Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/07/1982-Regular1 December 7, 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, December 7, 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 Council members: Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Absent: Councilmember Clarke. Secretary's Note: Councilmember Clarke was not present until the meeting reconvened after the dinner recess at 7:30 p.m. Staff Members Present: Arnold, Meitl, Hays, Krajicek, Huisjen, Lewis, Curt Smith. Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager Arnold announced that there had been a request by Jim Haeber- lin, Vice -President Finance of John Q. Hammons Industries that Item #33, Resolution Setting Forth the Intent of the City to Issue IORB's for John Q. Hammons Industries, Inc., be withdrawn from the agenda. Councilmember Wilmarth requested that Item #12, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 1982, Providing for the Submission of a Referred Measure to a Vote of the Qualified Electors of the City, and Item # 19,.Resolution Supporting Proposed Legislation to Return Control of Municipal Electric and Gas Utilities to Local Governments, be removed from the Consent Agenda. Consent Calendar This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar, be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #34, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled by anyone in the audience or items that any member of the audience is present to discuss that were pulled by staff or Council. These items will be dis- ' cussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. -552- December 7, 1982 4. Consider Approving the Minutes of the adjourned meetings of November 9 an 2 and regular meeting of November 16, 1982. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 1982, Appropriating proceeds of the City s Bond Anticipation Notes, Series October 1, 1982. Ordinance No. 106, 1982, authorized the issuance of Bond Anticipation Notes, Series October 1, 1982, in the amount of $3,300,000 for the acquisition and construction of a public golf course. This ordinance which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16 appropriates the Note proceeds in the "City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Bond Anticipation Notes, Series October 1, 1982, Note Fund" to be known in the future as the Southridge Greens Golf Course Sinking Fund. The title of the Fund is being changed to provide a more descriptive name for reporting purposes. The Fund will be categorized as a Trust Fund for reporting purposes. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 1982 authorizing the transfer of 143,400 from the Light and Power Fund to the Capital Projects Fund or landscaping o Light and Power's Substation to be incorporated in the Southsi a Service Center Project site improvements. Currently, the City is designing the site improvements for the Trans - fort Facility and Light and Power has requested that the landscaping for the future Substation be incorporated with the overall site improvements. In order to monitor the total Southside site improve- ments project we need to appropriate Light and Power's Landscaping costs in the Capital Projects Fund. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16 and transfers $143,400 from Light and Power for the design and construction and is available in the Light and Power Fund. 7. Second Readin Easement in th, of Ordinance No. 143, 1982 Vacating a Utility Access iouth Mesa Subdivision. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16 and requests that the existing 10-foot utility easement lying south of and adjacent to the north line of Lot 19, South Mesa Subdivision be vacated. This easement is not currently being used and there is no longer a demand for a 10-foot easement in this location. This 10-foot easement will be replaced with a new 6-foot easement as part of the application for final planned unit development for the Asamera PUD. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 1982, Designating the Maxwell House at 2340 West Mulberry as an Historic Landmark. The Cultural Resources Board is recommending historic designation for , -553- December 7, 1982 the Maxwell House. Anthony and Sharon Ferguson, the property owners, were informed early in October of the new proposal. Their original consent to designation is still in effect. The Board unanimously passed a motion at its October 27th meeting to re -submit the recom- mendation to City Council. Council at its November 16 meeting unan- imously adopted the ordinance on First Reading. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 1982, Assessing Costs for Side- walk Improvement District #8, West Side of Shields Street from Bennett Road to Prosoect Road. On October 5, 1982 City Council accepted the improvements on Shields Street and the report of the project costs from the Directors of Public Works and Finance. In addition Council set the date to receive comments from the property owners being assessed for November 16. The Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on that date. 10. Second Reading of Ordinances Annexing and Zoning Property Known as Harmony No. 5 Annexation. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 1982 Annexing Property Known as Harmony No. 5 Annexation. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16 and is a request to annex 11.2-acres, located at the northeast corner of the Hewlett-Packard site. Present zoning is FA-1, Farming. The Harmony #5'Annexation request is eligible for annexation since it meets the contiguity requirement and is a voluntary annexation. B. Second Reading Of Ordinance No. 147, 1982 Zoning Property Known As The Harmony No. 5 Annexation. This ordinance was unanimously adopted as amended on First Reading on November 16 and is a request to zone 11.2-acres located at the north- east corner of the Hewlett-Packard site. The amendment would grant the requested I-L, Limited Industrial zoning subject to the area's development as a unified Planned Unit Development. The site is pre- sently zoned FA-1, Farming, in the County. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 1982, Creating a Transient Vendor s License and Establishinq License Fees. This ordinance which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on ' November 23 requires all transient vendors to purchase a short-term (30 day) license for a fee of $10.00. -554- 12 13 14 December 7, 1982 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 1982, Providing for the Submis- sion of a Referred Measure to a Vote of the Qualified Electors of the City. On November 15, 1982, petitions were delivered to the City Clerk. These petitions asked that the City Council repeal Ordinance No. 113, 1982, which imposes an additional seventy-five one -hundredths percent (.75%) retail sales and use tax or, in the alternative, refer the ordinance to a vote of the qualified electors of the City of Fort Collins at the March 8, 1983, election. This ordinance which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 23, would place the measure on the March 8, 1983 ballot. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 1982, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund. The attached ordinance implements the 1982 transfer of $577,076 in General Fund Capital Reserves to the Capital Projects Fund. The amount available in the General Fund capital reserves was calculated based upon: Carryover from 1981 Allocation of 1/44 sales tax in 1982 Appropriations made in 1982 The $577,076 is a portion of the 1982 carryover capital reserves that was anticipated to be used to finance the 1983 capital program and approved in the 1983-87 Capital Improvement Program. The approval of this ordinance moves the 1982 capital reserve from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund in accordance with the adopted 1983 Budget. How the capital reserves will be used in 1983 given the referral of the 3/44 sales tax will be discussed in conjunction with the total capital program at a. future worksession. This ordinance only provides for the accounting change of where 1982 capital reserves will be located beginning in 1983. Hearinq and First Readinq of Ordinance No. 156. 1982, Transferrinq an aaa1tionaI bbU trom Minor Streets Capital to the Lemay and Horse - tooth Median Project. Staff incorporated the medians on Lemay from Riverside to North of Mulberry and the medians on Horsetooth from Stanford to J.F.K. Parkway into one project. The Conceptual Design estimate for this project was $35,000. On October 5, Council passed and adopted Ordinance No. 108, 1982 transferring $35,000 from Minor Streets Capital to the Lemay and Horsetooth Median Project. -555- 1 1 December 7, 1982 During Preliminary and Final Design there were several changes in the scope of work, which increased the cost of the improvements. These changes were to increase the amount of landscaping and improve the esthetics of the medians. This Ordinance authorizes the transfer of $7,550 from Streets Minor Capital to the Lemay and Horsetooth Median Project to cover those increased costs. 15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 1982, Appropriatin Unanticipated Revenue in the Self Insurance Fun . This ordinance appropriates the unanticipated revenue of $45,194 in the Self Insurance Fund which was created in 1981 when the City implemented a self insurance medical program for the collection and disbursement of medical insurance claims. 16. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 1982, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Te ephone Fund. Expenses in the Telephone Fund will exceed current appropriations by $25,000 for 1982. The increased expense is due to system line expan- sion and higher than projected long distance telephone usage. In 1983, the Finance Department will be investigating the feasibility of a telephone usage and management system as a means of reducing costs. This ordinance appropriates $25,000 from prior year reserves to pay the additional expense. 