HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/16/1982-RegularFebruary 16, 1982
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
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, February 16, 1982, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the
City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following
Councilmembers: Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth.
Absent: Councilman Cassell.
Staff Members Present: Arnold, Krajicek, Lewis, Huisjen, C. Smith, Waido,
Denton.
The colors were presented by Webelos Den 1 of Pack 86.
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Arnold noted Item # 17, Resolution Authorizing the City
Manager to Enter Into an Agreement wit Stan ey K emetson peci ying
Certain Terms Concerning the Sale of Three Condominium Units Located at 234
rant atreet in the City, should be withdrawn from the agenda as
nt with Mr. Klemetson had fallen through.
Councilmember Knezovich asked that Item # 12, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 24, 1982, Rezoning Property Known as Park Centra be with-
drawn from the Consent agenda.
Councilmember Elliott requested Item # 15, Resolution Authorizing Renewal
of Sludge Farm Agreement with the Schneider Family, be removed from the
onsent Ca en ar.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and
energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends
approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may -request an item on this
calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
4. Cons4$ider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 2
T.
-72-
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 15, 1982
Revenue in the CaDttd Prolects Fund T
1
February 16, 1982
ating Unanticipated
t Mason Street an
This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading by a 5-0 vote on February
2. The South Mason Street & Utility Improvement District No. 75 was
created by Ordinance No. 86, 1981, at the request of the property
owners. All project costs are assessible to the district; the only
direct City cost will be street oversizing in the amount of $3,840.
Ordinance No. 181, 1981 appropriated $248,608 in the district for
payments due in 1981 and this Ordinance appropriates an additional
$181,403 for payments due in 1982.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 16, 1982, Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenue in the S.A.V.E. Grant Fund.
This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading by a 5-0 vote on February
2. The City of Fort Collins has been awarded a grant totalling
$67,200 from the Department of Energy Conservation Energy Extension
Service for Phase III of the Save America's Vital Energy Project.
Phase III of the Save America's Vital Energy Project is to initiate
and conduct the Office of Energy Conservation's Low -Income Home Energy
Assistance Program in Larimer County. The contract was awarded to
S.A.V.E. because of its proven record of providing weatherization
assistance to homeowners.
This Ordinance appropriates the grant monies of $67,200 in the
S.A.V.E. Grant Fund for this project.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 17, 1982, Appropriating Bond Proceeds
in the Capital Projects Fund.
This Ordinance was adopted unanimously on First Reading on February 2.
Ordinance No. 100, 1981, authorized the issuance of $3,000,000 in
General Obligation Bonds to finance community park projects construc-
tion through 1982.
At this time, we need to appropriate $300,000 in Edora Park for the
construction of 16 lighted horseshoe pits, -bicycle motorcross, rest
room/storage facility, and grading, seeding, and irrigation of approx-
imately 10 acres. Estimated completion of this project is the end of
the summer of 1982. This Ordinance appropriates $300,000 for con-
struction costs at Edora Park.
-73-
February 16, 1982
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 18, 1982, Vacating a Portion of Tract
G, Trail West P.U.D.
This Ordinance was adopted unanimously on First Reading on February 2.
The applicant is requesting vacation of a portion of Tract G, which is
an easement for access and utility installation. The applicant
proposes to shift the building envelope three -feet north, which will
encroach 3 feet into Tract G.
9. Second Reading of Ordinances Making Amendments to the 1979 Uniform
Building a_ndMechanical Codes.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 19, 1982, Amending Certain
Sections of the Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition, as amended.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 20, 1982, Amending Certain
Sections of the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1979 Edition, as a-
mended.
These Ordinances were adopted unanimously on First Reading on February
2. These proposed amendments are the result of the last code change
process.
Several amendments are proposed for the purpose of clarification or
sequential rearrangement in the code.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 22, 1982, Amending Section 95-90 of
the Code Relating to the Collection of Street Oversizing Fees.
This Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on February 2 by a 4-2
vote and would adopt the following street oversizing fee schedule:
Land Use Existing Fee Proposed Fee % Reduction
Residential $ 290/D.U. $ 246/D.U. 15
Business & Commercial 3500/Ac 3500/Ac 0
Industrial 2750/Ac 500/Ac 82
11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 23, 1982, Rezoning P
Known as Horsetooth Timberline Industrial Park.
This is a staff -initiated rezoning request to:
-74-
Eliminate the conditions placed
the most easterly 20.7 acres as
the owner and the City of Fort
which restricts the use of the
and requires development of the
plan.
February 16, 1982
on the R-H zoning designation of
detailed in the agreement between
Collins dated September 4, 1979,
property to non-residential uses
property under a unified master
Require as a condition of the R-H zoning designation that the
development of the entire 32.2388-acre parcel be according to the
criteria and requirements of Section 118-83, Land Development
Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments, of the City
Code.
The property is located on the southwest corner of Horsetooth and
Timberline Roads. The 32.24-acre site is presently vacant.
12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 24, 1982, Rezoning Property
Known as Park Central.
