrant?
MRS. HOFFMAN: That's what we agreed to and that's what
they told us.
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: I know I heard that, but I am still
trying to figure out just (end of tape)
MRS. HOFFMAN: We want something in writing from the
City to guarantee us that's all we have to do. That's all
431
1
1
I mean, I think you can see our point.
COUNCILWOMLAN GRAY: Yes.
MRS. HOFFMAN: You know, that if we do thus and such
that this is what we all we have to do that when we go to
put the hydrant in we're not going to get a little goodie
that says "hey, you're gonna do thus, thus, and such".
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: You know, I can truly see your
point and I can understand the frustrations and perhaps you
can see my point now that I'm trying to wade through all of
this and figure out what's expected of us or what you're
asking because I'm still not quite sure.
MRS. HOFFMAN: Well, that's what we're asking and
that's why we came because we...
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: Okay, then you're asking for these
two specific items and I think you were being facetious when
you were talking about a rezoning.
MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, I was, but we gotta have an end to
the meeting somewhere. Nancy, one other thing that you should
probably think of in this as far as asking for exceptions, the
main thing that we should do on this is to consider this
building not as a commercial building, but as private building,
a private building would be considered with the City as a private
building, I wouldn't have to build under all the commercial
regulations because as Earl can tell you, they're fantastic and
can cost you a bunch and it's going to be used just for us to
park our vehicles in and that's all.
432
COUNCILWOMAN GRAY: Okay, so then you have three
requests, you are asking us as the third item to consider
this just a plain garage. Alright those are the three
specific claims. Thank you.
MAYOR WILKINSON: Chuck, how did you determine the
size of your piers, as we both know, the steel building has
a very concentrated load because of the span of your frame
so there twenty, twenty-five feet, so you have a very
concentrated load. Without a soil test, how did you determine
the size of the piers?
MR. HOFFMAN: On this, I went, well Frank Just, of
course gave me the plans and he put everything down, just
exactly what they should be as a minimum requirement and I
went probably twice that big because I wanted a bigger building. ,
I did have an engineer look at this and if I have to have him
he will give me a stamp that's going to cost me a lot of
money and he also told me that he could give me the stamp
without the soil test because just by looking at the soil he
could tell me that it's a good solid soil.
MAYOR WILKINSON: He's a good engineer.
MR. HOFFMAN: His name is Mr. Downing out of Denver.
MAYOR WILKINSON: So ... that was one point of the question
the other point was that I've had a lot of soil tests made, I
never recall of even paying a thousand dollars and I've built
some pretty good size buildings so I believe somebody's over-
pricing you, I would say on a thirty by fifty building if you
433
paid three to four hundred dollars, that would be a great.
plenty so, I'm just making statements, Chuck. Then for
three thousand dollars of engineer footing, I paid less
than a third of that for a twenty four thousand square
foot building that was on some soil that tested out at
less than a thousand pounds, which required some enormous
footage. So, somebody is giving you a lot of either
erroneous figures or misunderstood your request. Now,
without, without the engineer's design on that building
there is no way that he can design a footing without
designing the entire loading of the entire building.
Therefore, this may be.what he was talking about. You
did not have any information to give him as to what the
loading each will have a different loading and he would
need to know what the loading was, with the loading on
a building that size, I'd be guessing, but I would say
that again three or four hundred dollars would pay for
your design of your footing, not three thousand.
MR. HOFFDL4N: Getting back to this, Earl, I contacted
Empire Laboratories and right then and there for the soil
samples alone they said $800, just to go out and drill holes,
just $800 just for the soil samples.
MAYOR WILKINSON: Are you going to take twelve samples
for...
MR. HOFFMAN: I don't know, he didn't tell me, he just
to go out and take the soil samples would cost me $800. He
434
didn't tell me how many. Empire Laboratories. And I did
talk to Stewart's office, now who it was that was in there,
I don't know, but he had the main office. I talked to him
and he told me to get the engineers to engineer the plans
on the footings would cost me a minimum of $1S00 and he
told me exactly the same thing as you did, they would have
to engineer the entire building over again even if it had
a stamp on it and the minimum would be $1500 on top of the
soil tests and if I have to, I'll go back over and talk to
the same man and bring that over to you in writing.