17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 1982, Appropriating Reserves in the Water Fund. Resolution #82-156 authorized the purchase of water storage rights from Baller Livestock Company for a total cost of $829,400. The Water Fund has $119,400 currently appropriated for the purchase of water rights. The remaining $710,000 is available in water rights reserves to be appropriated for this purpose. This ordinance appropriates $710,000 in Water Fund reserves for purchase of water storage rights. 18. Resolution Authorizing the Filing and Execution of a Site Change Amendment to the Existing Section 3 Capital Assistance Grant. The City's original U14TA Section 3 Capital Improvement Grant No. ' CO-03-0025 specified a Harmony Farms site for the Maintenance, Stor- age, Fuel and Administration Facility for TRANSFORT and Care -A -Van. -556- December 7, 1982 This amendment formally changes the previous Facility site from Harmony Farms to the Fuqua site. 19. Resolution Supporting proposed legislation to return control of Municipal Electric and Gas Utilities to local governments. The Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities (CAMU) is proposing State legislation to return the control of municipal electric and gas utilities to local governments.. The proposed legislation would allow the City's governing body to totally control the rates and services within the utility's entire service area, even if that area set by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is partly outside the City limits. Even though the City of Fort Collins does not serve customers outside its corporate limits and is therefore not presently under PUC juris- diction, it is important that Fort Collins support the efforts of its municipal counterparts within the state who are presently controlled by the PUC by adopting this resolution. 20. Resolution supporting proposed State legislation for civil remedies by utilities for diversion of utility services. The diversion or theft of energy has become an increasingly severe problem for utilities throughout Colorado. The major forms of this theft were inverted meters, unauthorized turn on of meters which had been terminated for non-payment, jumpered meters, and stolen meters. The major limiting factor to prosecution is the lack of a practical law within Colorado. Several entities will attempt to rectify this situation in the upcoming legislative session. This effort is being coordinated by the Colorado Diversion Committee which is com- posed of the municipal electric utilities, the rural electric cooper- atives, and the investor -owned utilities. 21. Resolution Supporting Federal Anti -Trust Exemption Legislation for Municipalities. This past summer, the Colorado Municipal League set up a study com- mittee to look at municipal anti-trust issues. The League is now asking member cities to adopt a Resolution urging Colorado's Congres- sional delegation to consider federal legislation providing for appropriate exemptions for municipalities from federal anti-trust liability. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City I Clerk. -557- Item #,5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 1982 of the City s Bond Anticipation Notes, December 7, 1982 Appropriating proceeds Series October 1, 9 Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 1982 authorizing the trans- fer of $143,400 from the Light and Power Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for landscaping of Light and Powers Substation tc be incorporated in the Southside Service Center Project site improvements. Item #7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 1982 Vacating a Utility Access Easement in the South Mesa Subdivision. Item #8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 1982, Designating the Maxwell House at 2340 West Mulberry as an Historic Landmark. Item #9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 1982, Assessing Costs for Sidewalk Improvement District #8, West Side of Shields Street from Bennett Road to Prospect Road. Item #10. Second Reading of Ordinances Annexing and Zoning Property Known as Harmony No. Annexation. I Item #11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 1982, Creating a Transient Vendor's License and Establishing License Fees. Item #12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 1982, Providing for the Submission of a Referred Measure to a Vote of the Qualified Electors of the City. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 1982, Appropri- ating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund. Item #14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 1982, Trans- ferring an additional $ ,5 0 from Minor Streets Capital to the Lemay and HorsetoothMedian Project. Item #15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 1982, Appropri- ating Unanticipated Revenue in the Self Insurance Fund. Item #16. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 1982, Appropri- ating Prior ear Reserves in t e e ep one Fund. Item #17. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 1982, Appropri- ating Reserves in the Water Fund. -558- December 7, 1982 Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Appropriating Additional Revenues for Special Improvement District No. 77 - Boardwalk and Landings Drive, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "In September, Council established Special Improvement District No. 77 to construct the street and utilities on Boardwalk Drive and Landings Drive in the South College Properties area. 1 SUMMARY OF COSTS The summary of costs has been revised from the Engineer's estimate based on I the actual bid amounts. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $593,607.10 OTHER PROJECT COSTS a) Administration 5,000.00 b) Legal 15,000.00 c) Engineering (design & construction services) 123,230.00 d) Repay of ROW costs to Osprey and Petersen 86,560.00 e) Collection and certification 10,196.00 f) Contingency 22,406.90 $262,392.90 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $856,000.00 APPROPRIATIONS To date, $783,000 in anticipated bond proceeds has been appropriated for S.I.D. #77. At this time, we need to appropriate the remaining revenue for the project as shown below. Total Estimated Project Costs Bond Proceeds (already appropriated) Difference $856,000 ' (783,000) $73,000 -559- December 7, 1982 Appropriations per attached Ordinance Street Oversizing (Engineering) $ 24,000 Water Line Oversizing 26,000 Non -Participating Utilities (Property Owner Contribution) 23,000 Difference $73,000 According to the agreement between the City and Osprey, Inc., Osprey will pay for the cost of installing utilities in front of the non -participating landowners on the north side of Boardwalk Drive. At the time such proper- ties develop or tie on to the utilities, Osprey will be entitled to a repay from those properties. The Street Oversizing and Water .Funds appropriation amounts have been increased slightly to allow for a contingency. The attached Ordinance appropriates the additional $73,000 in the Capital Projects Fund. These funds need to be appropriated at this time so that the project does not exceed authorized appropriations." Councilmembers Cassell and Reeves asked that the record show they did not vote or participate in the discussion of this item. City Engineer Tom Hays explained that in the agreement the City signed with property owners of the district, there were certain costs that were in- tended to be paid by those property owners and the City through the over - sizing funds. The three items to be appropriated by this ordinance are for street oversizing, water line oversizing, and for a share of the costs to be paid for some of the water and sewer improvements. He pointed out this was a follow-up item to the action taken earlier to assess the district. Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wilmarth, to adopt Ordinance No. 160, 1982 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. (Councilmembers Cassell and Reeves withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Assessing Costs for Street Improvement District #74, West Mulberry Street from Crestmore Place to 300' West of Tyler Avenue, Adopted on Second Reading as Amended I Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: -560- December 7, 1982 ' "On October 5, 1982 City Council accepted the improvements on West Mulberry and the report of project costs from the Directors of Public Works and Finance. In addition Council set the date to receive comments from the property owners being assessed for November 16. This ordinance was unani- mously adopted on First Reading on November 16 after hearing those com- ments." City Engineer Tom Hays noted staff has spoken with one of the property owners in the district who had received notification that they would have an assessment on this project of approximately $833. Since the First Reading of the ordinance, staff learned a letter had been written by a member of the City Engineering staff to the previous property owner indi- cating there would be no assessment against this particular parcel. The current owner relied on that letter when purchasing the property and feels the assessment should be waived. He added that even though the letter was in error, it was written and the City should stand behind that commitment. Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adopt Ordinance No. 148, 1982 on Second Reading. City Attorney Huisjen noted if Council wished to waive the Dear assessment, Section 1 of the ordinance would need to be amended to change the figures, $417,419.30 and $150,382.51, to read $418,252.11 and $149,549.70, and that ' the Dear assessment on page 8 of the assessment roll should read zero. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to amend Ordinance No. 148, 1982 as described by City Attorney Huisjen. Councilmember Wilmarth asked what circumstances surrounded the writing of the letter. City Engineer Hays replied that this happened about two years ago and the circumstances were that the employee received a phone call from a realtor who was negotiating the sale of the property. The realtor asked if there would be an assessment on the property. The employee wrote and stated there would be no assessment. The employee does not recall all the details of the event. Councilmember Wilmarth expressed his concern that some mechanism could be developed to prevent a similar situation from occurring in the future. City Engineer Hays stated the City is attempting to impress upon its employees the importance of double checking information provided to the public. The vote on Councilmembers Reeves motion to amend Ordinance No. 148, 1982 on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, I Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. -561- December 7, 1982. THE MOTION CARRIED. The vote on Councilmember Elliott's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 148, 1982 as amended on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Transferring $35,863 from Streets Minor Capital to Street Improvement District #74, Adopted on Second Readinq, as Amended Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "On October 5, 1982, City Council approved Resolution 82-130 accepting improvements in Street Improvement District #74 ordering the notice of assessments to be published and providing for parking credits. As outlined in the October 5th Background Summary, the cost of the parking credits is $35,863 and is available in Streets Minor Capital. This Ordinance which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16 authorizes the transfer of $35,863 from Streets Minor Capital to Street Improvement District #74. If these funds are not transferred, the District #74 project will exceed authorized appropriations." Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adopt Ordinance No. 149, 1982 on Second Reading. City Engineer Hays noted the ordinance needed to be amended to increase the amount of the City's transfer by approximately $833 making the total amount to be transferred $36,696. Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich to amend Ordinance No. 149, 1982, on Second Reading to reflect the new trans- fer amount of $36,696. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The vote on Councilmember Reeves' original motion to adopt Ordinance No. 149, 1982, as amended on Second Reading, was as follows: Yeas: Council - members Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. I THE MOTION CARRIED. -562- December 7, 1982 Ordinance Annexing Property Known as Carpenter/ McAleer Annexation, Adopted on Second Readinq Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 16 and is a request to annex 101.6-acres, located at the northeast corner of Lemay Avenue and Vine Drive. Present zoning is FA-1, Farming. Ordinance No. 151, 1982, which would zone this property was tabled to December 21 to allow neighborhood residents to adequately prepare their presentation." Councilmember Wilmarth asked the record to show he did not participate or vote on this item. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt Ordinance No. 150, 1982 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: None. (Council - member Wilmarth withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. , City Attorney's Report City Attorney Huisjen asked Councilmembers to advise him of any proposed changes to the Charter that might be placed on the March ballot. City Manager's Report City Manager Arnold called Council's attention to an insurance report in their packet, noted the cost avoidance over the past few years, and com- mended Purchasing Agent Jim O'Neill for his diligence in dealing with the City's insurance needs. Councilmembers' Reports Councilmember Reeves reported the Poudre Fire Authority had met in work session to review the methods for funding of the Authority with the City and the District. Options will be coming to Council on December 14th. Councilmember Horak reported on the National League of Cities meeting in Los Angeles and added they had toured the A-B plant while they were in I L.A. -563- I December 7, 1982 Mayor Cassell noted the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments was seeking nominations for officers and executive board vacancies and asked Councilmembers to contact him if they were interested in any of the seats. Ordinance Providing for the Submission of a Referred Measure to a Vote of the Qualified Electors of the City, Adopted on Second Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "On November 15, 1982, petitions were delivered to the City Clerk. These petitions asked that the City Council repeal Ordinance No. 113, 1982, which imposes an additional seventy-five one -hundredths percent (.75%) retail sales and use tax or, in the alternative, refer the ordinance to a vote of the qualified electors of the City of Fort Collins at the March 8, 1983, election. This ordinance which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 23, would place the measure on the March 8, 1983 ballot." Councilmember Wilmarth stated he wanted it noted that although this ordi- nance passed unanimously on November 23, two Councilmembers voted to repeal ' the 3/4� sales tax prior to the adoption of the ordinance submitting the measure to a vote of the people. He stated he had voted in favor of this ordinance because there was no legal alternative. Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood, agreed with Councilmember Wilmarth and stated she would not be in favor of any increase in the sales tax. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to adopt Ordinance No. 154, 1982, on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution Supporting proposed legislation to return control of Municipal Electric and Gas Utilities to local governments, Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "The Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities (CAMU) is proposing State legislation to return the control of municipal electric and gas utilities to local governments. The proposed legislation would allow the City's governing body to totally control the rates and services within the util- ity's entire service area, even if that area set by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is partly outside the City limits. -564- December 7, 1982 At present, municipal utilities control services and rates within their City limits and the PUC controls those areas lying outside the City limits. Currently, 87.6% of the customers in the state receiving service from municipal entities are locally regulated. The cost to utility customers for regulating the remaining 12.4% of the customers is in excess of $250, 000 per year. The dual control is unnecessarily burdensome, not only to the municipal utility, but also to the PUC in time and expense spent on the regulatory process. Adequate provision is made in the legislation to protect the rights of the customers outside the municipal boundaries who do not have the opportunity to vote in elections for members of the governing body. CAMU believes that placing utility control in the hands of the municipal governing body is beneficial to all utility customers because local elected officials are in a better position, to receive input and respond to custo- mer's needs and desires. Under the proposed legislation, the PUC will continue to designate the authorized service area for all public utilities. Within the authorized service areas, the governing body of each municipal utility will control rates and services. The utility must keep the same rates and charges for customers receiving service outside the municipal City limits as those for the same class of customers receiving service inside the municipal City limits. Even though the City of Fort Collins does not serve customers outside its corporate limits and is therefore not presently under PUC jurisdiction, it is important that Fort Collins support the efforts of its municipal coun- terparts within the state who are presently controlled by the PUC by adopting this resolution." Councilmember Wilmarth asked why Council was being asked to adopt this Resolution when the City of Fort Collins has no existing problem in this area. City Manager Arnold replied this Resolution was similar to the Resolution passed in support of the City of Boulder in the cable TV anti-trust suit and other Resolutions supporting legislation sponsored by CML. Director of Electric Utilities Bill Carnahan noted CAMU represented about 30 cities in the state which own and operate their own electric systems. About half serve outside their corporate limits and are under PUC jurisdic- tion. That group came to CAMU to ask for support to relieve the burden of regulation for a very small percentage of their customers. The state association felt it was a worthwhile cause as it would tend to make the operation of utility totally within the control of the City Councils. -565- ' December 7, 1982 Since it is a cooperative effort of CAMU, all the member cities are being asked to support the Resolution whether they are regulated or not so the association can make the arguments before the hearings committees at the legislature. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adopt the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Citizen Participation a. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to members of The Arts Group 8 . Director of Cultural Services and Facilities Dave Siever spoke on the activities of those being honored. Mayor Cassell then presented Certificates of Appreciation to De Dahlgren, Melanie Metz, Joe Coca, Mike Meyers, Deanna Harpum, Phil Risbeck, Jeanne Comstock, and Bob Coonts. ' b. Proclamation Naming December 12-18 as Drinking Driving Awareness Week was accepted by Councilmember Clarke. c. Recognition of Police Reserve Chief Karen Kraft for marksmanship award. Chief Kraft and Chief Ralph Smith displayed the trophy Chief Kraft won at the National Pistol Competition during the 1982 Reserve Law Officers convention in San Antonio. Chief Smith added Chief Kraft is the only female chief of any reserve unit in the United States. He noted the reserves donate approximately 5,000 hours a year to the City of Fort Collins. d. Recognition of Ken Shaffer for his years of service on the Fort Collins Police Reserves. Mr. Shaffer was presented a plaque for his seven years of service on the Fort Collins Police Reserves. Patrick Sousa, President -Elect of the Fort Collins Audubon Society, pre- sented the Council a statement about the quality of life in Fort Collins and asked Council to consider a Resolution regarding wild and scenic designation for the Poudre River. The statement was signed by Mr. Sousa; Charles Wanner, President, Preserve Our Poudre; John Cross, President, ' Colorado Wildlife Federation; and Barbara Rutstein, President, Fort Collins League of Women Voters. -566- December 7, 1982 Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board Approval of Holiday Inn PUB Master Plan (Case No. 43-82), Upheld Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "General Information The applicant is seeking master plan approval for a 28.5-ac site consisting of 125,000 sf of retail space, 110,000 sf of office space, and a 209,900 sf hotel/conference center (220 rooms). The site is generally located on the northeast corner of the intersection of College Avenue and Harmony Road. The site is currently improved with an existing mobile home park (Pioneer Mobile Home Park) and several other existing residential frame structures and is zoned B-P, Planned Business. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: North: h-b; vacant. South: B-L; existing and proposed commercial uses. East: H-B; mobile homes (east of Pioneer Mobile Home Park). I West: h-b; vacant (proposed office/retail uses). Land Use Data Phase One: Gross Area: 10.1 ac Net Area: 8.8 ac Phase Two: Gross Area: 10.9 ac Net Area: 9.2 ac Phase Three: Gross Area: 7.5 ac Net Area: 6.5 ac Total Gross Area: 28.5 ac Total Net Area: 24.5 ac Maximum Building Height: Midrise 8-stories 100 ft floor -to -floor height plus tip mechanical systems (subject to review and approval at Preliminary). Total Maximum Floor Area: Phase One: 209,900 sf of building; Phase Two: 135,000 sf of building; Phase Three: 100,000 sf of building. Building area is based on generalized estimates of moderate intensity development (calculated at 25-40%). These figures could be exceeded by the introduction of multi -floor buildings and/or structured parking I facilities, etc. -567- December 7, 1982 Open Space: Phase One: 24.9% Phase Two: 20-30% Phase Three: 20-30% Anticipated Land Uses: Including but not limited to: retail shopping, drive -through facilities, motels/hotels, confer- ence centers, offices, clinics, automobile sales, service stations, restaurants, theatres. Development Schedule: Phase One: Construction of the Holiday Inn hotel/conference center is antici- pated to begin during 1983. Phase Two and Three: Development of parcels in Phases Two and Three is anticipated to be completed during the next 3-7 years with JFK Parkway constructed in sequence with development. General Discussion 1. Relationship to Adopted Official Plans. a. Master Street Plan Harmony Road and College Avenue are major arterials. JFK Parkway is an arterial street, as designated on the Master Street Plan. b. Land Use Policies Plan The following policies contained within the adopted Policies Plan are applicable to the development: Policy 21: "All levels of commercial development . . . which have signs scant negative transportation impacts on South College Avenue will be discouraged from gaining their primary access from College Avenue." Discussion: The Master Plan does have access from College via a public local street. However, primary access to the site will be from JFK Parkway, with secondary access from Harmony Road and College Avenue. The proposed local street inter- section with College Avenue is in conformance with the arterial access plans developed by City staff and the State Highway Department and will not impact the traffic -carrying capacity of College Avenue. As individual properties within the Master Plan develop, primary access points will be from interior ' public streets and JFK Parkway. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan is in conformance with Policy 21. December 7, 1982 Policy 22: "Preferential consideration shall be given to urban devel- opment proposals which are contiguous to existing development within the City limits or consistent with the phasing plan for the City's urban growth area." Discussion: The first phase proposal is consistent with the defti nition of "contiguity with existing development" as defined by the Land Development Guidance System and has been awarded points for achieving this policy. Policy 24: "All utility extensions should be in conformance with the phased utility expansion portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan." Discussion: The site will be serviced from existing utilities in the area. The cost of extension of any utility lines to service the project will be borne by the applicant. No major capital investments for utilities to service the proposal are anticipated. Policy 27: "Developments with requirements beyond existing levels of police and fire protection, parks and utilities shall not be allowed to develop until such services can be adequately provided and maintained." Discussion: Both the Police and Fire Authority have reviewed the Master Plan and do not feel that the proposed land uses would negatively affect their ability to service the proposed land uses. Utilities are available in the area at a capacity to service the proposed uses without negatively affecting the existing or future levels of service in other areas of the community. As the proper- ties develop within the Master Plan area, specific minimum police, fire, sewer and water and electrical requirements will have to be met as detailed in City Code. 2. Utilities. All utilities are available at the site or in the immediate area to service the proposed uses. 3. Background. The property was zoned and annexed in November 1979 as a part of a larger 190-ac parcel of land known as the South College Properties. Accompanying the annexation and zoning petition was a conceptual plan that laid out the major internal street network and a general curb -cut plan to the surrounding arterial streets. The subject property was zoned b-p, Planned Business, with the following conditions: a. That all uses allowed would be permitted only as a part of a planned unit development plan; and b. That prior to preliminary plat approval or issuance of a building permit for any portion of the subject site, a master plan will be submitted for the Superbl ock of which the property is a part. -569- 1 December 7, 1982 The City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board conditionally approved the circulation scheme presented in the concept plan. Both the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council felt that JFK Parkway would relieve College Avenue as the only north -south major traffic carrier in the area and would focus activity away from College Avenue. They were concerned that access to College Avenue, Horsetooth Road and Harmony Road should be limited to as few as possible signal- ized intersections designated at 1/3-mile spacing. On May 26, 1981 the Planning and Zoning Board approved the South College Properties Superblock No. 1 Plan of which the subject parcel is a part. Comments Land Use. The applicants are proposing the following land uses and intensity: Phase One: 209,900 sf hotel/conference center Phase Two: 75,000 sf retail 60,000 sf office Phase Three: 50,000 sf retail 50,000 sf office Total: 125,000 sf retail 110,000 sf office 209,900 sf hotel/conference center Land use might include: retail shopping, drive -through facilities, motel/hotels, conference centers, offices, clinics, automobile sales, service stations, restaurants, theatres. The land uses as proposed are based upon current development and market trends in the South College Avenue corridor; consistency with the approved zoning; consistency with the approved South College Properties Concept Plan; compliance with the approved South College Properties Superblock Plan No. 1; and conformance with adopted policies of the City's Land Use Policy Plan. The list of uses that will ultimately be developed may or may not include the above. Any use will be permitted only as part of a planned unit development and must be justified and found compatible with the Land Development Guidance System. 