HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/20/1980-RegularMay 20, 1980
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
i
Regular Meeting 5:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Tuesday, May 20, 1980, 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: Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth.
Absent: None
Staff Members Present: Arnold, Liley, Lanspery, Krajicek, C. Smith, Mabry,
Harmon, O'Neill, Krempel, Deagle, and Ruggiero.
Agenda Review: City Manager
' City Manager Arnold pointed out that Item #45, R-H Conversion at 415-431
West Mulberry, had undergone significant changes that would alter the staff
recommendation.
Councilman Wilmarth asked that Item #18, Approval of Two Contracts for
Professional Services for the Performance.of Storm Drainage Basin Studies,
and Item #24, Award of Contract for Construction Surveillance for all
Street Reconstruction and Overlay Projects in the City's Street.Rehabilita-
tion Program, be removed 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.
4. Consider
5. Second Readi
Mons in r i
oval
n of Ord i
Hance
Minutes of
ce No. 52
ppecial Meeting of April 22
aFi—y 13, 199T.
Amending the Legal Descrip
ner nnezatton.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 29th
and sets out the correct legal description "for the "RP" zone for the
Werner Annexation.
138
May 20, 1980
0
7
A
0
10
11
Second Readin o�f Ordinance No. 53, 1980, Relating to the City Elec-
tric��iTity awn ateor Service.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 29th
and will collect a 10% increase in electric revenues from each cus-
tomer class. It would be effective May 30 with first billing on
July 1.
Second Readin of Ordinance No. 54, 1980, Changing the Zoning Classi-
fication for ertain roperty known as the flothmeier Rezoninq.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 29th
and would rezone approximately 28 acres located on Timberline Road and
East Prospect Road from H-B to I-P.
Second Readin
of Ordinance No.
55, 1980,
Chan in the Zonin
Classi-
fication for
ertain roperty
known as
t e rospect emay
ezoninq.
This Ordinance
passed favorably
on First
Reading on April 29th by a.
6-1 vote and would rezone 5.1 acres to B-P and 6.7 acres to
R-H from
the R-P zone,
located at the southeast
corner of Prospect
Road and
Lemay Avenue.
Second Readin
of Ordinance No.
56, 1980,
Chan in the Zonin
Classi-
1
fication or
ertain roperty
nown as
t e Genic sews
ezonina.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 29th
and would rezone 22 acres located east of Overland Trail and north of
West Elizabeth Street from R-L to Conditional R-P.
Second Rea din of Ordinance No. 57, 1980, Chan in the Zonin Classi-
ication_ or ertain roperty nown as a oar wa ezoninq.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 29th
and would rezone 13 acres located at Boardwalk Drive and Whalers Way
from R-L-P to B-P.
ing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 59, 1980, Relating to
The City of Fort Collins currently has no .special provision in the
Code for handicapped persons. This Ordinance would allow handicapped
persons limited parking privileges while, at the same time, enable the
State of Colorado to maintain administrative duties, such as the
issuance of identifying placards: The Ordinance has been modified so
as to conform to the most recent legislation in this area.
139
May 20, 1980
12.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.
60, 1980, Relating
to
>foor o oor a es.
This Ordinance provides that solicitation for
the sale or purchase
of
goods is prohibited.
13.
Hearin and First Re�adin� of Ordinance No.
61, 1980, Relating
to
egis ra ion equiremee s for E el ctricians an
ec rica onT Cac�ors.
This Ordinance changes the basis of the annual registration fee
for
electrical contractors and brings the City's
registration fee
into
compliance with state law and a district court
decision. 1
14.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.
62, 1980, Relating
to
Overof Payments on SpecialImprovement istricts.
This Ordinance revises the established income
level for families in
order to be considered eligible for a deferment
of an assessment
on a
local improvement district.
15.
Heaarin9 _a_n_d First Read_in9 of Ordinance No.
63, 1980, Amending
the
egt�a 6escript15 Tn2E 5 e %Ordinance o.
, 1980,Z 9 row
Known as the West Mountain Second e�inq.
