HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/17/1985-RegularDecember 17, 1985
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Tuesday, December 17, 1985, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the
City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following
Councilmembers: Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner.
Staff Members Present: Shannon, Huisjen, Krajicek, Lewis, Harmon, Hopkins
Agenda Review: City Manager
Interim City Manager Shannon asked that Item #5, Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 148, 1985, Amending Chapter 84 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins Relating to Peace and Good Order, be removed from the Consent
Agenda because of an amendment.
Interim City Manager Shannon reminded Council that there are still some
contingencies being worked out on Item #12, Motion Accepting a Donation of
100 Acres of Open Space Land Along the Poudre River, One -Half Mile West of
North Taft Hill Road, and that their motion includes a reference to the
fact that not all the contingencies are worked out.
Councilmember Horak requested that Item #9a, Second Reading of Ordinance
No. 153, 1985, Fixing the Salary of the City Attorney, be removed from the
Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Knezovich asked that Item #10, Hearing and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 157, 1985, Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins
Regarding Massage: Parlors, be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
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 #29, 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 be staff or Council. These items will be
discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
-114-
December 17, 1985
4. �prova' of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 19 and the
Adjourned Meeting off` November 6, 1985.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 1985, Amendin Chapter 84 of the
Code o the ity o ort Collins eating to eace and ood Urder.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 3
and makes a number of changes to Chapter 84 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins, "Peace and Good Order." The changes are intended to
update the criminal provisions of the Code, add certain offenses such
as petty theft (including shoplifting), assault, sale or use of
disguised weapons and failure to appear, cure certain jurisdictional
problems and delete unnecessary or unconstitutional provisions.
6. Second Readin of Ordinance No. 149, 1985, Vacatin the Road
Right -of- ay of ounty Road 1 Througha Portion of t e out east
Quarter of Section 36, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of t e 6th
P.M.. Citv of Fort Collins. Colorado.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 3.
The Owners are requesting the vacation of the road right-of-way of
"County Road 13" (also known as "County Road 45"). The Lemay Avenue
Extension around the East side of Warren Lake is nearing completion
and the road right-of-way for "County Road 13" North of this parcel is
being vacated. There is no future need for "County Road 13" in this
parcel. The Owners have platted Harbor Walk Estates on this property,
dedicating all necessary easements and this vacation will vacate all
areas of County Road 13 that do not have overlaying streets and
easements from Harbor Walk Estates, a P.U.D. All utilities have been
contacted and have indicated no problems with the vacation.
7. Second Readin of Ordinance No. 150, 1985, Vacatin a Portion of
Combined ar ing an ti ity asements in e i a
The Developer is requesting the vacation of four separate areas of the
access and utility easement as currently recorded for the original
1983 P.U.D'> At the time of this original plan, all land areas outside
the defined,- building envelope were dedicated as easement. The
developer has received approval for revised building envelopes,
portions of which encroach on the recorded easement. This Ordinance
was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 3 and vacates
those easements inside the revised building envelopes. All utilities
have.been contacted and", -have indicated no problems with the vacation.
8. Second Reading .of Ordinance No. 152, 1985, Vacating the Utilit
Easement between ots 11 and 1 of Block 7, vergreen Par Filing No.
2.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 3.
The Developer is requesting the vacation of a twelve foot wide
drainage easement to accommodate a revision to the drainage system.
Also, a new easement is being dedicated to accommodate the revised
-115-
December 17, 1985
drainway, which is currently under review. All utilities have been
contacted and have indicated no problems with the vacation.
9. Ordinances Relating to the Salaries of the City Attorney and Municipal
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 1985, Fixing the Salary of
the City Attorney.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 1985, Fixing the Salary of
the Municipal Judge.
City Council has met in Executive Session to perform the annual
evaluations of the City Attorney and Municipal Judge. These two
ordinances were adopted on First Reading on December 3 and will
establish the 1986 salaries for the City Attorney at $54,000 and for
the Municipal Judge at $47,483 per annum.
10. He2�arin��an�d__ First Readin of Ordinance No. 157, 1985, Amending the
Lode ofge pity 0f t olTinsRegarding Massage Parlors.
On August 6, 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 71, 1985,
amending the City's Massage Parlor Code by deletion of many of the
provisions of the original code. The purpose of that amendment was to
streamline the City's obligations with regard to the State Massage
Parlor Statute thereby simplifying the job of the Liquor Licensing
Authority when it is functioning as the City's Massage Licensing
Authority. One of the provisions of the City's original Massage
Parlor Code that was not amended is Section 73-143(D) which provides
that parties -in -interest shall have the power to appeal decisions of
the Authority to the City Council. Inasmuch as decisions of the Liquor
Licensing Authority, pursuant to State law, are not appealable to the
City Council, it is recommended that the decisions of the Massage
Licensing Authority should be treated similarly.
11. Hearing an Final Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 1985, Amendinq the
Downtown evelopment ut ority ax ncrement -funding onds
authorized y. rdinance o. 1-4Z, 19bb.
The Municipal Bond Insurance Association has insisted upon this
amendment before they will issue their insurance policy on the
Downtown Development Authority 1985 Refunding Bonds.
The amendment removes from the pledged revenue test for additional
parity bonds both investment earnings on the tax increment and unused
tax increment carried forward from one year to another. Both of these
features had been added to the 1984 issue that we are refunding as a
liberalization of the parity bond test.
-116-
December 17, 1985
12. Motion Accepting a Donation of 100 Acres of Open Space Land Along the
ouo d��ver e a ile West of NorthTaft ilT oad.
Recently staff was approached by H.W. Rogers and Associates to discuss
their donation of approximately 100 acres of gravel extraction land
located along the Poudre River, one-half mile west of North Taft Hill
Road. Currently, there is a lease on the property giving Sterling
Paving Company the right to extract sand and gravel, which is
estimated to be completed within three to five years. The timing of
this donation is critical to H.W. Rogers and Associates as they need
the donation to be effective in 1985 to benefit their tax situation.
Staff recommends that we take title to the property now so that some
time in the future the land will be available for open space pursuits.
13. Motion Accepting a Donation of 1.8 Acres of Land Along Spring Creek
In November of 1984, David Neenan offered a parcel of land to the City
as a donation. Mr. Neenan would like the City to accept the donation
before the end of 1985. He has agreed to pay taxes due on the
property for 1985.