This is a staff-initated rezoning request to rezone the 15.8-acre
parcel of land, located on the southeast corner of Prospect Road and
Lemay Avenue. The requested change is twofold:
1. To eliminate the conditions placed on the R-H, High Density
Residential zone (6.72 acres), and on the B-P, Planned Business
zone (5.12 acres) pursuant to Ordinance No. 55, 1980 which:
a. Required Master Plan approval;
b. Restricted the use of the R-H zone to general office uses;
and
c. Limited the size of the neighborhood service center on the
property to 80,000-120,000 sf.
2. To require as a condition of the R-H, B-P and R-P, Planned
Residential zone, that the development of the entire 15.8-acre
site be in accordance with the criteria and requirements of
Section 118-83, Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit
Developments.
13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 25, 1982, Relating to
Juvenile Offenders.
The Ordinance amends the Code to permit juvenile offenders to be
summoned into Municipal Court for violations of City ordinances such
as disturbing the peace, interference, loitering in schools, and
11
-75-
I
February 16, 1982
littering. The Police Department has requested this amendment to give
them another alternative in dealing with juvenile offenders, particu-
larly repeat offenders.
14. Resolution Renewing a Temporary Use Permit with the Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District or Acre -Foot Units of CBT Water.
This Resolution authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a
Temporary Use Permit with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District (NCWCD), allocating the use of 3 acre-foot units of CBT water
to the City.
These 3 acre-foot units of CBT water were transferred last year to the
City by a developer. The NCWCD requires that water held under Tempo-
rary Use Contract be renewed each year.
15. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Sludge Farm Agreement with the
Schneider Fami y.
The Moore farm, now owned.by the City for sludge disposal, has been
farmed for many years by the Schneider family. The last two years it
' was farmed by the Schneiders under a crop share arrangement with the
City. The City has received one-fourth of the approximately $80,000
of crop revenue in each of the last two years.
In 1982, farm operations will be curtailed because of the installation
of the sludge application system which will cause extensive disturb-
ance of the farm lands.. Since there will be no crop revenue in 1982,
the proposed agreement provides that the City will compensate the
lessees with a sum of $24,000 for services provided to the City.
These services, under the supervision of the Wastewater Superinten-
dent, will include weed control on the farm, building and equipment
maintenance, sludge hauling, and repair and maintenance at the Waste-
water Treatment Plant.
16. Resolution Authorizin
Triangle Prooertv.
he Sale of a Parcel of Land Known as the
The City was contacted earlier this month by Bob Lee of the Coloradoan
about the purchase of a' triangular- shaped parcel located in t—Fe_=
block of Riverside. This parcel is situated to the immediate north-
west of the Coloradoan newspaper parking lot and bordered on the north
by the C & S Railroad and on the south by Riverside Avenue and con-
tains 822.719 sq. ft.
There is no longer a public use for this parcel and staff recommends
' the property be sold to the Coloradoan at the appraised value of $4.50
per sq. ft.
-76-
17. Resolution Authorizin
with Stanley K emetson
:��cea•umuu
1
the City Mana
s Locatea a
February 16, 1982
ler to Enter I
n Terms Concer
Nor3�Zran
o an Agreement
ngthe
Street in tfie
This Resolution would authorize the City Manager to enter into an
agreement whereby Klemetson would agree to cover any deficiency of the
City upon sale of the units and whereby the City would promise that
the units would remain vacant until sold.
18. Routine Deeds and Easements.
The following are routine deeds and easements which have been reviewed
and approved by the affected departments and legal staff:
a) Temporary easement from People's Church of Fort Collins for a
flashing signal at the northeast corner of Drake and Taft Hill.
Consideration: Donation.
b) Temporary easement from Floyd and Gloria Frame for a flashing
signal at the southwest corner of Drake and Taft Hill. Permanent
easements will be obtained later to replace these two temporary
easements so that a standard traffic signal can be installed if
sufficient need can be identified. Consideration: Donation.
c) Agreement with Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company for a
ditch crossing at the box cu vert ridge on Re wing Road, needed to
convert the electrical system serving the Meadowlark area from 4.1KV
to 13.8KV. Consideration: $150.
d) Easement from Spring Creek Farms, Inc. for a waterline to be
extended from Fox Meadows Subdivision east along Horsetooth Road
across Minor Road. This waterline will then run south along Minor
Road to Harmony Road using existing right-of-way. Consideration: $10
for easement and $3000 for crop damage.
e) Storm drainage easements from Douglas and Molly Murray and from
James and Phyllis Nichols, needed for drainage of a catch basin from
Commo ore Street to Warren Lake, located in the Warren Shores First
Filing. Consideration: $10 for each easement.
f) The Western Slope Gas Company is granting right -of way needed for
Street Improvement District No. 76, located west of the C & S tracks
(#10 on the attached map). The improvements to be completed in this
improvement district are street lighting, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
_77-
February 16, 1982
storm drains, and paving along Horsetooth Road from College Avenue to
the New Mercer Canal. The consideration for this acquisition is
$1.
Seven parcels of property are needed for this improvement district.
One has already been obtained for a consideration of $4090, and five
are under negotiation. The total land acquisition budget for this
project is $149,400 leaving a remaining balance of $145,309.
Council will be considering the Ordinance creating the improvement
district on March 16th. The land acquisition process is proceeding
within the guidelines of the Capital Projects Management Control
System (CPM/CS).
g) Agreement with the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company
for an auto bridge crossing west of Co ege Avenue adjacent to McClel-
land Drive, needed for the Swallow Road project which is now under
construction and is scheduled for completion in August. Considera-
tion: $300.
' Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item # 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 15, 1982, Ap ropriating Unan-
ticipated Revenue in the Capita Projects Fun for the South
Mason Street and Utility Improvement District No. 75.
Item # 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 16, 1982, Appropriating Unan-
ticipated Revenue in the S.A.V.E. Grant Fund.
Item # 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 17, 1982, Appropriating Bond
Proces in tieCapital Projects Fund.
Item # 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 18, 1982, Vacating a Portion of
Tract G, Trai West P.U.D.
Item # 9. Second Reading of Ordinances Making Amendments to the 1979
Uniform Bui i mng an Mechamca o es.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 19, 1982, Amending Certain
Sections of the Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition, as
amended.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 20, 1982, Amending Certain
' Sections of the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1979 Edition, as
amended.
so
February 16, 1982
Item #10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 22, 1982, Amending Section 95-90
of the Code Re ating to the Collection of Street Oversizing
Fees.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 23, 1982, Rezoning
Property Known as Horsetooth Tim er ine In ustria ar .
Item #12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 24, 1982, Rezoning
Property Known as Park Central.
Item #13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 25, 1982, Relating to
Juvenile 0 en ers.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott,
to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar.
Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wil-
marth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Rezoning Property Known as Park Central,
Adopted on First Reading
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"General Information
This is a staff -initiated rezoning request to rezone the 15.8 acre parcel
of land, located on the southeast corner of Prospect Road and Lemay Avenue.
The requested change is twofold:
1. To eliminate the conditions placed on the R-H, High Density
Residential zone (6.72 acres), and on the B-P, Planned Business
zone (5.12 acres) pursuant to Ordinance No. 55, 1980 which:
a. Required Master Plan approval;
b. Restricted the use of the R-H zone
and
c. Limited the size of a neighborhood
property to 80,000-120,OOO sf.
-79-
to general office uses;
service center on the
February 16, 1982
2. To require as a condition of the R-H, B-P and R-P, Planned Res-
idential zone, that the development of the entire 15.8 acre
site be in accordance with the criteria and requirements of
Section 118-83, Land Development Guidance System for Planned
Unit Developments,.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
North: R-L (northeast); existing single-family residences (Highlander
Heights Subdivision;
R-H (northwest); vacant (proposed medical offices).
South: R-P; existing multiple -family residences (Santana Apartments).
East: R-L; Spring Creek Park.
West: R-P; gasoline service station (Texaco); R-L; existing single-
family residences.
Background
' The property was annexed and zoned R-P, Planned Residential, in June
1971. In December 1971 a petition to rezone the property from R-P to
B-P, Planned Business (5.1 acres), was denied by the Planning and Zon-
ing Board. In December 1976, a petition to rezone the property to B-P
(15.8 acres) was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board. On May 20,
1980, a petition to rezone 5.1 acres to B-P, and 6.7 acres to R-H, High
Density Residential, was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with
conditions. On May 20, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Board approved
a preliminary PUD plan for Park Central (18.46 acres) consisting of
80 multiple -family units, 35,500 sf of retail and 80,000 sf of office
space.
Reasons For Reauest
The staff is initiating the rezoning based upon the reason that the
conditions that were present at the time the conditional zones were
placed upon the subject property have substantially changed as a result
of the adoption of the Land Development Guidance System. The existing
conditional zoning is an unnecessary restraint upon the development
of the property. The placement of the new condition will allow the site
to be planned and developed in accordance with the City's policies and
adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as gauged by the Land Develop-
ment Guidance System. The owners of the property understand and concur with
the rezoning request and conditions. There were no citizen objections
presented at the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing on January 25,
' 1982.
En
February 16, 1982 '
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the petition to rezone the Park Central
property.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Board voted (6-0) to recommend approval of the
petition to rezone the Park Central property (Case No. 24-80B)."
Councilmember Knezovich asked the record show he did not participate or
vote on this item because his accounting firm represents one of the stock-
holders of the applicant.
Councilmember Reeves questioned if the residents of the neighborhood had
been informed of this proposed rezoning.
Acting Planning Director Ken Waido replied this was a staff initiated
rezoning accompanying a P.U.D. preliminary proposed and that notification
to the neighborhood had gone out with the preliminary P.U.D. He added that '
only one person had spoken at the Planning and Zoning hearing and no one
had spoken in opposition to the rezoning. He noted one of the proposed
amendments to the Land Development Guidance System will establish a neigh-
borhood input process as one of the absolute criteria.
Councilmember Elliott made 'a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke,
to adopt Ordinance No. 24, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None (Knezovich
withdrawn).
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Sludge Farm
Agreement with the Schneider Family,
Adopted as Amended
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The Moore farm, now owned by the City for sludge disposal, has been farmed
for many years by the Schneider family. The last two years it was farmed
by the Schneiders under a crop share arrangement with the City. The City
has received one-fourth of the approximately $80,000 of crop revenue in
each of the last two years.
In 1982, farm operations will be curtailed because of the installation of '
the sludge application system which will cause extensive disturbance of the
am
F
February 16, 1982
farm lands. Since there will be no crop revenue in 1982, the proposed
agreement provides that the City will compensate the lessees with a sum of
$24,000 for services provided to the City. These services, under the
supervision of the Wastewater Superintendent, will include weed control on
the farm, building and equipment maintenance, sludge hauling, and repair
and maintenance at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
It is anticipated that farming operations will resume in 1983 and that it
will be desirable to again enter into a crop share arrangement with the
Schneiders."