This routine Ordinance will correct the legal description for the West
Mountain Second Rezoning as adopted by Ordinance No. 5, 1980 on
February 5th.
16. Resolution Accepting the Improvements in. Street Improvement District
No. 72 and Ordering Notice to be Pub fished of the Assessments to be
Made —inthe District.
The work on Street Improvement District No. 72, (including street
construction on Drake Road from Stover Street to Lemay Avenue, and on
Lemay Avenue from Drake Road to Boltz Drive) has been completed) and
the cost of the improvements is ready to be assessed to the owners of
the property within the district.
17. Resolution Expressing Support for House Resolution 4509.
National associations have requested us to ask Council: to pass a
Resolution in support of House Resolution 4509 which would .amend the
Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 523) so as to require the Environmental
Protection Agency to employ cost -benefit analysis and eliminate) the
Agency's power to impose treatment technique requirements except as
provided for in the Act.
140
May 20, 1980
18. Approval of Two Contracts for Professional Services for the Per -
These two contracts would provide professional services for the
performance of storm drainage basin studies on the West Vine Basin
and the McClellands and Mail Creek Basins.
19. Sole Source - Automatic Nozzle System for Emergency One Pumper.
This authorization would allow the purchase of a Fire Research auto-
matic nozzle system to be used on the Emergency One Pumper, purchased
in 1979 for use at Station 4.
20. Shryack Out -of -City Sewer Request.
This is a request for out -of -city sewer service to one single family
residence, located at 1901 Hull Street.
21. Routine Deeds and Easements
A. Easement agreement with Chism Homes, Inc. for a 20' by 2351'
easement for the South Shields Street Waterline project. This
easement parallels Shields Street between Horsetooth and Harmony
Road. Construction along this section is scheduled for July and
August. Consideration: $1.00.
B. Easement agreement with Fort Collins Baptist Temple for a 20' by
312' easement for the South Shields Street Waterline project.
This easement parallels Shields Street between Horsetooth and
Harmony Road. Construction is scheduled for July and August. The
consideration for this easement is $468.00 ($1.50 per linear
foot).
22. Approval of Chaffee Ditch Agreement.
This agreement would transfer all rights of the ditch.and its water to
the City of Fort Collins in consideration of water certificates.
23. Hearing and First Rea
quirements on ur'c aassin
f Ordinance No. 64, 1980, Relating to Re -
This Ordinance will set the dollar amount above which all contracts,
purchases or sales must be competitively bid.and determine the amount
above which City improvements must be authorized by contract.
141
May 20, 1980
24. Award of Contract for Construction Surveillance for all Street Recon-
struction and overlay Projects in the t v s Street Rphahilitafinn
This contract will provide for construction surveillance for the
Street Rehabilitation Program for this summer.
25. Boardwalk Commercial Area, Preliminary P.U.D.
This is a request for preliminary approval of the amendment to the
Boardwalk P.U.D., located on the northeast corner of the intersection
of Boardwalk Drive and Whalers Way.
26. Overland Trail Farm Preliminary P.U.D.
This is a request for preliminary P.U.D. plat approval for 23.71
acres, located immediately east of Overland Trail, generally north of
Lake Street and south of Elizabeth Street.
27. Park Central Preliminary P.U.D.
This is a request for preliminary P.U.D. approval for 18.46 acres,
' located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Lemay Avenue
and Prospect Road, bounded on the east by Welch Street and on the
south by Spring Creek.
E N D C 0 N S E N T
1
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title '!by Deputy City Clerk Wanda
Krajicek.
Item #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 1980, Amendinq the Leqal
Descriptions in Ordinance o. Zoning the erner nnexa-
ton.
Item #6 Second Readin of Ordinance No. 53,'1980, Relating to the City
ectric t17 ty an Rates for Service.
Item #7 Second Readin of Ordinance No. 54, 1980, Chan in the Zonin
assi tcatton or ertain roper sown as t e RothmeierRe-
zon mq .
Item #8 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 55 11980 Changin
Classification for Certain Property known as the Pr
eezzoninq.
142
May 20, 1980
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Wanda
Krajicek:
Item #11. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 59, 1980, Relating to
Item
#12.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordin_a_n_c_e_ No..