This property, with an estimated value of $16,000, will be a valuable
addition to Spring Park and the Spring Creek Trail system.
Eventually, with appropriate budgeting, the trail could be rerouted
through this donated section.
14. Routine Deeds and Easements.
a. Powerline easement from State of Colorado, Division of Wildlife
located at 317 West Prospect Road.
b. Sanitary Sewer Easement from Spring Creek Farms, Inc. parallel to
County Road 9E north of Harmony Road.
c. Easement from Burlington Northern Railroad Company for the
Northeast Loop Waterline.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #5. Second Readin of Ordinance No. 148, 1985, Amendin Chapter 84 of
the ode of t e itY of FortCollins a atinq to Peace and ood
Item #6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 1985, Vacating the Road
Ri ht-of-Wa of "Count Road 1"' Throu h a Portion of the
out east uarter o ection owns ip ort , ange est
of the 6th ., City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Item V . Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 1985, Vacating a Portion of
Combined Parking and Utility asements in he Vil a,P.U.D.
-117-
December 17, 1985
Item #8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 1985, Vacating the Utilit
Easement between Lots 11 and 12 of Block 7, ve grreen Park Filin
No. 2.
Item #9. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 1985, Fixing the Salar
of the sty ttornev.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 1985, Fixinq the Sal
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #10. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 1985, Amendi
the Code of the City of fort o lins Regarding assage Parlors.
Item #11. Hearing and Final Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 1985, Amendin
the Downtown Development Authority Tax Increment Refunding Bond
autFo—rized�inance No. 142. 1985.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada,
to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar.
Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein,
and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Adopting the 1986 Pay
Plan. Tabled Until 7:30 P.M.
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 3.
Each year the City Council adopts the pay plan which sets the salaries of
City employees. .;This year a new type of pay plan has been developed to
meet the Council.'s.goal of rewarding employee performance."
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 155, 1985 on Second Reading.
Councilmember Knezovich expressed a concern that there might be people
wishing to address this item who did not expect it to come up before 7:30.
Councilmember Clarke agreed with Councilmember Knezovich and suggested
Council wait until after 7:30 to discuss this item.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to
table further consideration of this item until after the Citizen
Participation portion of the agenda. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke,
-118-
December 17, 1985
Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: Councilmember
Stoner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Appropriating $250,000 for
Snow Removal (Emergency Ordinance), Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
Significant storms this fall have made funding for City snow and ice
removal an urgent priority. The Department of Transportation estimates an
additional appropriation of $250,000 for snow removal is needed to provide
for the health and safety of Fort Collins' citizens through the remaining
fiscal year.
In order to appropriate these funds before the fiscal year ends, Council
would need to adopt this ordinance on an emergency basis. Given the
critical nature of the situation, staff recommends approval.
Background
The Department of Transportation has spent $111,518 from its 1985 budget
for snow and ice removal. Unusually early and heavy snows this fall have
made emergency funding for snow removal a top priority.
In an effort to preserve, protect, and advance the general welfare of the
citizens of Fort Collins, the Department of Transportation has already
spent $59,000 more than budgeted for snow removal as of December 2. This
figure includes money spent for the snow emergency declared on November 15.
This figure does not include the December 8 storm for which cost estimates
run $150,000. Further funding of $41,000 is required for any potential
storms encountered in the remaining fiscal year. This has resulted in a
need for an additional $250,000 for 1985.
The snow removal operation for the December 8 storm has been extraordinary.
Cost estimates for the Department of Transportation's efforts alone are
calculated at $140,000, including $60,000 for clearing residential streets.
The storm's magnitude also created the need for $10,000 of additional
unbudgeted help from the Departments of Light and Power, Water and Sewer,
and ParksandRecreation.
In order to meet this urgent need, staff recommends the provision of
funding from the following sources:
General Fund Prior Year Reserves $211,000
General Fund Existing Appropriations 16,000
Transportation Services Fund
Prior Year Reserves 23,000
TOTAL TMO,000
-119-
December 17, 1985
Staff recommends approval of this ordinance."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
adopt (Emergency) Ordinance No. 159, 1985.
Councilmember Knezovich asked how many miles of residential streets were
plowed and what the cost for that was.
Interim City Manager Shannon indicated that 277 miles of streets have been
plowed at a cost of $60,000.
Councilmember Knezovich asked for an explanation of where the money in the
funds being used for snow removal comes from.
Public Works Administrator Carol Osborne gave a brief explanation of the
revenue sources for the Transportation Services Fund.
Councilmember Horak asked for a clarification of the policy regarding
removal of snow on residential streets.
Interim City Manager Shannon explained that the policy states that the
Director of Public Works has the option of plowing residential streets
under severe and extreme conditions, and that this policy has been in
effect for two years.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for a summary of the types of complaints the
City receives regarding snow removal and how we deal with them as far as
long-term policy.
Interim City Manager Shannon replied that the most traditional complaint
received is that plows push the snow from the streets into already shoveled
driveways. On arterial and collector streets, the policy is that the plows
are supposed to go back and clear those driveways so that citizens don't
have to stand out in traffic to clear their driveways. The second most
common complaint is that plows often cover sidewalks that citizens have
already cleared..
Councilmember Estrada asked how often we have received storms of over 12
inches.
Superintendent of Streets Larry Schneider indicated that we have not had
two or more storms of that magnitude in one year since 1979 or 1980.
Councilmember Knezovi.ch asked why the decision to plow residential streets
was made 48 hours after the storm had ended.
Larry Schneider replied that the focus was on clearing arterials and
collector streets first before a decision on plowing residential streets
was made.
-120-
C
December 17, 1985
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, asked for clarification on why this
appropriation is being handled as an Emergency Ordinance.
City Attorney Huisjen replied that the Budget needs to be amended by making
the appropriation this year.
Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, expressed several concerns with snow
removal policies.
Councilmember Ohlson complimented staff on the actions taken to deal with
this particular storm.
Councilmember Clarke commented on the unpredictability of weather in
Colorado and the sound decisions made by staff in lieu of the forecasts for
even more snow that would have compounded the problem.