City Manager Arnold pointed out the Resolution made the agreement retro-
active to January 1 and suggested it be amended to begin February 17,
1982.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to amend the Resolution in line 6 of the final paragraph to read "com-
mencing on February 17, 1982 and terminating February 28, 1983". Yeas:
Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth.
' Nays: None,
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Wilmarth asked if this item had been bid and if not, what made the
work to be done unique.
Water and Sewer Director Mike Smith replied that since the Schneiders
could not farm the property this year, the City is paying them to stay on
the farm and work for the City and then plans to resume the share -cropping
arrangement with the Schneiders the following year.
City Manager Arnold noted one sludge hauler position had been eliminated
and another sludge hauler had been moved to an operator position so two
positions will not be replaced because of this arrangement with the Schnei-
ders. He added the normal full-time job is 2080 hours annually and this
job is estimated at 3289 annually.
Mayor Wilmarth asked if the share -cropping arrangements for 1983 were
addressed in this agreement.
Water and Sewer Director Smith replied that it was not and that it was a
verbal understanding between the City and the Schneiders that the usual
share -cropping would resume in 1983 unless one of the parties decides not
to participate.
' Councilmember Knezovich asked what the City would receive for the $24,000.
sm
February 16, 1982 '
Water and Sewer Director Smith replied the Schneiders would be providing
labor, e.g. driving sludge trucks, weed control, keeping the farm in repair
while the construction goes on. He added the Schneiders would not be
charged to live in the tenant house on the farm.
Mayor Wilmarth noted he would not vote in favor of this Resolution and
added it was no reflection on the Schneiders but that he felt uncomfortable
with the arrangement as it was proposed.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to adopt the Resolution as amended. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott,
Horak and Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers Knezovich and Wilmarth.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Correction of Health
and Safety Hazards at the Indoor Pool, Adopted
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: '
"A. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Procure the Services of
Reid Burton Construction Company to Correct Health and Safety Hazards
at the Indoor Pool.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 26, 1982, Appropriating
Monies in the General and Capital Projects Funds.
At the February 9, 1982, work session, City Council directed staff to
correct the immediate health and safety problems at the Indoor Pool. The
total project cost of $50,066 includes completion of electrical, mechani-
cal/plumbing, and architectural work.
Design $ 6,530
Construction 35,685
Contingency 7,851
TOTAL $50,066
Because Reid Burton Construction Company was the original general contrac-
tor and is familiar with the building, and it is -necessary to proceed as
soon as possible in implementing this work for health and safety reasons.
Staff recommends that the City authorize the implementation of this work by
the Reid Burton Construction Company. Once funds are appropriated for the
project, work will commence immediately. '
ff-."
February 16, 1982
If these funds are not appropriated at this time, the health and safety
risks to citizens will continue (e.g., electrical outlets in locker areas
and pool areas requiring grounding to avoid possible electrocution.) If
the project is not awarded to Reid Burton Construction Company, the bidding
process would take approximately three weeks, delaying the start of con-
struction to correct these problems."
Councilmember Horak asked what sort of safeguards were being taken to make
sure the same problems don't occur as did originally.
City Manager Arnold replied his understanding of the original situation was
that staff, architects, Council, etc. had pulled items from the original
design so the Construction Company does not bear the brunt of the result.
He added that this was a short-term solution to the problem and the City is
aware the problem is likely to reoccur until the entire renovation of the
pool is completed.
Jack Gianola, project manager, noted he was talking with the Parks and
Recreation staff to determine the best time to close the pool to do the
work sometime in March. Certain items can be done off hours but the
' painting is the biggest item of concern.
Reid Burton, contractor, noted he was attempting to determine what needs to
be done and added they will be making those determinations after the pool
closes at 10:00 p.m. He hoped the work could be completed during spring
break when it would cause the least disruption to the Parks and Recreation
program.
Councilmember Knezovich pointed out that this work was just the "tip of the
iceberg" and added that he felt the public should be aware the needs of the
pool were much more and very long-term. He asked that the situation be
once again brought to the attention of the School Board and ask their
assistance in developing a long-term solution to the financial burden.
Councilmember Horak replied that he felt he and Councilmember Clarke were
moving in that direction in their negotiations over the past few months
with the School Board.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to adopt the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
' Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott,
to adopt Ordinance No. 26, 1982, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
fflLa
February 16, 1982 '
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Making Appointments to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, Adopted
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"A vacancy exists on the Zoning Board of Appeals because of the resignation
of Howard Lowell.
Council needs to select a replacement to fill the unexpired term of Mr.
Lowell, to run until July 1, 1983."
Councilmember Clarke noted he and Councilmember Cassell had interviewed
applicants for this position. He added their recommendation would be to
appoint the current alternate, Leonard Szopinski, to regular membership on
the Board and to appoint Steve Johnson to fill the unexpired alternate
term of Mr. Szopinski.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, I
to adopt the Resolution inserting the names recommended by Councilmember
Clarke. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves
and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinances Relating to Establishing an Appeal
Procedure for Various Boards and Commissions, Adopted
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 14, 1982, Establishing an Appeal
Procedure for Various Boards and Commissions.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 21, 1982, Amending Certain
Code Sections Relative to Boards and Commissions Appeal Procedures.