2. Circulation The circulation plan is intended to protect the traffic -carrying capability along College Avenue, Harmony Road, and JFK Parkway and to -570- December 7, 1982 ' maintain an attractive, aesthetically pleasing urban environment while at the same time providing reasonable access to and between the numer- ous individual properties so as to maximize their development potential for one or a combination of urban land uses. The major elements of the proposed circulation plan are as follows: a. Exterior Streets. College Avenue and Harmony Road are designated as major arterial streets (State highways) on the Master Street Plan. These streets are planned at this time to be improved with barrier medians with signalized intersections at: College Avenue/ Harmony Road; and JFK Parkway/Harmony Road. JFK Parkway is an arterial street and will be a four -lane road with center median with breaks for left -turns. b. Internal Circulation. The objective of the plan is to limit access points along the arterial roadways to the greatest extent possible to discourage frequent turning movement into or out of the arter- ials. The fewer number of access points, the smoother and more rapidly the traffic will flow. Raised medians are planned along College Avenue, Harmony Road and JFK Parkway which will restrict intersections to abutting properties. Although College Avenue, Harmony Road and JFK Parkway are defined as arterials, it is the intent of the City's Transportation Plan to prioritize access to ' future development off JFK Parkway throughout the corridor and to de-emphasize College Avenue as an access roadway. The number of curb cuts and their location are as indicated below. However, these are potential intersections only with actual number, location and design dependant upon the type and intensity of future land uses. The internal circulation of the Master Plan is accomplished through public local streets and joint circulation facilities. Two public local streets are planned to traverse the area and will connect College Avenue with JFK Parkway, and connect Harmony Road with the northern.local street. Right -turn in and out -only turning movements (with the possibility of a limited left -turn movement) will be permitted at the intersection of the public local streets with College Avenue and a full -movement intersection permitted at JFK Parkway. Major access to these local streets from abutting properties will be encouraged, with exact location depending on future development. One additional curb cut will be permitted to College Avenue from the Master Plan and will be limited to right - turn in and out -only movements. One limited left -turn curb cut shall be permitted to Harmony Road which is directly across from the curb cut approved in the Harmony East Commercial PUD. One full -movement intersection will be permitted to JFK Parkway, with additional right -turn in and out -only permitted depending upon the ' adjacent development proposals and City design criteria. -571- December 7, 1982 Finally, interconnection of parking with cross -access easements will be encouraged among individual properties in the Master Plan as they develop to provide access to the above roadways as well as to combine curb cuts to surrounding arterial streets. Integrated pedestrian circulation within and between the phases of the Master Plan will be provided as development occurs. Staff feels that the proposed circulation system is capable of handling the expected traffic volumes generated by the development. The circulation system as proposed is consistent with the circula- tion plan in the approved South College Properties Concept Plan, consistent with the approved South College Superblock Plan No. 1, and in compliance with the City's adopted street design criteria and policies. 3. Building Height. Proposed: Mixture of stories, 100-ft floor -to -floor plus mechani- cal systems. ' Building heights over 40-ft will require special review and must demonstrate compliance with building height review criteria (scale, privacy, shadow, and views). 4. Neighborhood Issues. Attached is a staff -prepared report which high- lights neighborhood concerns on the proposed commercial project. It is the function of the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council to review and approve/disapprove PUD applications brought before them as they relate to the planning, City policy, and land use issues affecting the City. 5. Displacement of Mobile Home Tenants. The removal of the mobile home park impacts the remaining tenants, specifically in finding suitable mobile home sites. However, in light of newly proposed mobile home parks, this problem may be solved by the marketplace. 6. Staff Response to Appellant's Reasons for Appealing the Planning and Zoning Board s Decision. The reasons tor appealing t e Planning and Zoning Board's decisions as outlined in the appellant's letter dated October 4, 1982 was the "apparent failure of the Planning and Zoning Board to enforce or apply the Land Use Policy Plan in the consideration of the Holiday Inn Master Plan, #43-82, specifically Policy numbers 12, 19, 21, 22, 38, 69, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77 and 87." Policy 12. "Urban density residential development usually at three or ' more units to the acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area." -572- December 7, 1982 ' Discussion: Not applicable. Policy 19. "The City shall establish a project impact assessment system as a growth management tool which would cover: Positive and negative environmental impacts; Positive and negative social impacts; Positive and negative economical/fiscal impacts; Positive and negative impacts on public services and facilities, including transportation." Discussion: This policy called for the establishment of an impact assessment system. The Land Development Guidance System was prepared in direct response to this policy. Not applicable to the specific proposal. Policy 21. "All levels of commercial development, including conven- ience, neighborhood, community and regional shopping which have sig- nificant negative transportation impacts on South College Avenue will be discouraged from gaining their primary access from College Avenue." Discussion: While the project does have access to College Avenue, ' the City and the State Highway Department does not feel that there will be significant negative transportation impact (see Comment 41 under the Discussion section and Comment #2 under the Comment section of this report. Policy 22. "Preferential consideration shall be given to urban devel- opment proposals which are contiguous to existing development within the City limits or consistent with the phasing plan for the City' s urban growth area." Discussion: The first phase of the project, the conference center, is consistent with the definition of "contiguous to exist- ing development" as defined by the Land Development Guidance System and has been awarded points for achieving this policy. While the Master Plan does not achieve the same level of contiguity, the entire 190-ac South College Properties area is under varying levels of development and can be defined as "infill." At this level of planning, staff feels that the project meets the intent of the policy. Policy 38. "The City shall only allow land use conversions to commer- cial service land uses and to higher density residential uses in areas designated for such uses in the Core Area Development Plan." ' -573- IDecember 7, 1982 Discussion: The criteria was written to apply to the "Core area" of the City and was a policy directed at allowing conversions in certain areas of the Core area. It is not applicable to this project. Policy 69. "Regional/community shopping centers should locate in areas which are easily accessible to existing or planned residential areas." Policy 70. "Regional/community shopping centers should locate near transportation facilities that offer the required access to the center but will not be allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network of the City." Policy 71. "New regional/community shopping centers locating within the proximity of existing regional/community shopping centers shall be designed to function together as a single commercial district. All centers will be designed to encourage pedestrian circulation, and discourage multi -stop trips with private automobiles, or force traffic onto streets whose primary function is to carry through traffic." Policy 73. "Regional/community shopping centers shall locate in areas servedy existing water and sewer facilities." Discussion: The proposed uses in the Master Plan area are not defined by the Zoning Ordinance as a "Regional/Community Shopping Center." However, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have defined the South College corridor between Prospect Road and Harmony Road as a "Regional Center." The South College Corridor Regional Center is readily accessible to residential areas, is serviced by adequate streets, is being planned to the extent possible for pedestrians, is serviced by Transfort, and has ade- quate sewer and water service. Policy 77. "The City should adopt programs to reinforce and stabilize existing low income residential areas so they can remain in the housing market as low income units." Discussion: Both the City and the County have adopted stabiliza- tion programs for low-income housing areas. However, none of these programs apply to the stabilization of the existing mobile home park. Policy 87. "The City will prohibit the conversion of designated open space to other uses." Discussion: There is no "designated open space" on the Master ' Plan, so the policy is not applicable. -574- 1 December 7, 1982 Staff Recommendation 1. Land Use. While the Master Plan does outline potential square footage, the ultimate development of the site will be determined through the Planned Unit Development process and the land use criteria contained therein. The land uses as proposed are consistent with the approved South College Properties Concept Plan, South College Superblock Plan No. 1, existing zoning, and the land use policies of the City. 2. Traffic. The circulation system outlined in the Master Plan is consis- tent with the approved South College Properties Concept Plan, South College Superblock Plan No. 1, Master Street Plan, and City street design criteria and policies. 3. Building Height. While the plan is proposing 8-story midrise build- ings, the exact height will be determined after careful review, evalua- tion and recommendation of compliance with the adopted building height review criteria. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Master Plan of Holiday Inn. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation I At their September 20, 1982 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board approved on a vote of 4-3, the Master Plan for Holiday Inn (Case No. 43-82)." Director of Planning & Development Curt Smith briefly highlighted the character of the project. Dan Dean, attorney representing tenants of Pioneer Mobile Home Park, stated the purpose of his appearance was to induce a denial of the Master Plan. He noted the new information introduced related to the Master Plan and the Phase I, Preliminary appeal. Mr. Dean called the following persons to provide new information relative to this appeal: 1. Steve Barbier, Neighbor -to -Neighbor, who gave demographic infor- mation and current mobile home space locations in and around Fort Collins and Larimer County. 