Councilmember Estrada expressed support for the snow policy enacted by a
former Council and congratulated the Transportation Division for their
dedication.
Councilmember Knezovich also commended staff for their efforts, but
expressed concerns about the depletion of reserve funds.
Councilmember Horak expressed support for the Ordinance and the actions
taken by staff.
Mayor Rutstein expressed approval of the removal of snow in residential
areas for health and safety reasons and commended the employees for their
hard work.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 159, 1985
as an Emergency Ordinance was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke,
Estrada, Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember
Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED..
Secretary's Note: Councilmember Horak excused himself from the meeting at
this point.
Citizen Participation
A. Proclamation Namin 1986 as International Year of Peace was accepted by
a representative of the Ba ai community of Fort Collins.
B. Proclamation Naming December 17-19 as Veterans Awareness Days was
accepted by representatives from the Colorado Veterans Alliance.
-121-
December 17, 1985
Susan Epstein, 1625 West Elizabeth, opposed Transfort route changes to H-P
(Route #7) and asked for a chance to improve ridership before cancelling
Route V .
Mike Gilmore, 912 Columbia, H-P employee, spoke of meetings with the
Transfort staff in an attempt to work something out.
James Brady, CSU professor, Colorado Veterans Alliance, spoke of community
and state and federal reaction to needs of Vietnam Veterans.
Gene Reese, president of Construction Rental and Sales, expressed
opposition to the City's anti-apartheid policy and stated he felt it was a
restraint of trade.
Jim Woodward, 400 South Grant, expressed opposition to certain aspects of
the Economic Development Task Force. He asked Council to start over on the
selection process or abolish the task force and use the funds for other
things such as snow removal.
Ordinance Adopting 1986 Pay Plan,
Adopted on Second Reading "
Secretary's Note: See previous discussion and motion on this item on Page
118.
Scott Goff, 800 West Prospect, president of the Fraternal Order of Police,
expressed dissatisfaction with the pay plan and asked Council that it not
be approved.
Councilmember Stoner stated he believed employees were more comfortable
with the pay plan.
Councilmember Estrada agreed with Councilmember Stoner and expressed a
desire to have staff and employees work together to improve the pay plan.
Councilmember Knezovich noted that there has been an improvement in
communication in the last two weeks, and expressed confidence in the
on -going process of developing this pay plan.
Mayor Rutstein thanked employees for sharing their comments with Council
and complimented the administration on their efforts to work with
employees.
The vote. on Councilmember Knezovich's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 155,
1985 on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke,
Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-122-
December 17, 1985
Resolution Authorizing an Extension
of the Sole Source Contract with
Black & Veatch Engineers for the
Construction Phase of the Engineering
Services Contract for Modifications
to Wastewater Plant #2, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
The Resolution would approve awarding of the construction phase engineering
for the modifications of Wastewater Plant #2 to accommodate Anheuser-Busch
brewery wastes to Black & Veatch Engineers. The contract, which includes
the contract administration and resident engineering phase of the project,
is not to exceed $940,000.
Background
The engineering design of wastewater treatment modifications to accommodate
Anheuser-Busch brewery wastes was awarded on a sole source basis to Black &
Veatch Engineers on June 13, 1985. The scope of work for this contract
included design phase services and review of shop drawings (contractor
prepared drawings and submittals) during construction. The original sole
source contract with Black & Veatch was structured to allow for evaluation
of the company's performance during the design phase prior to awarding the
construction phase of the contract, which includes contract administration
and resident engineering. The most difficult period of the design phase,
which results in a document known as the Design Memorandum, has been
satisfactorily completed. Therefore, staff recommends award of the
remainder of the engineering services contract to Black & Veatch.
The design phase of the engineering services contract was awarded on a sole
source basis partially because of Black & Veatch's familiarity with City's
wastewater system and the need to assure that modifications are compatible
with the existing treatment system. That need still exists. In addition,
Black & Veatch has been involved in negotiations with Anheuser-Busch
concerning such matters as construction costs and the accelerated schedule
for completion of the project. The sole source extension of the contract
for the construction phase is necessary in order to meet the accelerated
deadline of February 1, 1988 for the project to be operational. There are
other advantages to the City for contracting with the same engineering firm
for both the design phase and the construction phase of a project. Using
the same firm for both phases speeds up and smooths the transition from
design to construction and reduces the potential for catastrophic
misinterpretations of the plans during construction. In addition,
management of the project by City staff is easier and liability is
centralized by limiting the number of parties involved in project
decisions. The City Attorney's office has addressed the subject of .
liability.
-123-
December 17, 1985
At the time that the design phase of the contract was awarded, the
construction phase costs were estimated at approximately $700,000. Since
that time, the scope of services of the construction phase has been altered
to include construction inspection services and contract administration of
the demolition project. Two construction inspectors will be provided by
Black & Veatch. This change, which accounts for approximately $150,000 of
the increase, was made because of lack of City staff for inspection and to
provide clearer assignment of liability. In addition, Black & Veatch will
oversee the demolition of aeration basins and final clarifiers, adding
approximately $50,000 to the contract amount.
Modifications to Wastewater Plant #2 include oversizing to accommodate City
wastewater and construction of a headworks building which accounts for
approximately 12.7% of the contract amount. Therefore, 87.3% of the
contract amount attributable to Anheuser-Busch construction will be funded
from the supplemental user fees and the base formula calculation. The
remaining 12.7% will be funded from the Sewer Capital Improvements fund.
The funds for this project are budgeted and available."
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-227.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he felt uncomfortable extending sole source
contracts.
Interim City Manager Shannon explained that this was a rare occurrence and
that this type of project could be better highlighted in the future.
Councilmember Stoner asked if all phases of a project could be bid at the
same time, with only one phase being awarded.
Interim City Manager Shannon expressed concern that exact bids might be
hard to get on phases after the design phase.
Water & Sewer Director Mike Smith explained that each phase of a project is
affected by the previous phase, making exact bidding difficult.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if these are public improvements and if proper
procedures are being followed.
Mike Smith replied that Anheuser-Busch is dealing with the City who is in
turn working with Black & Veatch.
Councilmember Clarke expressed his concerns with sole source services, but
indicated he supported this Resolution in the interest of continuity on
this project.