Ordinance No. 14, 1982, was adopted unanimously as amended on First Reading
on January 19th. It was further amended at the February 2nd meeting and
both Ordinance No. 14, 1982 and Ordinance No. 21, 1982 were tabled to this
date and are included for your review.
The purpose of Ordinance No. 14, 1982 is to establish consistent appeal
procedures which apply to appeals from board and commissions of the City I
which have historically been taken to City Council.
M0
February 16, 1982
The proposed Ordinance provides that any person who had the right to
appear before a board or commission, or who did in fact appear, may
take an appeal of the decision of the board or commission to the City
Council upon filing notice of appeal within 14 days after(the final action
of the board or commission. The appeal would be based upon the transcript
before the board or commission, and the cost of the transcript would be
borne by the party making the appeal.
The ordinance also requires that all persons who could have appeared,
and did in fact appear before the board or commission, receive notice
of the appeal and the hearing 14 days prior to the time City Council
is to consider the appeal.
Ordinance No. 21, 1982 repeals all of the provisions in the Code dealing
with appeals to City Council from the Boards and Commissions to which the
appeal procedure ordinance would apply. The purpose of the ordinance
repealing those sections is to avoid inconsistent provisions within the
Code once the appeal procedure ordinance is adopted."
Councilmember Reeves asked if there was any data on the average cost of
obtaining a verbatim transcript of the hearings.
Assistant City Attorney Denton replied it was difficult to estimate a cost
of a transcript as much depends on the method used to record the hearing.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to amend Section 4 of Ordinance No. 14 to add the sentence "The appellant
shall be charged a maximum of $75 for said transcript." Yeas: Council -
members Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to adopt Ordinance No. 14, 1982, as amended on Second Reading. Yeas:
Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to adopt the Ordinance No. 21, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
' THE MOTION CARRIED.
f7'E
February 16, 1982
Citizen Participation
A. Presentation of plaque to Fossil Creek Meadows Development Group
for partial donation of the Fossil Creek Community Park.
Bill Dunn accepted the plaque on behalf of Fossil Creek Meadows Development
Group.
Ordinance Establishing a Public Hearing Process
for Multi -Family Residential Conversions in the
R-M and R-H Zoning Districts, Adopted on First Reading
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"Proposal
This is an ordinance which changes the requirements for multi -family
residential requests in the R-H and R-M zones. The ordinance specifically '
applies to multi -family uses, defined as three units and above, whether
created from existing structures or on a vacant lot. The procedure and
criteria for review of these requests by City staff and the Planning
and Zoning Board will be the same as that now in place for the R-H con-
version process.
Background
Community interest in the Fort Collins Core Area has been a longstanding
one. Issues of importance to the area have been examined and debated by
numerous citizens' groups and by City staff for a number of years. Broad
issues focusing around the role and identity of the Core Area have been
discussed as well as site -specific issues dealing with the design and
layout of the area. It is the purpose of this report to present a report on
the Core Area highlighting some of the Area's problems, discussing the
goals which have been established for the Area, and presenting plans and
programs which will help implement the established goals.
The Core Area includes both a commercial center, the City's old Central
Business District (CBD), and surrounding residential neighborhoods. To-
gether they possess a number of unique assets. The Core Area is a diverse
area which offers housing, shopping, entertainment, and employment oppor-
tunities not found elsewhere in the City. Many individuals, as well as the
City, have recognized the Core Area's uniqueness and potential, as is '
evidenced by the many building renovations, new businesses, and physical
improvements occurring in the Area.
no
J
February 16, 1982
The City, in its official role, has adopted an aggressive attitude towards
the Core Area. Goals and policies have been set and programs instituted
which seek to prevent the deterioration of the Core Area and, more posi-
tively, to encourage its revitalization. While a number of plans, ordi-
nances, and review procedures directed at the Core Area have been adopted
by the City, no single document exists to address the major issues and act
as a unified planning program.
The City's approach to the Core Area is guided by three broad goals:
I. Reinforce the Core Area as the focal point of the community;
2. Reinforce the commercial, financial, governmental, and entertain-
ment opportunities offered by the Core Area; and
3. Maintain the residential integrity of the Core Area.
Recognizing the diversity of activities and expectations which exist in the
Core Area, planning programs based on the above goals need to deal separ-
ately with the commercial and residential components of the Core Area. Each
faces unique pressures and problems which require different planning
approaches. The commercial area is seeking mechanisms for revitalization
while the residential neighborhoods are facing two major isssues: (1)
accommodating the transitional nature of a number of the neighborhoods; and
(2) maintaining the residential character of stable neighborhoods.
The commercial component of the Core Area has struggled for a new identity
ever since the Foothills Fashion Mall and other related outlets located
along South College Avenue opened and became the major regional retail
trade center of the City. The regional retail centers forced an economic
functional reorientation of the downtown to a service, office, and finan-
cial district.
The goal of commercial revitalization is generally being addressed by the
Downtown Development Authority. The recently adopted DDA Plan sets forth
objectives, a prioritization of development projects, and funding mecha-
nisms all aimed at achieving this goal. The Plan encourages the public/
private partnership vital to improving the diversity and attractiveness
of the area. Through its adoption of the DDA Plan, the City has committed
to taking an active role in the area.