MAYOR WILKINSON: Well, I think it's a case again
of misunderstanding of what is expected of them and what
information you can furnish. I believe, because I've
had a lot of this work done, I've never run into figures ,
that you're talking about, Chuck, this is why I think
someplace there has been a misunderstanding on these costs
because a thirty by fifty building isn't, shouldn't run
into that much expense.
MR. HOFFMAN: Well, like I say, that's just exactly
what they told me and when you stop and figure another thousand
dollars or so, why it still gets awfully high.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: Earl, the thing that bothers me
there's still a great deal of confusion with the Hoffmans and
us about, one, what is required; two, what the costs really
are and what needs to go through. May I suggest that the
proper thing might be to refer immediately to Mr: Brunton to
work with the Hoffmans to sit down and go through this and
take care of it and get the thing wrapped up so that everyone
435
'n
understands what is required and what these costs are.
MRS. HOFFNL6,N: We would be agreeable to this on one
stipulation in that Mr. Brunton would be a party to all that
happens because sometimes...
MR. BRUNTON: What I would suggest, Mr. Mayor, is
that...
MAYOR WILKINSON: May I interrupt, Bob?
MR. BRUNTON: Surely.
MAYOR WILKINSON: I'm sorry, go on ahead.
MR. BRUNTON: What I would suggest is that we attempt
to draw up an agreement in writing that we sign administratively
that,hopefully, would be mutually agreeable from the standpoint
of Art March and Roy Bingman and I'll be actively involved in
' it and if only we reach an impasse we would come back to the
Council. But they always have the option if they don't reach
an agreement that we could put in writing, that we can certain
conditions, we can't agree to some and we'll tell them why.
And if we can't come to an understanding on a mutually agreed
written agreement between the City and the Hoffmans then we'll
come back to the Council and only then and we'll reduce it to
those questions, Nancy, you were very good in trying to reduce
it to the real basic questions in which we are trying to get at.
MAYOR WILKINSON: Okay, I'll proceed with the Council
comments. Peggy?
COUNCILWOMAN REEVES: One thing that I have just thought
of is that might be worthwhile would be to have the different
436
departments who are involved in issuing permits get
together and pull together one sheet that could be given
to any person that comes in needing to have kind of common
type of work done that you see over and over and it will
say that you need this permit, and this permit and this
permit or whatever the procedure is so that a person will
have that information available and then can go forward and
get what needs to be done because otherwise, you do feel
like you've been'hickeled and dimed" to death, although it
may be more than nickels and dimes. I think that would be
helpful. I think you all will probably be working together
on settling these problems out and so I don't think we really
need to go into any more discussion but it appears that you're
going to be keeping lawnmowers and campers that relate to the ,
mobile home there really is an accessory use. So I can
understand why we got into this problem. You know, if it
were only on that property, only your cars and nothing to do
with the mobile home park, I think that would be another story.
MR. HOFFMAN: Margaret, let just ask you, let just state
this just one quick session here, that land was bought in my
name only. That half acre of land was mine and mine only and
I came down and got the permit in my name only. Now it's
contrary to everyone's belief, I do not own that park, I only
own 50% of it. I don't own all of it, everybody thinks I do,
I don't. And therefore, the City made me sell my land to the
park before I could get my building permit, you see it's a
437
real exaggerated thing.
MRS. HOFFNLAN: He didn't sell it, he had to give it
so he bought...
MR. HOFFMAN: This really was not set up as an
accessory building, this was just set up to a point where I
could put my car in a garage. I had a 171 Ford that's never
been in a garage and I traded it off for a '76 due to the
fact that the City told me I could have a building permit
and it doesn't like it's going to see the inside of a garage
either.
MAYOR WILKINSON: Jack?