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt' Resolution 85-227 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, Ohlson, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-124-
December 17, 1985
Resolution Authorizing the Purchase
of Land Located at 906 West Vine
and 904 West Vine, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
At the November 26, 1985 work session staff presented a proposed Master
Plan for the expansion of the Wood Street Service Center. The first phase
was to purchase two parcels of land immediately west of the existing site.
Since the meeting, staff returned to the owners of 906 West Vine for
further negotiations, and they have agreed to lower their price from the
original $225,000 figure. Based upon this new offer, staff is recommending
the acquisition of 904 West Vine for $173,500 and 906 West Vine for
$215,000. These monies are available from the Utilities' funds.
Background
A space study conducted by Architecture Plus and the City staff illustrated
the need for additional land in order to handle the 10 year space needs of
Light and Power, Water and Sewer, and Transportation Services. This
information was presented at the November 26th work session in a proposed
Master Plan for expansion of the Wood Street Service Center. Council
expressed an interest in further discussion of the first phase of the
Master Plan, which would involve the purchase of land in the immediate
area.
Two parcels of land are currently available for purchase -- 904 West Vine
for $173,500 and 906 West Vine for $215,000. Monies for purchase would be
made available from the Light and Power and Water and Wastewater funds.
Staff recommends these purchases for the following reasons:
- Reviews by City staff and local appraisers show the negotiated
prices are.equivalent to value of the properties.
- The buildings at 906`'West Vine can be put to immediate use for
crew space and vehicle storage.
- The properties are both zoned Industrial and future City use
would be compatible with existing use.
Any agreements would be contingent upon resolving the ownership and tenant
interests on both properties. Council would not be authorizing the Master
Plan, only the purchase of these two properties."
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Resolution 85-228.
C
-125-
December 17, 1985
j Councilmember Ohlson asked why we are looking at buying land with existing
buildings to store equipment rather than erecting buildings on the land
where the equipment is currently parked.
Interim City Manager Shannon replied that purchasing this land will address
both short and long term needs by moving the equipment so that an addition
can be built on the existing service center.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, questioned the wisdom of purchasing
land to store vehicles and suggested the City contract out and reduce the
number of vehicles the City has to store.
Councilmember Estrada asked if appraisals were done on this property.
Land Acquisition Agent Ron Mills replied that staff formulated some
estimates and then reviewed them with two local appraisers.
Mayor Rutstein requested information on how condemnation proceedings are
used to obtain property.
Ron Mills replied that negotiations must be made in good faith before
eminent domain proceedings are pursued.
Councilmember Horak felt that expansion should occur in the south part of
the city and that short and long term space needs can be handled by leasing
space.
Councilmember Stoner suggested we purchase this property now at a lower
price rather than wait until later when the price might be considerably
higher.
Councilmember Estrada agreed with Councilmember Horak and suggested staff
explore other avenues to meet space needs.
Councilmember Knezovich asked if the sellers had placed a deadline for the
completion of this sale.
Land Acquisition.Agent Ron Mills replied they had not, but that the sellers
could, of course, withdraw their offers at any time.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he could not support this Resolution and agreed
that space needs could be met other ways.
Councilmember Clarke felt the City should buy this property while it is
available at a good price, rather than;be in a position to try to obtain it
later when the conditions migfif'make it more difficult.
Councilmember Horak added that he felt 'this was not a good site because of
its location in a residential area and the floodplain.
-126-
December 17, 1985
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Resolution 85-228 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Knezovich, Rutstein, and Stoner.
Nays: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, and Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Authorizing Sale of the
Drake Crossing Substation, a
3.86 Acre Parcel Located Near Drake
and Taft Hill Road, Denied
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A resolution authorizing the sale of a 3.86 acre substation site was tabled
to this date at the December 3, 1985, Council Meeting. Council directed
staff to investigate the potential for annexing the land prior to selling
the property. Based on staff's investigation it is now proposed that
Council disapprove the Contract for Sale and Purchase as submitted by Drake
Crossing Ltd. Partnership. (The bid and contract submitted by Drake
Crossing Ltd. Partnership are contingent upon City Council's acceptance.)
If the sale to Drake Crossing is denied, the Light and Power Utility will ,
proceed with annexation prior to offering the parcel for sale. The parcel
currently meets all contiguity requirements for annexation.
Background
- The 3.86 acre site was purchased in 1982 for $64,680. The Light and
Power Utility intended to construct a substation in this location. (The
site is not within the city limits but meets requirements for
annexation.)
- In May 1985, as a result of a comprehensive computerized long range
planning model;, it was determined that this site would not be required.
The methods and results of the study are fully described in the Long
Range Plan for the Fort Collins Electric System.
- The site was offered to all other City departments. During this
process, the need for both a Parks and Recreation trail easement, and
additional Drake Road rights -of -way were accommodated.
- Jerry Moore, MAI, appraised this site at $104,000 in July of 1985. The
appraisal acknowledged that the site was in the Urban Growth Area and
would likely require annexation prior to development. Potential uses
were listed as single and multi -family residents with possibility of
some commercial. His appraisal, however, did not adjust for the Spring
Creek trail easement along the east side of the site.
-127-
December 17, 1985
In August, all property owners within 150 feet of the site were notified
that the parcel was for sale at the appraised value. (This is a
practice that has been utilized in the past.) The previous owner and
one other property owner expressed the desire to purchase this site.
- The Purchasing Department sent bid packages to the two interested
property owners. One bid was returned. Drake Crossing Ltd. Partnership
submitted a bid of $110,250. The sale, however, is contingent upon City
Council's approval.
- A resolution authorizing the sale to Drake Crossing Limited was tabled
at the December 3, 1985 Council Meeting. Staff was directed to
investigate the potential of annexing the site prior to selling it.
- The Planning Department has since reported that the site meets
eligibility requirements with contiguity to the north. The potential of
business zoning for the site is questionable, however, the Planning
Department is revising commercial zoning guidelines at this time and
will present the revision to Council in approximately three months. The
Planning Department has requested that the Utility delay an annexation
petition until these guidelines are finalized. This delay will avoid
any appearance of conflict of interest .in establishing zoning in
conjunction with the annexation prior to the sale. In accordance with
Planning's request, the Electric Utility would propose to petition for
annexation following the establishment of the revised guidelines. A
memo from the Planning Department on these issues is attached.