60, 1980, Relating
to
>Soor o enda S.
Item
#13.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.
61, 1980, Relatin
to
el�g istration fFequirements for Eiectricians an�E�ic
tractors.
Item
#14.
Hearin and First Read in of Ordinance No.
62, 1980, Relatingto
Deferra of Payments on pecia mprovement
Districts.
Item
#15.
Hearin and First Read in of Ordinance No.
63, 1980, Amendingthe
Le a escription nc ude in Ordinance
No. 5j 1980, Zoning
Property Known as the West Mountain Second
Rezoning.
Item
#23.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.
64, 1980, Relating
to
Councilman
1Fequirements on urn c asasing.
St. Croix made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson,
to
adopt
and
approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers
Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St.
Croix, and Wilmarth.
Nays:
None.
THE MOTION
CARRIED.
Approval of ,Two Contracts for Professional
Services for the Performance of'Storm
Drainage Basin Studies
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The West Vine Basin is a natural watershed; ,the principal drainageway
traverses in an easterly direction from Horsetooth Reservoir to the Cache
la Poudre in the vicinity of West Vine Drive. The McClellands and Mail
Creek Basins are also natural watersheds; their drainageways traverse in a
southeasterly direction from Taft Hill. Road to Timberline Road (the eastern
boundary of the study area). Both studies consist of analyzing existing
and future flooding problems, formulate alternative plans_ or improvements,
and establish cost estimate for the final recommended plans.
143
May 20, 1980
The consultant selection consisted of (1) reviewing and rati.ng written
proposals submitted by eleven engineering firms; (2) interviewing the four
top -ranked firms for each basin with a technical committee to establish a
final ranking; and (3) negotiating contracts with the top -ranked firms.
Engineering Professonals, Inc. of Fort Collins has been selected for the
West Vine Basin; the contract amount is $36,000.00. Cornell Consulting
Company of Fort Collins has been selected forithe McClellands and Mail
Creek Basins; the contract amount is $23,000.00 These studies are sche-
duled for completion in November of this year."
Councilman Wilmarth requested clarification as to whether these two studies
would be the last of the basin studies and secondly, what the completion
schedule was for these studies and finally whether the results of the
various studies would be comparable and follow in a logical sequence since
they were done by a variety of engineering firms.
City Manager Arnold noted that these two studies are scheduled for comple-
tion in November of 1980 and that we will have pretty much a complete
package at that time.
Public Works Director Roger Krempel stated that all .the storm drainage
' studies were being done in accordance with officially adopted storm drain-
age criteria and are all being done with the same standards. He added that
the studies would be brought to the Council basin by basin with recommend-
ations on the work needed to be done by developers as they work in the
basins. In addition, a storm drainage fee will be calculated for each of
the basins and Council will decide whether to act individually as they are
presented or wait until they're all completed. He recommended acting on
them on an individual basis to avoid the loss of plant investment fees
during the construction period this summer.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, tc
approve the two contracts as outlined. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling,
Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilman Wilmarth.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Rejection of Contract for Construction
Surveillance for all Street Reconstruction
and Overlay. Projects in the City's Street
Rehabilitation Proqram
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"A contract has been negotiated with Centennial Engineering for construc-
tion surveillance for the Street Rehabilitation Program for this summer.
The street repair program includes overlay and major patch work on the
street system, and requires continuous surveillance for the amount of work
projected, to insure that the City receives a quality product.
144
May 20, 1980
Centennial Engineering has the contract for the street sufficiency study,
and has been doing an excellent job for the City on evaluating the streets
for required maintenance. The proposed contract for construction surveil-
lance is a logical second step from the street sufficiency study, based
upon the performance of Centennial Engineering, and the experience and
qualifications of the personnel assigned to the project. The individuals
working on the contract have up to 20 years experience in street construc-
tion, maintenance and evaluation. The hourly rates in the proposed con-
tract are consistent with those of other firms for similar work. The
$70,000 cost is a maximum, and the expense will be calculated on actual
hours expended.