COUNCILNLAN RUSSELL: I share Peggy's opinion, I think
it's a commercial building. I think that's really what you
' want so you might as well ask for it because enforcement
might be a little difficult later on. It might embarrass you
and the City. I am not in favor of waivering a foundation
certification. Not just because of your property, Chuck,
but I think it would be a precedent that we wouldn't be proud
of down the line if someone further along said, "vou did it for
Chuck, you do it for me," I mean, where do you stop? I think
you stop before you violate and I really see, I would really
like for Mr. Hisam to answer some of that fire loop hydrant
problems that I thought I got two answers.
NtAYOR WILKINSON: Don?
DON HISAM: Is there a specific question that you had
on it, Jack?
438
COUNCILMAN RUSSELL: I thought I heard the Hoffmans
say that they really didn't need the hydrant. Did I hear that?
MRS. HOFFNLAN: No, I said we didn't need the.additional
water pressure or anything in our park. Our park is sufficiently,
we put in big enough lines when the park was built to take care
of it so we have enough pressure.
COUNCILMAN RUSSELL: Didn't I hear a statement made that
they do need the hydrant. Well, perhaps it isn't from the
pressure, maybe it's for accessibility, I'd just like to have
that clear.
DON HISAM: The best way to answer that again for
the Council, I'd better explain quickly, I don't know for sure
when the mobile home park was started but when the first half
of if on the westside was built it was in the County. If what '
I'd interpreted from the Hoffmans is correct in my dealings
with them. Then the park, at a later date, prior to my taking
over the Prevention Bureau, was enlarged on the east side I
believe or it was doubled in size as Chuck told me and
Mrs. Hoffman. At that time, someone from the Fire Department
whether it was Harrison )Lumbert or who was prior to my time
did contact the Hoffmans and talked about a fire hydrant
because the distance from this thing, from the hydrant to the
north where you enter the park to the south east corner of that
mobile home park at this point is over fifteen hundred feet.
We measured this off by hand. When this zoning request came
in at the time thev wanted to zone this little piece of land,
439
for this lot, I was in on the staff that met for the check
of plans for zoning. I understood it was to be a part of
the mobile home use. At that time, due to the zoning
ordinances, which we have, which says that all utilities
and easements to a piece of land must be shown, streets
and hydrants must be in place ready for use prior to
construction. I wrote on this thing, "fire hydrant is
required." Not thinking a thing about it, I thought, well
I actually thought in my own mind we're finally going to
get a fire hydrant on the mobile home park on the south end
because of the great distance. But at a later time, I was
contacted by Mr. Bingman's staff and told that there was a
question in regard to the requirement of the hydrant out
' there. I went out myself, we contacted the Hoffmans, as
he explained, we talked this thing over and I did remember
then from the time back when the park was enlarged which
I think was about '70 or 171 somewhere in that vicinity
and it is still so today, there is no possible way out
there to bring a water line in. There is no water line
at the south end of this property unless you come from
Taft Hill Road over to it. There is one ? there where
we figured there was a street that was stubbed in that
was supposed to connect at some future date, however, that
has not been opened. Mr. Hoffman did go to the private
party, I think his name was Gilsdorf, if I'm not mistaken,
tried to buv an easement across to come from the corner
of Orchard and Taft with a fire hydrant to this property
440
which would put the hydrant in the southeast corner of
the park. The fee, what Mr. Hoffman told me was unreasonable
to buy one right of way for one fire hydrant to come over
there. Now at this time, while we was out there, and I
had been working with the Hoffmans on this, several people
from this mobile home park contacted me that live in the
southeast corner of this, complaining about their water
pressure, they don't have water pressure. So at that time
we did get a pressure gauge from the Water Department and
we did take a test on a water tap for a lawn sprinkler out
there to see where we was at. From this, we was able to
compute the four inch line, now I didn't compute this,
don't get me wrong, I'm no engineer, the Water Department
had this computed for me through Mr. Krempel's office.