- Staff now recommends that Council disapprove the Agreement for Sale and
Purchase with Drake Crossing Ltd., Partnership, in order to allow the
site to be annexed before it is sold. following annexation, the site
would be reappraised, advertised for sale, and rebid. It is also
proposed that this bid be open to any interested party and not
restricted to adjacent property owners, allowing the City to collect a
better sale price. A risk of this proposal is that if commercial/
business zoning is denied, the reappraisal may be less than the current
appraisal due: to the inclusion of the 20,000 square foot trail
easement."
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-224.
Interim City Manager Shannon summarized the history of this piece of
property, explained why the City wishes to sell it, and why the City now
wants to delay selling the property.
Councilmember Knezovich asked' if Council would determine the zoning at the
time of annexation.
City Attorney Huisjen replied that it would be zoned with the underlying
conditions of a PUD as set out in the',Land Development Guidance System.
-128-
December 17, 1985
Councilmember Horak expressed concerns about the legality of this action.
Councilmember Knezovich urged defeat of the Resolution and felt the City
should sell this property at a later date and perhaps make more money on
it.
The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's motion to adopt Resolution 85-224 was
as follows: Yeas: None. Nays: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Appeal of Zoning Board of Appeals
Decision (ZBA k1672) Regarding the
Zoning Ordinance Definition of
"Family", ZBA Decision Sustained
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summa
On Thursday, November 14, 1985, the Zoning Board of Appeals was asked by
petitioner Bill Beardslee, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Alden
Haswell, to determine whether two related people and two unrelated people
living with them constitute a family under the definition set forth in
Section 118-11 of the Zoning Code. He also asked for confirmation that four
totally unrelated individuals would not constitute a family, and therefore
would not be allowed to live together under the Code. After due
consideration the Board, by a vote of 4-1, agreed with staff's
interpretation that two related people and two unrelated people living with
them does not constitute a legal family, and that four totally unrelated
individuals living together also does not constitute a legal family. Mr.
Beardslee has appealed the ZBA decision to City Council on behalf of Mr.
and Mrs. Haswell.
Background
In May, 1985 the City Zoning office received a formal complaint from
several neighbors of the property at 1940 Larkspur. The complaint alleged
that more than three unrelated people were living together in the house at
the above address. An investigation into the matter revealed that the
owner's two -sons were living in the house along with two other individuals.
The Zoning Code allows only one family to live in a dwelling unit, and the
above living situation has always been interpreted as not being one family.
A family is defined in Section 118-11 of the City Code as "an individual or
two (2) or more persons related by blood or marriage or an unrelated group
of not more than three (3) persons living together in a dwelling unit."
Based on this definition, staff has interpreted most types of situations in
which more than three persons are living together and they are all not
-129-
December 17, 1985
related to each other as not constituting one family. The only exception to
this has been when there are minor children living in a foster home, group
home, or adoption situation. This exception stems from a suggested
interpretation made by former City Attorney Lucia Liley to the ZBA on
August 16, 1978, and which was unanimously adopted by the Board. The key
word in the definition used by staff to arrive at its interpretation is the
word "or". The Code does not say that a family is two or more persons
related by blood or marriage and an unrelated group of not more than three
persons, it says that a family is two or more persons related by blood or
marriage or an unrelated group of not more than three persons.
Also in support of staff's interpretation is an action the City Council
took on April 21, 1981, when they adopted an ordinance change to the home
occupation provisions of the Zoning Code. Prior to this time one of the
permitted home occupations was the renting of rooms to up to four people.
This provision was subject to great abuse in that many times when we
received similar complaints to the one in question here, the tenants would
apply for a home occupation to rent rooms to their roommates. This
resulted in anywhere from five to seven unrelated people living together in
a dwelling unit. It was felt that this was contrary to what the definition
of family allows and was consequently changed to allow the renting of rooms
to up to only two people as long as the home was owner occupied. Under
this current home occupation regulation then, it is perfectly legal to have
two brothers (one family) living in their own home along with two other
unrelated individuals as long as the owner(s) obtain a home occupation
license. The key here is that the home must be owner occupied. This is
not the situation at 1940 Larkspur, and, thus, a violation notice was sent
to Mr. and Mrs. Haswell, the owners of the property.
Subsequent to receiving the violation notice, Mr. Haswell informed us that
only his two sons would be living there during the summer months, so the
violation was resolved. Then, later in the summer Mr. Beardslee applied to
the ZBA for their determination of whether the previous situation of the
two sons and two other roommates constituted a legal family. It is our
understanding that this appeal was made because the property was purchased
on representation from a realtor that it could be used as a rental with no
limitations. The. owner bought the property on that premise and has had
four people living. there and would like to be able to rent it out in much
the same manner again. Staff indicated during the ZBA meeting that Mr. and
Mrs. Haswell could put their sons on the deed, and then they could obtain a
home occupation license which would allow them to have two roommates, the
same situation which existed when the complaint was filed. Mr. Beardslee
felt that this was not necessary since the two brothers, being related to
each other,. resulted in a situation where there were not more than three
unrelated relationships, and therefore there was nothing illegal about the
previous living situation.
In his appeal to the ZBA, Mr. Beardsleel also asked for confirmation that
four totally unrelated individuals cannot live together under the Code.
. The ZBA did confirm this in their motion, however, Mr. Beardslee has also
asked Council to confirm this in his letter of appeal.
-130-
December 17, 1985
Council is being furnished with a copy of the minutes of the ZBA meeting on
this matter, copies of the August 16, 1978 ZBA meeting, a petition from the
adjacent property owners, and all other materials presented to the ZBA at
its November 14, 1985 meeting."
Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes explained that the petitioner, Bill
Beardslee, asked the Zoning Board of Appeals in November to determine
whether two related people and two unrelated people living in the same
household constituted a family. The ZBA agreed with staff's opinion that
it did not, and Mr. Beardslee is appealing the ZBA decision. Mr. Beardslee
is also seeking confirmation from Council that four totally unrelated
people do not constitute a family.
Mayor Rutstein asked if Council is required to take any action on the
portion dealing with four unrelated people.
City Attorney Huisjen replied that the required Council action is to uphold
or overturn the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals by motion.