2. Lori Wolfe, Larimer County Department of Human Development, advocate of low income, elderly, and handicapped residents of the County who spoke of her efforts to determine the present status of development of mobile home parks in the City and County. ' -575- December 7, 1982 3. Fran Ek, Lot 134, Pioneer Mobile Home Park, who noted Mr. Strick- fadden had not offered cooperation or made any contact with the residents since the September 20 hearing. She presented a chart which graphically located the vacancies in the park. She stated her calculations showed 62 homes would have to be moved from the west end into 14 empty lots at the east end. Mr. Dean recommended that the Council reverse the decision of the Planning & Zoning Board, send it back to Planning & Zoning with a recommendation that the Master Plan and the PUD be approved only on the condition that the developer equitably deal with the existing residents either by finding them equivalent locations, developing equivalent locations, or compensating them for their economic loss. Norman West, representing properties north of the project, stated he could not support the project because they do not have a contract with the Holiday Inn owners concerning the street between the two properties. William K. Stri.ckfadden, managing general partner of Fort Collins Assem- blage Ltd., the owner of the park, stated that the park because of its age ' and physical layout is not economical to continue as a mobile home park. He explained their intent to abandon it. He spoke of his efforts to move residents at his expense to the more permanent east side of the park and added 3 persons had availed themselves of that opportunity and others have moved out. Councilmember Reeves suggested offering tenants a cash amount as an induce- ment to move somewhere else. Mr. Strickfadden stated over 50 people had already moved without any inducement and added if Council was conditioning this appeal based on that, the park's answer was "absolutely no". Mr. Dean called Council's attention to several elements of the City's Land Use Plan which he felt were violated by the Master Plan. He added he felt there were some questions of interpretation of the Land Use Plan particu- larly with respect to the encouragement or preservation of low income housing, the conversion of residential uses, and the point system applica- tion to the PUD with respect to the contiguity of this project to an existing urban development, energy conservation and for having a multiple use. Mr. Strickfadden stated that since September 20, 12 residents have moved out of the park and if the trend continues, the residents of the west end ' will be relocated prior to the time construction starts. He stated that some years ago the park was annexed to the City and its tax structure -576- December 7, 1982 changed, Code requirements changed, and costs changed. The owners feel they are entitled to avail themselves of the zoning and the tax structure that resulted from the annexation. He added they were asking for a use within the zoning that was given at the time of annexation. Councilmember Elliott made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to uphold the decision of the Planning & Zoning Board. Councilmember Horak asked if social impacts were a consideration in the approval of the Master Plan. Curt Smith replied they were looked at by comparing the proposal to the existing City policies and evaluated by both staff and the Planning & Zoning Board. He added the City Attorney had given an opinion that condi- tions concerning relocation could not appropriately be placed on a PUD of that nature. Councilmember Clarke stated he felt there was a need to find places where people can own mobile homes and the land they sit on. He added he felt the property owners are entitled to use the property in a way that benefits them. Councilmember Reeves asked if Council could impose conditions in terms of compensation for the tenants. City Attorney Huisjen replied that it was uncertain as usually exactions from subdivisions and developers related to the service to be provided to the neighboring community, the roads, or other essential services to be furnished. He stated he did not know of a case where a developer was required to compensate someone else in this sort of situation. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to attach the condition that Mr. Strickfadden offer the remaining landowners up to $400 to aid in their moving out of the Master Plan area. Mayor Cassell asked the City Attorney if this type of a condition could be considered punitive in nature. City Attorney Huisjen replied the condition may be an unlawful exaction from a developer and imposes a requirement not imposed on other developers. Councilmember Wilmarth asked Mr. Strickfadden if he would be willing to abide by the proposed condition. Mr. Strickfadden replied if the City conditions the approval of the Master Plan on some type of compensation, the partnership will have to resort to whatever recourse is available. -577- 1 I December 7, 1982 The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's motion to impose a condition on the approval of the Master Plan was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Reeves and Knezovich. Nays: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, and Wilmarth. THE MOTION FAILED. The vote on Councilmember Elliott's original motion to uphold the decision of the Planning & Zoning Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, and Wilmarth. Nays: Council - member Reeves. THE MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board Approval of Holiday Inn PUD Phase One Preliminary Plan (Case No. 43-82A), Planninq & Zoninq Board Decision Uoheld Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: ' "General Information The applicants are seeking preliminary plan approval for a 10.1-ac site consisting of a 209,900 sf hotel/conference center. The site is located approximately 650-ft east of College Avenue and directly north of Harmony Road. The site is improved with the existing Pioneer Mobile Home Park, and is zoned b-p, Planned Business. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: North: h-b; vacant (proposed retail and office uses in rest of Holiday Inn Master Plan). South: B-L; proposed and existing commercial uses. East: h-b; existing mobile homes (rest of Pioneer Mobile Home Park). West: h-b; existing residential and commercial uses. Site Data Maximum Building Height: 66 ft Total Gross Area: 439,700 sf 10.1 ac Total Net Area: 383,700 sf 8.8 ac Coverage: Buildings: 82,000 sf 18.6% Street ROW: 56,000 sf 12.7% Parking & Drives: 192,400 sf 43.8% ' Open Space: 109,300 sf 24.9% -578- Floor Area: Hotel (220 rooms): Conference Center: Restaurant: Nightclub: Parking: Provided: Standard Compact Handicapped Motorcycle Bicycle Discussion 1. Relationship To 173,600 sf 23,900 sf 8,200 sf 4,200 sf Total Vehicle ted Official Plans. December 7, 1982 354 79 9 10 2 racks 452 a. Master Street Plan. Harmony Road is a major arterial and JFK Parkway is an arterial street. The proposal is consistent with the Master Street Plan. b. Land Use Policy Plan. The following policies contained within the Land Use Policies Plan would be applicable to the hotel/conference facility: Policy 22. "Preferential consideration shall be given to urban development proposals which are contiguous to existing development within the City limits or consistent with the phasing plan for the City's urban growth area." Discussion: The proposal is consistent with the current definition of "contiguity with existing development" as defined by the Land Development Guidance System, and has been awarded points for achieving this criteria. Policy 24. "All existing utility extensions should be in conform- ance with the phased utility expansion portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan." Discussion: The site will be serviced from existing utility ineT s in the area. The cost of extension of any utility lines to service this project will be borne by the applicant. Policy 27. "Development with requirements beyond existing levels of police and fire protection, parks and utilities shall not be allowed to develop until such services can be adequately provided and maintained." -579- ' December 7, 1982 Discussion: All services are available in a capacity to service the proposed use. 2. Circulation and Land Use. The circulation plan and land use are consistent with the Holiday Inn Master Plan, South College Superblock Concept Plan, and the South College Properties Superblock Plan No. 1. 