There was a four inch line that's quite some miss, we '
understand it's a three inch meter, but a four inch line,
that enters into the mobile home park. By the time you
get the fifteen hundred feet clear to the southeast corner
with this three or four inch line,.whatever's feeding it
from the pressure they got off the reading, we'd only get
2S0 gallons of water a minute. If we could get the full
four inch flow in which at this time, Mr. Hoffman offered to
put in a hydrant on this four inch line, with only 2S0 gallons
of water, it would be useless, cause one thousand gallons a
minute, fire engineer, which we use in the City of Fort Collins,
you'd just draw the thing dry, you wouldn't have any water for
441
nothing really to fight fire. And I believe at that time
I suggested to Mr. Hoffman, Chuck can reiterate if I'm
wrong, that he ever brings this hydrant in from the south
it ought to be tapped and tied to the pressure or through
the water line, looped in for the trailer park to give them
people some water pressure, which it can be if he ever gets
a six inch line in there. We did have a meeting after that
in Mr. Bingman's office and it was agreed by Mr. Hoffman
that whenever the water line goes across the south or when-
ever there is access to another water line, he will put in
a fire hydrant and he's agreed to this and that's exactly
where we're at. Is there any other questions?
MAYOR WILKINSON: Does that answer your question, Jack?
' COUNCILMAN RUSSELL: Is this substantial...
MR. HOFFMAN: This is substantial, it is, Jack, but when
we was there and Don and can tell you, no one told me that this
agreement was going to come out with me looping it to the line
and I had no idea it was going to cost $16,000 to hook it on.
DON HISAM: I don't think with Chuck, we never did talk
about that, in fact, I don't think we talked about it in
Mr. Bingman"s office when the agreement was reached, however,
it is a ruling in the Public Utilities Department, the Water
Department of the City that any fire line has to be looped
and I think that had come in at a later time, Chuck, after the
agreement was drawn up.
COUNCILMAN RUSSELL: So obviously, the solution is, in
442
my way of thinking is for the Hoffmans to meet with
Mr. Brunton. My mind is clear.
MAYOR WILKINSON: Do you have any comment, Dick?
COUNCILMAN SUINN: Yes, I only had one thing, there
are a whole slew of accusations that have been made that
go back in 1967. There are apparently a great deal of
statements that are made, some of which are altered when
some factual data is provided and some of which apparently
remain the same. I would hope that if we haven't been able
to arrive at some clear communications orally, that in this
next process that has both sides communicate with one another,
that it be clearly in writing and that any, Peggy mentioned
a check list possibility, Nancy mentioned a listing of what
you want that all of these be put down in clear writing so '
that there would be no misunderstanding, you know, for about
the fourth time the $16,000 statement has come up and I have
heard several times the statement being made, but apparently
that is not the case. It seems to me that at this stage, in
order to prevent any future kind of misunderstanding, that
that meeting should be monitored very carefully and statements
put into writing and perhaps shared with one another to make
sure that you both agree that is indeed what was said.
ART MARCH: Dick, could I point out, that's what tried
to be done in this case, they had a meeting where they orally
communicated and reached, what they thought were agreements,
443
when we reduced it to writing, that's when the disagreements
' arose, but rather come back and negotiate on those disagree-
ments or bring them up they came to the Council, and that's
why we're here today is because of an attempt to put it in
writing. They said a minute ago that they wanted to go back
to the agreement that was reached well, until that gets
reduced in writing, we agree on what was said and meant, it's
meaningless. And Don just pointed out and I'm sure he's right
that it is required that you loop a fire line, so we are just
trying to meet the requirements that would be involved in
putting in the hydrant and you can't in an oral conversation
anticipate all the problems, you can't even get in all the
written agreements, but that's where we came to the problem
' was trying to put it in writing.
MRS. HOFF&AN: We had requested that things be put in
writing because too many things that were told us didn't turn
out to be correct and I cannot and I just do not understand
how Mr. Bingman could have misunderstood what was said that
day in front of our house on the street, because we had tried
for six months to straighten this out and had repeatedly told
him that we did not feel the street should be put in at that
time and when Art's letter came back to our attorney, I mean
I think you can understand why we resorted to both attorneys
and the City Council because I don't know whether Roy wasn't
listening or what happened that day, but I think that we can
easily document that we have tried to work with the City and
have been up here numerous times and we are willing now to
go in but like I said, I feel that I would Mr. Brunton to
444
definitely be a party to all that happens.