William Beardslee, 1329 Parkwood Circle, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs.
Alden Haswell, urged Council to reassess the Code relating to the
definition of "family" and pointed out that the circumstances in this
particular situation left the matter open to interpretation.
Councilmember Clarke offered his recollection of the circumstances
surrounding this issue and summarized the process the Zoning Board of
Appeals used in developing this section of the Code.
City Attorney Huisjen reminded Council that the decision that needs to be
made now is whether the people in this situation constitute a group of four
unrelated people.
Terry Barrett, 1936 Larkspur, representing the adjacent property owners,
explained why the neighborhood filed a complaint with the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
sustain the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Councilmember Clarke stated that given the interpretation of family
currently in effect, this group of people does not qualify to live
together. He added that he would like staff to look at this section of
code to see if it needs to be expanded.
Councilmember Stoner concurred with Councilmember Clarke's interpretation
of the code and stated he felt staff needs to look at revising this section
of the code.
Councilmember Ohlson asked how many inquiries about this type of situation
are received by the Zoning Administrator and what concerns are typically
expressed.
-131-
December 17, 1985
Zoning Administrator Pete Barnes replied that between 100 and 150 inquiries
are made each year and that the two things that usually generate complaints
are parking problems and loud parties.
Councilmember Horak expressed support for the motion, and apologized that
Mr. Beardslee's clients were given incorrect information about this
property's use as a rental property with no restrictions.
The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's motion to sustain the decision of the
Zoning Board of Appeals was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke,
Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Tabling of Resolution Approving the
Stuart Urban Growth Area Boundary
Amendment to Include 80 Acres Located
South of Horsetooth Road and West of
Taft Hill Road. Tabled to February 18
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summar
The Stuart Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment was considered by the City
Council at its December 3rd meeting. After an initial vote of denial (4-3)
and at the request of Councilmember Knezovich who wanted to clarify his
vote, Council voted 4-3 to reconsider the item. Upon reconsideration,
Council voted 6-1 to table the item to the regular meeting of December
17th. Staff is now requesting this item be tabled until February 18 for
further review and the applicant concurs.
The applicant, Kimbel J. Stuart, is requesting an amendment to the Fort
Collins Urban Growth Area boundary to include approximately 80 acres
located south of Horsetooth Road (extended) and west of Taft Hill Road.
This area was part of the larger Foothills Area UGA boundary amendment
request reviewed and denied by the City Council on November 5, 1985. The
attached resolution for approval of this request includes the 1.5 units per
acre density limitation condition suggested by the City Council at their
October 8, 1985, work session.
Background
This parcel' of land was included in the overall Foothills Urban Growth Area
boundary amendment request but the applicant, Kimbel J. Stuart, also has
applied separately for a UGA boundary change. The applicant wished to have
the opportunity to proceed independently, feeling there were uniquely
different qualities in regards to this property when compared with other
properties contained in the larger UGA boundary request.
-132-
December 17, 1985
Staff had recommended approval of the overall Foothills Urban Growth Area
boundary change, of which this property was a part (located in the northern
half of Area 5 on the attached map labeled MAP I). The reasons for staff
support of this boundary change were the same as those outlined in detail
in the combined County/City planning staff report on the Foothills Area
change. These reasons are summarized as follows:
1. The UGA boundary amendment for the area is supported by the Larimer
County and City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plans.
2. The City will be the agency primarily responsible for providing utility
service to the area and should have final decision authority concerning
land use decisions.
3. The UGA boundary change will provide for better utilization of the land
and public utilities.
The boundary change will not compromise the open space goals of the
community and the foothills will remain in their natural state as an
aesthetic backdrop to the City of Fort Collins.
In addition to the reasons listed above, the Stuart property was included
in an area identified in the Larimer County Planning Department's
'Foothills Study' as having urban growth area potential. The 'Foothills
Study states:
"The area south of Horsetooth Road extended and north of County Road
38E, footnoted for Urban Growth Area potential on Map 1 (of the
'Foothills Study' attached), has been identified as suitable for
single-family residential land use at a density of 4 units/acre.
Development at this density is not allowed outside the Urban Growth
Area, according to the Intergovernmental Agreement between Larimer
County and the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this notation in
the Land Use Plan is to indicate potential use if and when the area is
included in the Urban Growth Area."
The lack of adequate public utilities was the major reason in 1982 for
limiting the change of designations in the Larimer County LAND USE PLAN for
this area, and the foothills area, to the Rural Non -Farm Classification
instead of approving an urban classification. Thus, the area is presently
classified as Rural Non -Farm, which allows development at a density of 1
unit per .5 acres, or 1 unit per 2.29 acres in a County planned unit
development.
Since 1982, major utility improvements have been made and the area is now
serviceable with public utilities. City water utility service is limited
to portions of the Stuart property below the 5200 foot contour elevation
(see attached map). The Loveland -Ft. Collins Water District, however, can
provide water service to the entire property. The City and the District
presently have an agreement outlining utility servi'ce areas for each
agency. The agreement also states the agency which J s better suited to
-133-
December 17, 1985
provide utilities to a specific site should provide the service. The
Stuart property, being north of County Road 38E and Harmony Road, is
presently within the City's service area. However, the District may be in
a better position to provide water service to the property because of
existing 18" major water transmission main adjacent to the property. In
order for the District to provide service to the Stuart property, the
service extension would have to be approved by the existing Steering
Committee made up of Water District representatives and members of the City
Council.
The Stuart property has also been approved for an urban growth area
boundary amendment by the City in the past. On July 26, 1982, the Fort
Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval to the City Council
of the Stuart/Nix Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment (Case No. 38-82A).
The City Council approved the request on August 17, 1982. The request
received a positive 4-3 vote by the County Planning Commission but legally
failed because 5 affirmative votes are necessary for Plan amendments
according to State regulations under which the County operates.
If the Stuart property is added to the urban growth area, it would have to
either annex into the city prior to developing (the property is presently
ineligible for annexation due to the lack of contiguity) or it would have
to address the Phasing Criteria of the UGA Agreement. The Phasing Criteria
include requirements for public utilities and adequate off -site streets.
In order to satisfy the off -site street requirement, either the improvement
of Horsetooth Road (extended) or Overland Trail (extended) would be
required. The applicant has indicated a density higher than 1.5 units an
acre would be required economically in order to satisfy the off -site street
requirement.