3. Utilities. All utilities are available at the site or in the immediate area to service the proposed uses. Background. The property was zoned and annexed in November 1979 as a part of a larger parcel of land known as the South College Properties. Accompanying the annexation and zoning petition was a conceptual plan that laid out the major internal street network and a general curb cut plan to the surrounding arterial streets. The subject property was zoned b-p, Planned Business, with the follow- ing conditions: a. That all uses allowed would be permitted only as a part of a planned unit development plan; and ' b. That prior to preliminary plat approval or issuance of a building permit for any portion of the subject site, that a master plan will be submitted for the Superblock of which the property is a part. The City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board conditionally approved the circulation scheme presented in the concept plan. Both the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council felt that JFK Parkway would relieve College Avenue as the only north -south major traffic carrier in the area an would focus activity away from College Avenue. They were concerned that access to College Avenue, Horsetooth Road and Harmony Road should be limited to as few as possible signal- ized intersections, which were designated at 1/3-mile spacing. On May 26, 1981 the Planning and Zoning Board approved the South College Properties Superblock No. 1 plan of which the subject parcel is a part. Comments 1. Land Use. The applicants are proposing a 220-room hotel with a 500- seat conference center, and a 250-seat restaurant/lounge. The land use as proposed is consistent with the Holiday Inn Master Plan, approved South College Properties Concept Plan, approved South College Proper- ties Superblock Plan No. 1, and in conformance with adopted City ' policy. The proposed use does achieve the necessary number of points as calculated on Point Chart E. O December 7, 1982 ' 2. Circulation. The circulation plan is intended to protect the traffic - carrying capability along College Avenue, Harmony Road, and JFK Parkway and to maintain an attractive, aesthetically pleasing urban environment while at the same time providing reasonable access to and between the numerous individual properties so as to maximize their development potential for one or a combination of urban land uses. The major elements of the proposed circulation plan are as follows: a. Exterior Streets. Harmony Road and College Avenue are designated as major arterial streets (State highways) on the Master Street Plan. These streets are planned at this time to be improved with barrier medians with signalized intersections at: College Avenue/ Harmony Road, and JFK Parkway/Harmony Road. JFK Parkway is an arterial street and will be a four -lane road with center median with breaks for left -turns. b. Internal Circulation. The objective of the plan is to limit access points along the arterial roadways to the greatest extent possible to discourage frequent turning movement into or out of the arter- ials. The fewer number of access points, the smoother and more rapidly the traffic will flow. Raised medians are planned along College Avenue, Harmony Road, and JFK Parkway which will restrict ' intersections to abutting properties. Although both College Avenue, Harmony Road, and JFK Parkway are defined as arterials, it is the intent of the City's Transportation Plan to prioritize access to future development off JFK Parkway throughout the corri- dor and to de-emphasize College Avenue as an access roadway. The number of curb cuts and their location are as indicated below. The internal circulation of the Preliminary plan is accomplished through public local streets and joint circulation facilities. A public local street is planned to run along the western property line and will eventually connect Harmony Road with the public street to the north. Right -turn in and out -only turning movements will be permitted at the intersection of the public local street with Harmony Road. Secondary access to this local street from the proposal is expected. One additional curb cut will be permitted to Harmony Road from the proposal and will be limited to right -turn in and out and left -turn in only movements. One full -movement curb cut shall be permitted to JFK Parkway which will be constructed to full width to that intersection with this phase. Finally, interconnection of parking with cross -access easements has been provided for in this plan to abutting properties as they develop to provide access to the above roadways as well as to joint curb cuts to surrounding arterial streets. Integrated pedestrian , circulation within and between properties has been planned for. -581- I December 7, 1982 The vehicular and pedestrian circulation system is consistent with approved South College Properties Concept Plan, South College Super - block Plan No. 1, Holiday Inn Master Plan, Master Street Plan, and City street policy and criteria. Building Height. The applicant is seeking approval to exceed the maximum height limit of 40-ft as established in the Zoning regulations by seeking a 66-ft (5-story) building. The City has adopted certain review criteria by which proposals exceeding the 40-ft standard would be evaluated. The project was evaluated against these criteria and the results are as follows: a. Views. The proposed 66-ft (5-story) height of the structure would break the skyline of the foothills from a number of future resi- dences in The Landings development as well as from future develop- ing properties in the South College Properties Superblock #2. Travelers along Harmony Road will have views of the foothills impacted but would retain the best views along Harmony. Road. The most significantly impacted views appear to be those of the foot- hills from some locations in the proposed City park along Boardwalk Drive. The City's Building Height Review Criteria stress that "particular emphasis be given to preserving views of the foothills ' from City parks and other public space." Staff feels that the most important view, that of Longs Peak, is being preserved, and also, that when intervening properties between the park and hotel are developed, it will be very difficult to preserve views of the foothills (see attached view analysis). b. Light and Shadow. The proposed building will cast shadows on adjacent properties (Phase Two of Master Plan) to the north and northwest which would reduce the potential to utilize solar energy for passive and active means (see attached shadow analysis). c. Privacy. The proposed building would not affect existing or future e� vels of privacy in surrounding residential development. d. Scale. The proposed scale of the project would contribute to strengthening College Avenue/Harmony Road intersection as the southern gateway to the City and would help to visually and func- tionally integrate the future 220,000 sf office and retail develop- ment being proposed as part of the Holiday Inn Master Plan. The 5-story building would begin to establish a southern visual anchor to the "regional shopping area" centered around the Foothills/ LaBelles/Target/South College Properties cluster, with The Arena and Foothills Square mid -rises providing a northern anchor. The Holiday Inn would not alone provide sufficient mass to accomplish this objective but could be supported by future multi -story build- ings in the immediate vicinity. -582- December 7, 1982 ' Staff feels that a mid -rise building at this locaton would not compete with or weaken the downtown area as the high density focal point in the community. 4. Neighborhood Issues. Attached is a staff -prepared report which high fights neighborhood concerns on the proposed commercial project. It is the function of the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council to review and approve/disapprove PUD applications brought before them as they relate to the planning, City policy, and land use issues affecting the City. 5. Displacement of Mobile Home Tenants. The removal of the mobile home park will impact the remaining tenants. However, in light of proposed mobile home parks, this problem may be resolved by the marketplace. 6. Staff Response to the Appell'ant's Reasons for Appealing the Planning and Zoning Board's Decision. The reasons for appealing the Planning and Zoning Boar s decision to approve the Preliminary PUD plan, outlined in the appellant's letter dated October 4, 1982, was "the apparent failure of the Planning and Zoning Board to enforce or apply the Land Use Policies Plan in the consideration of the Holiday Inn PUD , Phase One Preliminary Case #43-82A), specifically Policy numbers 12, 19, 21, 22, 38, 69, 71, 72, 73, 77 and 87," and the following points: a. Failure to achieve the necessary points on Point Chart E; b. Absence of Master Plan approval; c. Failure of the Land Develo ment Guidance System to embody a means for resolving neighborhood con licts. d. Denial of mobile home park tenants' constitutional rights to due process and fair compensation for the taking of their property; e. Failure to deny plan despite prohibition against conversion per Land Use Policy Plan; and f. Arbitrariness and capriciousness of the approval of the plan. Staff response to the issue of failure of the Planning and Zoning Board to enforce certain policies is as follows: Policy 12. "Urban density residential development usually at three or more units to the acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area." Discussion: Not applicable. I -583- December 7, 1982 Policy 19. "The City shall establish a project impact assessment system as a growth management tool which would cover: a. Positive and negative environmental impacts; b. Positive and negative social impacts; c. Positive and negative economical/fiscal impacts; d. Positive and negative impacts on public services and facili- ties, including transportation. Discussion: This policy called for the establishment of an impact assessment system. The Land Development Guidance System was prepared in direct response to this policy. Not applicab a to the specific proposal. Policy 21. "All levels of commercial development, including conven- ience, neighborhood, community and regional shopping which have signi- ficant negative transportation impacts on South College Avenue will be discouraged from gaining their primary access from College Avenue." Discussion: The project does not have primary access to College Avenue and therefore, the policy is irrelevant to this proposal. Policy 38. "The City shall only allow land use conversions to commer- cia service land uses and to higher density residential uses in areas designated for such uses in the Core Area Development Plan." Discussion: This criteria was written to apply to the "Core area" of the City and was a policy directed at allowing conversions it certain areas of the Core area. Not appropriate to this project. Policy 69. "Regional/community shopping centers should