Due to the complexities involved with the residential neighborhoods in the
Core Area, planning approaches and solutions are not clear cut. A variety
of pressures and expectations exist within the Area, making a unified
' approach difficult. Issues which continually confront these neighborhoods
generally center around the following:
EIea
February 16, 1982
Recognizing that a number of neighborhoods are in transition, how
can land use changes be accomplished in a manner compatible with
the neighborhood?
How can the introduction of high density uses be made compatible
with the neighborhood?
How can design compatibility of new uses introduced into neigh-
borhoods be assured?
Residential neighborhoods in the Core Area are being impacted by two
separate types of land use conversions to higher intensity uses. The first
type of conversion is from an existing residential land use to a commercial
or office land use. As the City grows, the service, office, and financial
component of the City's economic structure also needs to expand. Residen-
tial neighborhoods closest to the old CBD are the first areas to experience
these conversion pressures. The second type of conversion is from a lower
density residential land use to a higher density residential land use.
Residential neighborhoods near the old CBD and Colorado State University '
are subjected to these conversion pressures.
For the most part, the residential neighborhoods of the Core Area are zoned
R-M, Medium Density, and R-H, High Density. The attached table indicates
the existing developed land use situation in the R-M and R-H zoning dis-
tricts.
Information in the attached table indicates major portions of both the R-M
and R-H zoning districts are still devoted to single-family residential
uses. Conversions to commercial, office, and higher density residential
uses will continue to have major impacts on single-family residential
neighborhoods in the Core Area.
The City has initiated two separate procedures in an attempt to deal with
conversion problems in the Core Area. Both procedures assess the impacts of
new uses introduced into established neighborhoods and encourage compatible
site design. These two adopted procedures are: the Land Development Guid-
ance System for Planned Unit Developments; and the R-H conversion process.
The LDGS and R-H conversion process deal with the specific site design of a
proposal including parking, setbacks, landscaping, and architectural
design. In addition, both procedures establish a mechanism for neighborhood
input into the community decision -making process.
A major limitation of the LDGS and the R-H conversion procedure lies with
their specific applicability. These processes only address conversions of '
residential uses to non-residential uses in the R-H zone and infill proj-
-89-
February 16, 1982
ects when developed as a PUD. Neither process deals with single-family to
multi -family use changes which frequently occur in the R-M and R-H zoning
districts. This limitation lies not with the fact that single-family
structures are being changed into multi -family structures, but with the
fact that adequate City and neighborhood review in terms of compatibililty
and design does not occur.
Since one of the frequently expressed goals of the City is that of en-
couraging residential units around the Core Area, in -town neighborhoods,
both single-family and multi -family, are an extremely important element of
the success of the Fort Collins downtown. The change of existing single-
family structures to multi -family is one method of fulfilling the goal of
increasing residential opportunities in the Core Area. However, it should
be recognized that the change of an existing structure to multi -family use,
if not done in deference to neighborhood compatibility, has the potential
of producing a disruptive effect on the existing neighborhood. Any poten-
tial problems tend to stem more from the design aspect of the change than
the actual change in land use.
' In order to ensure that changes from single-family to multi -family use
occur in a manner compatible with the existing neighborhood, a procedure
similar to that in place to review R-H conversions is needed for high
density residential conversions in the R-M and R-H zoning districts. This
new process would essentially complete a major missing element in overall
planning and redevelopment review for the Core Area and would have the
following goals:
1. To provide a mechanism for neighborhood and public input into the
determination of future land use in existing neighborhoods.
2. To preserve the character and stability of existing residential
neighborhoods by precluding land uses which are incompatible;
and
3. To provide a mechanism for the integration of higher density
residential uses into existing residential areas through com-
patible design.
Attached are the ordinance initiating this process, copies of administra-
tive criteria, requirements, and procedures for evaluating multi -family
residential conversion requests in the R-M and R-H zoning districts. The
Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed these attachments and has recom-
mended their approval on a vote of 6-1."
I
Director of Planning and Development Curt Smith gave an overview of the
proposal noting it was a change in the zoning ordinance that would require
MM
February 16, 1982
any multi -family use (3-plex or greater) in the R-M and R-H zones to go
through a site plan review process. The purpose is to assure that the
development that does occur in the higher density areas is designed to be
compatible with the neighborhood.
Ed Stoner, 701 Cherokee, Planning and Zoning member, explained his reasons
for voting against this proposal when it appeared in the Planning and
Zoning agenda. He felt the time to go through the new procedure would be
excessive, the new proposal was an overkill measure as most projects would
be very small, and the costs would be excessive as an architect would have
to be hired.
Director of Planning and Development Curt Smith responded the time would be
lengthened in that developers would do more preparation but the actual time
in the City review process would be approximately the same.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to adopt Ordinance No. 27, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke noted he felt several amendments should be made to the
administrative requirements and procedures that accompany the ordinance.
He suggested items 9 & 10 be eliminated from the requirements.
Mr. Smith replied he would hate to lose that review for new construction
but that it could be eliminated for conversions of existing structures. He
added the criteria and guidelines could be revised and brought back with
the ordinance on Second Reading.