The 1.5 units per acre density limitation is in conflict with the Absolute
Criteria on residential development contained in the Land Development
Guidance System which requires projects to have an average residential
density of at least 3 dwelling units per acre. If the Stuart property were
to be annexed and zoned with a 1.5 units per acre density condition,
together with a.: condition requiring that development of the property
proceed as a planned unit development under the LOGS, the new zoning
ordinance could be inconsistent with the City's planned unit development
ordinance. This inconsistency could be resolved either by requiring the
parcel instead to be developed only by traditional zoning or by amending
the LOGS so as to allow for lower densities in certain designated areas,
such as this parcel.
The technical repo rt,aInd evaluation prepared by the planning staffs of the
County and City indicate the'area is suitable for urban uses and should be
added into the urban growth area. Staff, however, is recommending denial of
the Stuart UGA boundary amendment request. Staff feels the City Council
firmly established City policy in regards to this property when they denied
the Foothills UGA Boundary Amendment request on November 5, 1985. Council's
decision reaffirms that the property should not be urbanized and the
-134-
December 17, 1985
present rural Non -Farm classification for the area is in conformance with
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Stuart Urban Growth
Area Boundary Change request on July 24, 1985, and voted 4-1 to recommend
approval of the request to the City Council. A copy of the Board's minutes
is attached."
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-210.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
table Resolution 85-210 to February 18. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke,
Horak, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada and
Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Making Appointments to the
Building Contractors Licensing Board
and the CHOICE Advisory Committee, Adopt
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item"
"Vacancies currently exist on the Building Contractors Licensing Board and
the CHOICE Advisory Committee due to the resignations of Gary Furlong and
Sharon Campbell. The individual Council liaisons have reviewed the
applications on file and are recommending the following as prospective
appointees:
Building Contractors Licensing Board - Thomas Bullard, reg.
William Schmidt, alt.
CHOICE Advisory Committee - Micki McMillan
In keeping with.;.Council's policy, this Resolution will be tabled until
January 7 for public input."
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-229 inserting the names of Thomas Bullard for the
regular position and William Schmidt for the alternate position on the
Building .Contractors Licensing Board, and Micki McMillan for the Choice
Advisory Committee. .
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded.by Councilmember Stoner, to
table Resolution 85-229 to January 7. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke,
Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson; Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-135-
December 17, 1985
Jim Woodward, 400 South Grant, asked that applications be included in the
agenda packet for public inspection.
Resolution Appointing a Council
Sub -committee on Legislative
Lobbying, Adopted as Amended
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"This resolution appoints three members of the Council as the Subcommittee
on Legislative Lobbying. The purpose of the subcommittee is to keep the
Council informed on issues facing the Legislature and the Congress that
might have some effect on the citizen's of Fort Collins. They would report
to Council periodically and be responsible for corresponding with state and
federal representatives regarding the Council's position on upcoming
legislation. The names of Councilmembers Knezovich and Estrada have been
included in the list of subcommittee members because of their current
participation in Colorado Municipal League activities. The name of a third
Councilmember can be added according to the wishes of the Council."
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to
adopt Resolution 85-230 inserting the names of Larry Estrada, John
Knezovich, and Gerry Horak.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, questioned whether these
representatives will cause conflicting lobby positions.
Councilmember Knezovich replied that Councilmembers would be lobbying in
the interest of the City of Fort Collins.
Councilmember Clarke proposed an amendment to the Resolution to include a
clause reading "WHEREAS, Councilmember Gerry Horak has served on many
intergovernmental committees and has shown expertise and knowledge in
matters of state-wide concern."
Councilmember Ohlson accepted that as a friendly amendment.
Councilmember Estrada asked for information on how this committee would
interact with the involvement Verna Lewis has with legislative matters.
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Resolution 85-230 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner.. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.,
-136-
December 17, 1985
Resolutions Accepting the Improvements
and Ordering Notice of Assessment for Street
Improvement District #76 and the Boardwalk
Special Improvement District #77, Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Resolution Accepting Improvements in the Street Improvement District
No. 76.
B. Resolution Accepting Improvements in the Boardwalk Special Improvement
District No. 77.
These Resolutions relate to two older Special Improvement Districts that
are now ready to be accepted and assessed. District #76 is an involuntary
district and District #77 contains some of the elements of our current,
voluntary, developer type districts.
District #76 extends along West Horsetooth Road from College Avenue
westward to the new Mercer Canal. Boardwalk Special Improvement District
extends from College Avenue southeastward to Harmony Road along Boardwalk
and from Boardwalk northward along Landings Drive until it joins existing
pavement.
Background
Street Improvement District #76 was created in March 1982 and was an
involuntary district. By involuntary, we mean the City of Fort Collins
initiated the district and it was not petitioned for formation by the
adjacent and affected property owners. The purpose of the district was to
widen and improve West Horsetooth Road from College Avenue to the New
Mercer Canal. The estimated cost at the time of formation was $1,048,257
with the assessable portion being $57,432, the balance was provided from
City funds. The actual assessment will total $51,656. The improvements
included street:; lighting, curb, gutters, sidewalks, storm drainage
improvements and local street improvements.
The Boardwalk Special Improvement District was established in September
1982 as a voluntary special improvement district by petitions from the
adjacent and affected property owners. The Boardwalk Special Improvement
District contains some of the waivers:and other elements of our current,
developer type district incl,Puding street" oversizing credits and assumption
of non -participating property owners cost. The various waivers and
assumptions of costs through' assessments were contained in an agreement
between the City and the property owners. Improvements in this District
include electrical, water and sewer lines, storm drainage improvements,
streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters.
Enclosed for both districts are the Resolutions accepting•t'he improvements,
adopting the statement of costs of the improvements and ordering a notice
=137-
December 17, 1985
be given to the affected property owners; the Statement of Cost of the
Director of Finance, and the City Engineer's Certificate of the Completion
of the Improvements.
We plan to bring the Assessment Ordinances to the City Council at the
meeting of January 21, 1986 after all notice requirements have been met.