locate in areas which are easily accessible to existing or planned residential areas." Policy 70. "Regional/community shopping centers should locate near transportation facilities that offer the required access to the center but will not be allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network of the City." Policy 71. "New regional/community shopping centers locating within The 'proximity mity of existing regional/community shopping centers shall be designed to function together as a single commercial district. All centers will be designed to encourage pedestrian circulation, and discourage multi -stop trips with private automobiles, or force traffic onto streets whose primary function is to carry through traffic." Policy 72. "Regional/community shopping centers should locate where they can be served by public transportation." -584- December 7, 1982 ' Policy 73. "Regional/community shopping centers shall locate in areas served by existing water and sewer facilities." Discussion: The proposed uses in the Master Plan area are not defined by the Zoning Ordinance as a "Regional/ Community Shopping Center." However, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have defined the South College corridor between Prospect Road and Harmony Road as a "Regional Center." The South College Corridor Regional Center is readily accessible to residential areas, is serviced by adequate streets, is being planned to the extent possible for pedestrians, is serviced by Transfort, and has ade- quate sewer and water service." Policy 77. "The City should adopt programs to reinforce and stabilize existing low income residential areas so they can remain in the housing market as low income units." Discussion: Both the City and the County have adopted stabiliza- tion programs for low-income housing areas. However, none of these programs apply to the stabilization of the existing mobile home park. I Policy 87. "The City will prohibit the conversion of designated open ace to spother uses." Discussion: There is no "designated open space" on the Master Plan, fhe policy is not applicable. Staff response to the other reasons for the appeal are as follows: a. Point Chart E was awarded a total of 28 points out of 54 (52%) based upon the following: Criterion C--was awarded full points. This was based upon the staff's and Planning and Zoning Board's past decisions to consider the South College Avenue Corridor as the "South College Regional Center." In several projects, the staff and Planning and Zoning Board have awarded points to projects that were located in this area and demonstrated that the plan is designed to be visually integrated, and incorporates vehicular and pedestrian elements which are consistent with the existing and intended character of the South College Regional Center. Criterion 0--the project is 10.1-ac in size. Criterion F--the applicants have provided, to a very high level of ' success, future pedestrian and vehicular circulation elements into -585- December 7, 1982 the Preliminary plan. The intent of the applicant was to provide for a system which would enable both pedestrians and drivers to circulate through the project without having to use surrounding arterial streets or to cross large expanses of unbroken paved areas, for instance: interior sidewalks; landscaping of pedestrian ways; special pavement treatments at crosswalks, etc. Criterion H--the project achieves contiguity to existing urban development along its southern property line as it abuts the Harmony East Commercial PUD. All existng public improvements are installed in the PUD, although the buildings are not constructed. The Land Development Guidance System defines existing development as any subdivision in t i City which has been approved and recorded and all engineering improvements are installed and completed. No distinction is made in the. definition if contiguity is achieved by way of property line, local street, or arterial street. The above evaluation scored 28 out of 54 points for a total of 52%. A score of 50% is necessary for approval. Partial points cannot be assigned for Criteria C, D, or H. ' Staff made the above calculations based on initial plans and preliminary information provided by the applicant, and since the project scored at least 50% of the points, no further changes to the charts were made. However, staff feels that the project scores additional points for energy conservation measures being committed to as part of the project (4 points) and for being a mixed use, conference and hotel facilities (6 points). Based upon these further refinement of the Point Chart, the staff would recommend that the project scores 38 points out of 54 points or a total score of 70%. b. The Master Plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board but was appealed before the Board approved the Preliminary plan. However, the approval of the Preliminary plan can be made without approval of the Master Plan and therefore, timing of approval is not an issue. c. The Land Development Guidance System does contain the means for assuring neighborhood compatibility Absolute Criteria #2) assuring that the conflicts between the proposed development and surrounding land uses are mitigated (Absolute Criteria #3) and that traffic generated by the proposal does not have significant adverse impact on surrounding development (Criteria #4). The Land Development I Guidance System also provides for neighborhood meetings to be held to discuss proposed development plans in order to clarify problems December 7, 1982 and develop alternative solutions (Absolute Criterion #1). Both the staff and the Planning and Zoning Board feel that the applicant has sucessfully addressed the above "neighborhood compatibility" criteria in the current development proposal. d. The appellant contends that the mobile home park tenants were denied various constitutional rights. The City Attorney's office has responded to this concern in the attached memorandum. e. The City does not have a policy which prohibits land use conversion on this property. Land Use Policy #38 does concern land use conversions in the Core area but is not applicable to this develop- ment. There are City objectives to protect older residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses which would impair the viability of the residential neighborhood. f. Staff feels that the Planning and Zoning Board carefully weighed the testimony and impact of input of all parties involved in the project and was not arbitrary nor capricious in their decision. Staff Recommendation ' The applicant has satisfied the applicable criteria of the Land Development Guidance System, and therefore, the staff recommends approval of the Preliminary plan of the Holiday Inn PUD Phase One. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation At their October 25, 1982 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board approved on a vote of 7-0 the Preliminary plan of Holiday Inn PUD Phase One (Case # 43-82A)." Director of Planning & Development Curt Smith briefly reviewed the Holiday Inn PUD, Phase I Preliminary Plan. Councilmember Wilmarth asked if an affirmative vote on this Preliminary Plan would in any way commit the City to the issuance of IDRB's. Curt Smith replied that it was his understanding that it would not. Dan Dean, attorney representing the appellant, asked Council to review the issue with respect to "constitutional rights" of the mobile home unit owners in the park. The legislature in SB 27,'has equated ownership of a mobile home with the ownership of property, investing in that owner all of those rights a real property owner would have under the statutes of the ' State of Colorado. He stated he felt the initial zoning of the ground - 587 - December 7, 1982 entitled the mobile home owners to notice which they did not receive and therefore were denied due process when the original annexation and zoning occurred. Secondly, the appeal is based upon the lack of definition of the term "existing urban development" and the failure of the PUD to earn the points required by the system. Lastly, he felt since the Master Plan approval was on appeal to the Council, the Planning & Zoning Board approval of the Preliminary Plan on October 29 was premature and untimely reviewed. Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman replied with respect to the legisla- tion, ownership interests are a reflection of the public record and to require a City to notify all persons who are the owners of unrecorded non -freehold interests or leases would be something he felt a court would not require. With respect to the approval sequence of the Master Plan and Preliminary Plan, Eckman stated the preliminary approval was contingent upon the Master Plan having gone through the appeal process successfully. If the Master Plan had been rejected, any Preliminary Plan would have been of no effect. With the Master Plan now approved, it is appropriate to consider the Preliminary Plan. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to uphold the decision of the Planning & Zoning Board. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Reeves, to condition the approval on a more adequate addressing of social compati- bility criteria at the time of final approval. Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Knezovich, and Reeves. Nays: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, and Wilmarth. THE MOTION FAILED. The vote on Councilmember Clarke's original motion to uphold the decision of the Planning & Zoning Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Reeves. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment Councilmember Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to adjourn the meeting to December 14 at 7:30 p.m. Yeas: Councilmembers ' Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Reeves and Wilmarth. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. ATTEST: i City ClerkLl 1-- Mayor Im December 7, 1982 1 I