COUNCILMAN BOWLING: I think that's what we agreed on, '
and I think now that knowing he is going to have to been there
and I'm sure that Mr. Brunton will be more than fair, in fact
the matter is if you wish, I'm sure he'll tape the conversation
so that they will be there.
MAYOR WILKINSON: Okay, Chuck, I agree and if you will
work with Mr. Brunton on it and I'm sure we can work out a
satisfactory conclusion. I would like to suggest that if you
do have a problem that looks like it's insurmountable, I would
appreciate a call from you.
MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Earl, getting back to this I'm
just going to take one minute and then I'll let it go. For
us to get our building permit to build a house, my attorney '
went to Art March back and forth for two or three weeks. We
personally,•our contractor, everyone tried to get a building
permit, we couldn't. I personally had to go to the City
Manager to get it and we finally got it going through the
City Manager. We've tried this time on the garage to get it
and I'm sure that if we work with Mr. Brunton we can get it
because he's a fine fair man, he tries to work with you but
let's down to this now, and I mean very truthfully, this is
not really the way the City of Fort Collins should work to
where we have to wait a full year to get a building permit
just to build a garage and have to go to the City Council
and then to the City Manager and back and forth. As a
445
Council and as a City we should work things out a "heck"
' of a lot better to make it a lot easier. We're running
the business away.
MAYOR WILKINSON: Thank you very much Mr. and Mrs.
Hoffman.
MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Relating
to Burglar and Fire Alarms in the City
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item
"At the June 22, 1976 meeting, the City Council discussed the
burglar and fire alarm ordinance. After the meeting it was
decided that the ordinance had to have some major revisions.
Unfortunately, the revised ordinance will not be available
in time to be sent out with the agenda. We will, however,
have the final ordinance available and sent out to the
' Council members with copies filed in the City Clerk's and
City Manager's office by S p.m. on Friday, July 2, 1976.
This will provide for the 48-hour provision which allows
us to adopt the ordinance without reading it in full.
We will, however, have to review and possibly make some minor
revisions in the ordinance at the time of consideration at
the July 6, 1976, meeting."
City Attorney March stated he would like to suggest some
amendments which the staff recommends; some are purely technical
and some which may have some substance. The changes are as
follows:
1. Add to'the title, by adding after the part, "UL STANDARD
NO. 681 ENTITLED "STANDARD FOR SAFETY, INSTALLATION AND
CLASSIFICATION OF MERCANTILE AND BANK BURGLAR ALARMS SYSTEMS",
PROMULGATED BY UNDERWRITERS, INC., the following: "AND, UL
NO. 1023 AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS IN CONFLICT OR INCONSISTENT HEREWITH."
2. The second change would be in one that was caused by the
redrafting. The punishment provisions were deleted because
thev are the same as the general penalty ordinance. Therefore,
in Part B of Section 1., five lines down, the words "and provide
for punishment for violation of provisions of this ordinance."
446
3. On page 2. - "ALAR114 SYSTEM", there are two changes; in
the fifth line down the word "use" should be "used" and in
the eight line down the sentence should read, "or used to
register unmonitored alarm." The next change is in the
definition of "APPELLANT" the word "Council" needs to be
corrected.
4. On page 3. - under the definition of "DIRECT LINE",
in the second line the words "dial -up" should be "ring -
down."
S. On page 4, section 3, the third line, Building Inspection
Division" should be added before the word "and" at the end
of the sentence.
In section 4, part B, the last full line says "Standard
No. 73" it should read "43."
6. On page S, in the second paragraph of part C, the first
line, the last word is "using" and it should read "used in."
In the next paragraph in the next to the last line, the
"No. 73" should be changed to "No. 43."
7. On page 6, the changes should be as follows:
After the adjustment period ends, the criteria for determining
the reliability of an alarm system shall be its performance. '
Any alarm system may be deemed "unreliable" should it signal
more than:
Two (2) 0ne-fl) false alarm in any 30 day period; or
Four (4) Twe-(2) false alarms in any 90 day period; or
Six (6) Three-(3) false alarms in any 180 day period; or
Eight (8) Five-(S) false alarms in any 360 day period.