Councilmember Knezovich questioned whether conversion of residential uses
to higher density uses was a new land use.
Curt Smith replied that an adjustment could be made if it was felt the
language was biased.
Councilmember Knezovich questioned how boardinghouses, in particular
fraternity houses, would be dealt with.
Curt Smith replied that boardinghouses are allowed in the R-H zone but not
in the R-M zone except as a P.U.D. More research needs to be done on the
question and will be brought back at the time of Second Reading.
Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves,
to adopt Ordinance No. 27, 1982 on First Reading and to direct staff to
-91-
I
February 16, 1982
bring the revised administrative guidelines back at the time of the Second
Reading of the Ordinance. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak,
Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Non -Owner Occupied Housing, Health
and Safety Code, Adopted on First Reading
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This latest code proposal is based on the draft presented by Councilman
John Clarke at the January 26, 1982 work session. Staff subsequently met
with Councilman Clarke in order to evaluate his proposal with the staff
version. The proposed ordinance reflects the product of that meeting.
Focusing entirely on safety and health issues, the document does not
specify minimum room dimensions, window dimensions for light and ventila-
tion, court and yard sizes, and stairway dimensions within individual
dwelling units. Also, weather.protection requirements have been redefined
in general performance terms. Administrative and enforcement provisions
' remain essentially unchanged, with only minor editorial revisions for
clarification used elsewhere.
One enforcement provision, however, requires explanation. §4-C imposes the
ultimate obligation to comply with the requirements of the Code upon
the owner of the property. This obligation would rest upon the owner even
though the obligation to make repairs necessary to bring the property into
compliance was transferred to the tenant by agreement between the two
parties. If the provision were otherwise, it would render enforcement of
the ordinance impractical, if not impossible, because the enforcement
officer would be called upon to determine if an agreement was in existence
transferring the obligation and if such an agreement was valid. Addi-
tionally, since the City is not a party to the contract, it would have no
power to enforce the provisions of the contract between the individuals.
However, if a contract existed whereby the obligation to repair was imposed
upon the tenant and if the owner was notified pursuant to the provisions of
this code that the leased property was not in compliance, the owner
would not be precluded by this ordinance from enforcing the lease with the
tenant to cause the repairs to be accomplished, thereby avoiding being in
violation."
The following persons spoke at the public hearing on this ordinance:
1. Dave Luplow, 1631 Tanglewood Drive, who suggested another code was not
needed and that amendments could be made to the Dangerous Building Code
' to address health and safety concerns. If a separate code is enacted,
he suggested a one-year implementation period.
-92-
February 16, 1982 '
2. Cindy Bonetti, 627 Whedbee, supported the housing code on the basis of
past experiences as a renter.
3. Barbara Rutstein, representing the League of Women Voters, urged
support of proposed housing health and safety code.
4. Fred Fuller, 632 Peterson, representing Core Area residents, supported
the code but opposed extending implementation period to one year.
5. Tom Tucker, property manager, had questions regarding kitchens in
sleeping rooms.
6. Jean Kamal, 645 South Whitcomb, had questions on window sizes in
basements.
7. Kathy Mallie, Colorado Public Interest Research Group, encouraged
adoption of the Code.
8. Bob Lucas, 2828 Silverplume.Drive, questioned why mobile homes were not
addressed in the Code.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to I
adopt Ordinance No. 28, 1982, on First Reading.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak,
to amend Article V, paragraph C, on page 5 to add "excluding guest rooms
and hotel rooms", after the words "each dwelling unit".
Assistant City Attorney Denton pointed out the definition of dwelling unit
is contained in the Building Code and guest rooms and sleeping rooms are
not included in that definition. He suggested Councilmember Clarke's
amendment would not be necessary.
Councilmembers Clarke and Horak withdrew their proposed amendment.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott,
to delete the phrase "other than a mobile home" from the definition of
non -owner occupied housing in Article IV.
Assistant City Attorney Denton suggested staff be directed to draw a
separate ordinance dealing with mobile homes after sufficient study on the
issue. -
Councilmembers Knezovich and Elliott withdrew their proposed amendment.
Mayor Wilmarth noted his research had indicated most landlord/tenant I
complaints are about mobile homes which this code would not address and
-93-
February 16, 1982
were a result of lack of communication and were resolved as a result of
mediation. He detailed the provisions of the Dangerous Building Code and
noted he felt the mechanism to address dangerous buildings was already in
place and therefore would vote against this ordinance.
Councilmember Horak asked if the enforcement process in the Dangerous
Building Code was the same.
Mayor Wilmarth replied that the entire Section 7 dealt with enforcement and
he felt the provisions were sufficient.
Councilmember Horak added he felt specific criteria were needed rather than
the broad provisions of the Dangerous Building Code.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's original motion to adopt Ordinance No.
28, 1982, on First Reading was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Horak, Knezovich and Reeves.
Nays: Councilmembers Elliott and Wilmarth.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Report on South Lemay Avenue
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"Earlier, members of the City Council received a report on a public meeting
on South Lemay and also staff's recommendation on interim measures for
solving the immediate problems and to accelerate construction. That report
is included again for your use.
The same staff recommendation has been sent to those residents attending
the January 28th public meeting. We would anticipate that there will be a
large turn -out of residents desiring to address the Council on this item at
the February 16th Council meeting."