With these Resolutions we will have accepted the improvements and given
notice of the upcoming assessment on three of the six districts that are
completed. The remaining three districts, the Lemay/Harmony Special
Improvement District #78, the Fairbrooke Special Improvement District #79
and the Heart Special Improvement District #84 remain. The Finance
Department has compiled the final costs for each of these districts and we
are currently working with the developers in the preparation of the
assessment rolls. Additionally, for the Heart Special Improvement District
we are working on the bond ordinance relative to the district, as we are
buying completed improvements instead of frontending the construction with
Special Assessment Bonds."
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 85-231 (SID #76). Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson to
adopt Resolution 85-231 (SID #77).
. Councilmember Ohlson asked if there was the potential for the City to put
in curb, gutter, streets, lighting improvements, etc., and then have
development not occur, thereby putting the City in a position to maintain
streets earlier than if the development had occurred gradually.
Finance Director Jim Harmon stated there was always that potential, but
steps are taken to minimize that possibility. Safeguards are also built
into the agreement to help protect the City.
The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Resolution 85-232 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Amending'Chapter'84'•of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins
Relating to Peace and Good Order,
Adopted as Amended on Second Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
-138-
December 17, 1985
"This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 3 and
makes a number of changes to Chapter 84 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins, "Peace and Good Order." The changes are intended to update the
criminal provisions of the Code, add certain offenses such as petty theft
(including shoplifting), assault, sale or use of disguised weapons and
failure to appear, cure certain jurisdictional problems and delete
unnecessary or unconstitutional provisions."
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 148, 1985 as amended on Second Reading.
Neil Smith, 736 Eastdale Drive, expressed concern regarding how this
Ordinance affects 2nd amendment rights.
Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, asked Council to table this Ordinance
to allow for further citizen review and input.
Police Chief Bruce Glasscock explained the reasons for the proposed
legislation regarding disguised weapons and stated staff will be doing
additional research on the matter.
Councilmember Horak questioned whether this type of ordinance has been
tried anywhere else in Colorado and whether staff was aware this was a
controversial issue.
Chief Glasscock replied that he was not aware of an ordinance of this
nature in other Colorado cities.
Councilmember Knezovich requested staff do some follow-up research on the
Ordinance.
Terry Foppe, 626 Whedbee, expressed concern with the section that requires
a citizen to assist an officer when so requested by the officer.
Kathy Smith, 736 Eastdale Drive, pointed out that demanding that a citizen
cooperate with a:. police officer is a violation of the 13th amendment and
constitutes involuntary servitude.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to
table Ordinance No., 148, 1985' on Second Reading to January 7. Yeas:
Councilmembers Horak and Ohlson. Nays: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada,
Knezovich, Rutstein, and Stoner.
THE MOTION FAILED.
The vote:on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 148, 1985
as amended on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke,
Estrada, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember
Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-139-
December 17, 1985
Ordinances Relating to the Salaries
of the City Attorney and Municipal
Judge, Item A Adopted on Second Reading
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: (Secretary's Note: Item
B was approved under the Consent Calendar portion of the meeting.)
"A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 1985, Fixing the Salary of the
City Attorney.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 1985, Fixing the Salary of the
Municipal Judge.
City Council has met in Executive Session to perform the annual evaluations
of the City Attorney and Municipal Judge. These two ordinances were
adopted on First Reading on December 3 and will establish the 1986 salaries
for the City Attorney at $54,000 and for the Municipal Judge at $47,483 per
annum."
Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 153, 1985 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Clarke, Estrada, Knezovich, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers
Horak and Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Amending the Code
of the City of Fort Collins
Regarding Massage Parlors, Denied
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summar
On August 6, 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 71, 1985,
amending the City's Massage Parlor Code by deletion of many of the
provisions of the original code. The purpose of that amendment was to
streamline the City's obligations with regard to the State Massage Parlor
Statute thereby simplifying the job of the Liquor Licensing Authority when
it is functioning as the City's Massage Licensing Authority. One of the
provisions of the City's original Massage Parlor Code that was not amended
is Section 73-143(D) which provides that parties -in -interest shall have the
power to appeal decisions of the Authority -to the City Council. Inasmuch as
decisions of the Liquor Licensing,Authority, pursuant to State law, are not
appealable to the City Council, it`,'is recommended that the decisions of the
Massage Licensing Authority shouldtbe treated similarly.
-140-
December 17, 1985
Background
The State Liquor Law provides that any review of a local licensing .
authority decision shall be accomplished by the District Court. Although
the State Massage Parlor Statute is not explicit with regard to the
appellate process, it does provide in C.R.S. §12-48.5-104 and 115, that the
local licensing authority has authority to refuse to issue or renew any
license for good cause, subject to judicial review.
Since reference is made in the State Massage Parlor Statute to "judicial"
review, the implication is that the appropriate forum for appeals of the
Massage Licensing Authority is the District Court. For the foregoing
reasons, it is recommended that Section 73-143(D) be repealed and that the
balance of said section be renumbered accordingly. The attached ordinance
would accomplish this purpose."
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 157, 1985 on First Reading.
Councilmember Stoner asked the City Attorney to explain what "judicial"
review means.
City Attorney Huisjen replied that it means appeals would be taken through
the court system.
Councilmember Stoner asked what would happen if Council defeated this
Ordinance.
City Attorney Huisjen replied that appeals would be heard by the Council,
but added that it would cause a major inconsistency since State Statutes
and Chapter 3A of the Code do not provide for Council to hear these
appeals.
Councilmember Knezovich stated he could not support this Ordinance because
he felt it was bad legislation in the first place.
The vote on Councilmember Ohlson's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 157, 1985
on First Reading --was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada,
and Rutstein. Nays: Councilmembers Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Stoner.
THE MOTION FAILED.
City Manager's Report
Interim City Manager Shannon reported on the success of the Parking Ticket
Amnesty Program.
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Knezovich mentioned a newspaper article regarding property
assessments and clarified how reassessment works. He reported on a session
-141-
December 17, 1985
he attended in Seattle and asked staff to investigate having entities who
are not paying taxes pay for fire protection.
Councilmember Horak commented on two items that were on the Consent
Calendar dealing with the donation of open space land to the City.
Mayor Rutstein spoke about a recent visit to Portland and how they deal
with single occupancy rooms.
Adjournment
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
ATTEST:
My Llerk
-142-