8. Part 3 in the third paragraph, the third line up from the
bottom following the words "protected premises", the following
should be inserted: "or transmits a pre-recorded message."
In part G, the word "any" in the third line should be deleted
and the following line the word "will" should be changed to
"with" and at the end of that paragraph the following should
be added: "A central station shall carry liability insurance
related to alarm monitoring and covering acts, errors and
omissions onthe part of the station's employees in a minimum
amount of $300,000."
Tn part H, in the last sentence, the amount of "$500,000"
should be changed to 113300,000."
447
9. On page 8, part K, the section should be changed to
read as follows:
' K. Public Primary Trunk Lines. No emergency device shall
be used which transmits a pre-recorded message or other
signal directly to the Police, Fire, or City Communications
Centers. All such devices shall terminate at other facilities.
In part L, in the second line after the word "Police Chief"
the words "or Fire Chief" should be added and in the next
to the last line up from the bottom after the word "Police"
add "or Fire, or City."
In part M, at the end, change the period to a comma and add
"and all such information shall be kept current."
10. On page 9, the third line up from the bottom should be
changed to read "Chief" of the Fire---
11. On page 12, part E, seven lines down, the word "possession"
should be changed to "possessing."
In section 7, the word "procedure" should be inserted after
the word "appeal."
12. In addition to the requested changes there is a blank
on page 14 which needs to be filled in on the number of days
in which the City will get out of the business.
Assistant Mayor Reeves then called for audience comments on
the ordinance. Speaking, were the following:
1. Jerry Nix, owner and manager of Foothills Discount Liquor
Store inquired who had made the decision that the City turn
over the monitoring function to private enterprise and what
impact there would be on the monitoring of the system if it
is taken over by private enterprise.
2. George Fischer, member of the staff of L.C. Wilson Agency
stated business input had been requested and he felt the
Council should be a little dubious of any greater efficiency
than has been experienced in the present alarm and response
system.
3. Ken Radliff, manager of the Foothills Fashion Mall, stated
the fire alarm is through the City and the burglar alarm is
through Guardian and they have been satisfied with both of
the services; he did recommend that the Council set some
guidelines as far as pricing as long as there is only one
company who will be servicing the City in this area.
448
4. Mel Farver, associated with Pat Griffin Company, stated
further comments would be made on the ordinance at the
August 3, 1976 meeting. They were satisfied with the services
both fire and burglar.
S. Bob Widdows, owner at 200 Linden, requested that the
City Council monitor the costs of any monitoring system,
annually.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Gray to amend the ordinance on page 15 in the fourth line
down by deleting "for a period of one year from the date of
this ordinance" then 10 lines down from the top deleting the
words "during such one year period," then striking the last
sentence and substituting the following: "Such rate review
and approval shall also apply to each license renewal."
Yeas: Councilwoman Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers Bloom,
Bowling, Gray, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn
to amend the ordinance by making the changes recommended by
the staff and outlined by the City Attorney including the
180 day provision in section 11. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn
to adopt Ordinance No. 47, 1976 as amended. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Being
the Procedural Ordinance on the Downtown
General Improvement District Bonding
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"At the June 1, 1976, meeting, the City Council considered
the adoption of Ordinance No. 45, 1976, on first reading. After
some discussion, they felt this ordinance should be referred back
to the Administration for further study and for the preparation
of an ordinance providing for an election in lieu of the
objection on the part of 400 of the property owner provision.
William 0. Lamm, our approving bond attorney, was requested
to prepare the revised ordinance. It was discovered that,
because of State law, it was difficult to obtain a fair election
procedure in connection with the general improvement district.
Under the required election procedure, many of the major
property owners would be prohibited from participating in the
election. 449
The City staff has had several discussions on this matter.
At the work session on June 29, 1976, the Council tacitly
and tentatively agreed to consider the previously submitted
' ordinance. At the same time they felt some type of con-
trolled questionnaire ascertaining all of the affected property
owners' interest in this thing might be good if some equitable
arrangement could be worked out. This unofficial ballot
would be sent out after Council approval and at the same time
the districts are formed and various property owners know the
maximum costs involved.