The following persons spoke on the South Lemay Avenue issue:
1. Tom Graff, 4112 Mill Run Court, expressed concerns of residents of
area.
2. Bob Gaines, 1412 Ticonderoga Avenue, expressed hope the safety issue
' would be corrected before a serious accident occurs.
-94-
February 16, 1982
3. Victoria Stauffer, 1206 Standish, stated concerns with regard to
narrowness of the road on the dam.
4. Jean Crabtree, 1100 Monticello Court, noted closing the road would be
the safest alternative although Landings residents would object to
increased traffic. She suggested truck traffic be banned from that
segment of Lemay.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke,
to direct staff to take immediate steps to ban truck traffic, begin dust
control measures and grading, and increase Police patrol and speed enforce-
ment in the area.
Councilmember Horak suggested work begin on the pedestrian/bike path to
give people an alternative to riding and walking on South Lemay Avenue.
Mayor Wilmarth expressed his concern that the temporary measures would not
give the desired safety results.
The vote on Councilmember Reeves' motion to make certain improvements on ,
that segment of South Lemay Avenue was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak and Reeves.
Nays: Councilmembers Knezovich and Wilmarth.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke,
to direct staff to pursue design of the pedestrian/bike path and come back
with a report as soon as possible.
Councilmember Knezovich suggested the road over the dam be closed and used
as a bike/pedestrian path.
The vote on Councilmember Reeves' motion regarding the design of the
pedestrian/bike path was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Horak, Reeves and Wilmarth.
Nays: Councilmembers Elliott and Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-95-
February 16, 1982
Resolutions Expressing the Intent and Agreement of the
City To Provide Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility Services
to the Area Lying within Both the Boundaries of the City
of Fort Collins and The Fort Collins -Loveland Water
District/or the South Fort Collins Sanitation District
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"A. Resolution Expressing the Intent and Agreement of the City to Provide
Water Utility Service to the Area Lying within the Boundaries of the
City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District.
B. Resolution Expressing the Intent and Agreement of the City to Provide
Sanitary Sewer Utility Service to the Area Lying within Both the
Boundaries of the City of Fort Collins and the South Fort Collins
Sanitation District.
These Resolutions were tabled to this date from the February 2nd Council
' meeting.
Discussions with the Districts are continuing. Council has received
information on this issue with previous agendas."
City Manager Arnold noted there was a letter before Council signed by all
the Districts and the City which is the basic agreement to work toward a
master plan of a unified service district concept. He recommended the
Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement to go into the work program.
Mayor Wilmarth pointed out all the attorneys involved had reviewed the
document and had recommended approval.
Roland Griffith, 3133 Swallow Bend, noted the persons living in the Dis-
tricts had not had the opportunity to review or have input into this
proposal.
Curt Smith pointed out the letter was not a commitment to change any of the
existing structures, operations, or organizations but was a commitment to
begin working toward a long range solution.
Bob Rasmussen, 3900 Lynda Lane, Board of Directors of Imperial Estates
Homeowners Association, noted any action taken would affect his organi-
zation and asked for more citizen involvement in the process.
' Charles S. Vickers, Chairman of the South Fort Collins Sanitation District,
voiced support for the commitment to work together to find a solution to
an
February 16, 1982
the problem of providing water and sewer service to the citizens of the
Fort Collins Urban Growth Area and other areas presently served by the
South Fort Collins Sanitation District and the Fort Collins/Loveland Water
District.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak,
to authorize the Mayor to sign the proposal to begin working with the
Districts toward a long range solution to this issue. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Secretary's note: No action was taken on the two Resolutions expressing
the intent of the City to provide water and sewer
service to areas lying within the two Districts.
Councilmembers' Reports
L
Councilmember Knezovich reported the Downtown Development Authority was
meeting with the City Manager and Light and Power to get involved in I
plans for the power plant building on North College Avenue. He added that
he had attended an open house at the Airport and it was evident the new
Fixed Base Operator had made some dramatic improvements there.
Councilmember Horak reported he had met with the Highway Commission
concerning the Metropolitan Planning Organization for transportation and
that the differences had been resolved.
Other Business
Klemetson Condominium Units
Councilmember Knezovich expressed his opinion these units would remain
unsold for a long length of time and that it was not in the City's best
interest to agree to have them remain vacant until sold.
City Manager Arnold noted Dr. Klemetson had withdrawn that offer so that
was no longer an option.
Councilmember Clarke noted he felt, after conversations with Dr. Klemetson,
that the City would get nothing other than the units from Dr. Klemetson due
to his financial condition.
Councilmember Reeves asked for a report on the pros and cons of the City I
acquiring the property as opposed to going through the foreclosure process.
-97-
February 16, 1982
Councilmember Horak asked when the campaign spending ordinance would be
brought to a work session.
City Manager Arnold suggested the work session of March 23.
Mayor Wilmarth asked the City Manager to obtain a current Platte River
Power Authority salary schedule to be available to Council for their use in
analyzing budget parameters for 1983.
He then complimented Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman, Director of
Planning and Development Curt Smith and others responsible for the suc-
cessful negotiations regarding water rights in the Huntington Hills park
purchase.
Adjournment
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to
' adjourn the meeting to 5:30 p.m. on March 9th. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Ma or
am