1
1
At their June 29, 1976, meeting, the Downtown Redevelopment
Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council
approve the previously submitted ordinance containing the
400 objection provision. Depending on Council's wishes and
the outcome of some extensive study, this general improvement
district enabling legislation could be used both for the parking
lot project and the beautification program. It should be
clearly understood that this ordinance is the procedural ordinance
and does not permit the City to do anything except open the
door for further steps in the project."
Jane Tester, owner of the Old Corner Book Shop, 229 Walnut Street,
spoke in opposition to providing for an election only if the
owners of the 40 percent of the property object terming it
unfair to business people who are renters and pay personal
property tax.
Bob Widdows spoke to the priorities of placing the bypass
ahead of the parking, would create a parking problem during
construction. He also objected to .the location of proposed
parking lots in the triangle area.
Councilman Suinn stated he did not recall that Council voted
on the poll. City Attorney March clarified that Council
would direct the administration to take a poll at the time
Council directed that notices be sent on the formation of the
district. Councilman Suinn expressed his concerns as follows:
"I still feel concern that the way this is written, that those
who may vote, at that point, may have very little investment
in the district; hence that vote gives us very little infor-
mation." Councilman Suinn then proposed an amendment to the
ordinance, which would read, instead, "if objections and
protests are filed by the owners of the property representing
more than 40 percent of the assessed valuation of the property
within the proposed district the City Council --- shall order
the organization, and so forth, the City Council may proceed
to create the district in accord with". Specifically, Council-
man Suinn recommended that the word shall be changed to may,
allowing Council to arrive at a conclusion by a polling route.
4 5) 0
City Attorney March stated he felt the words could be
changed but if Council changes the rest of that provision
he felt Council may have done the same harm to requirements
of those cases having to do with taxpaying electors.
Councilman Bowling recommended this requested change be
reviewed with bond council between first reading and second
reading of the ordinance.
Councilman Bloom made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Bowling to adopt Ordinance No. 45, 1976 on first reading.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell,
Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Consider Request to Enter into Arbitration
with Poudre R-1 School District
Following is the City Manager's memorandum and recommendation
on this item:
"On April S, 1973, the City of Fort Collins and the Poudre
R-1 School District entered into an agreement with regard to
the use of the planned, but not constructed, indoor swimming
pool. This agreement stipulates certain working arrangements
including the hours of use and charges. The City and Poudre
R-1 have had differences with regard to these charges and hours
of use.
The agreement further stipulates that, in the event any dispute
arises concerning either party's right to the use of the
facilities or concerning any other matter arising out of this
agreement, all such disputes and controversies shall be sub-
mitted to arbitration in accordance with set procedures.
After a series of meetings with various levels of City and
School District administration, it was mutually agreed we
should go to arbitration. We are, therefore, asking permission
from the City Council to start these procedures by writing a
letter stating the problem and appointing an arbitrator.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City
Council authorize the Administration to enter into arbitration
procedures with the Poudre R-1 School District."
Councilman Bowling stated he had discussed with the Chairman
of the School Board the possibility of the Administration
of the City and the school sitting down once more to try to
negotiate the contract without going to arbitration.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Reeves that the City Manager and the Mayor meet with the
451
School Board Chairman and the Superintendent of Schools
try and negotiate the above contract. ' Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
Other Business
1. City Manager Brunton stated that the bids on Sidewalk
Improvement District No. 6 had come in too high. Only
one bid had been received.
The administration recommends that the bid be rejected and
the project rebid.
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Gray to instruct the administration to reject the bid and
rebid for Sidewalk Improvement District No. 6.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell,
Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Z. Councilwoman Gray stated she wanted to bring up something
that had been brought to her attention; three members of
the Planning and Zoning Board now appointed, reside outside
of the City Limits.
Each member of the Council presented their view on the
manner of making a selection to serve on a board or
commission and their opinion on making appointments in
open meetings verses executive sessions.
Adiournment
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom
to adjourn. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves,
Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City
452