The staff recommends approval of the contract."
Councilmembers expressed concerns relative to the process followed in the
selection of the firm recommended for the construction surveillance con-
tract.
City Manager Arnold noted that Centennial Engineering had been selected for
the street sufficiency study and it was felt that they were therefore the
firm most knowledgeable about the City's streets. Because of the time
schedule and the need to get the program underway, there wasn't time to
solicit proposals and go through the normal interview process. Staff was
confident that Centennial was the best firm.
Councilman St. Croix made a motion that the selection process be tabled
until June 17 so that staff can come back with facts and figures from all
the proposals to support their recommendation.
Councilman Wilkinson suggested it might be better to. reject this proposal
to table the awardina of a contract.
Councilman St. Croix withdrew his motion.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross, to reject
the awarding of the contract and direct the staff to solicit proposals for
the contract and bring back their recommendation by June 17 or sooner if
possible. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix,
Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None. j
THE MOTION CARRIED.
145
May 20, 1980
Ordinance Adopted on.First Reading Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenues from the Sale of Bonds
for Storm Sewer Improvement District No. 17
to the Capital Projects Fund
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"Ordinance No. 34, 1980, adopted on Second Reading April 1, 1980, autho-
rized the City to issue bonds for Storm Sewer Improvement District No. 17
in the amount of Two Hundred Eighty -Six Thousand Dollars ($286,100.00).
This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenue from proceeds from the
sale of bonds for Storm Sewer Improvement District No. 17 to the Capital
Projects Fund for the purpose of clearly identifying Storm Sewer Improve-
ment District No. 17 in the Project Tracking System."
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, to
adopt Ordinance No. 66, 1980, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenues in the General Fund for
Legal Expenses
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The City is incurring unanticipated legal expenses.
Appropriations are available in the Seven Year Capital Fund to transfer to
the General Fund for these unanticipated expenses."
Councilman Kross asked for an estimate of the cost of legal expenses
associated with this litigation (City Hall litigation).
City Attorney Liley responded that $15,000 was estimated for 1980 with a
total of $20,000 to $25,000 for the entire suit.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray to adopt
Ordinance No. 67, 1980, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilman
Kross.
I
THE MOTION CARRIED.
146
May 20, 1980
Resolution Adopted and Ordinance Adopted on
First Reading Relating to the
Horsetooth-Harmony West Annexation
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This is a request to annex the undeveloped areas of Section #34, Horse -
tooth -Harmony West Annexation. Resolution #80-44, April 1, 1980, set the
date for consideration of this annexation request. To consider this
request, the following two actions need to be taken:
(a) Resolution Setting Forth Findings of Facts and Conclusions Regarding
the Horsetooth-Harmony West Annexation.
(b) Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 68, 1980, Annexing Property
known as the Horsetooth-Harmony West Annexation.
Staff and. the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of the Horse -
tooth -Harmony West Annexation (#218-79)."
Chief Planner Curt Smith noted that the legal description on.this Ordinance
needed amending by changing the phrase "the South 1/2 of Section 34 of the
Northeast 1/4" to read, "the South 112 of Section 34 and the Northeast
1/4.'1 —
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves, to amend
Ordinance No. 68, 1980, as outlined. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray,
Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson to adopt
the Resolution setting forth facts and conclusions regarding ,the Horse -
tooth -Harmony West Annexation. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross,
Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth.. Nays: None.
THE MOTION.CARRIED.
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, to
adopt Ordinance No. 68, 1980, as amended, on First Reading. Yeas: Coun-
cilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and!Wil-
marth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
147
May 20, 1980
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Zoning Property Included in the
Horsetooth-Harmony West Annexation
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This is a request to zone the undeveloped areas of Section #34, Horse -
tooth -Harmony West Annexation. Zoning requested for the area is R-L-P, Low
'Density Planned Residential, with the condition for development as P.U.D.
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of the Horse -
tooth -Harmony West Zoning (#218-79A)."
City Attorney Liley noted that the same amendment to the legal description
needed to be made to the zoning Ordinance that was made to the annexation
Ordinance and that a "Section 3" stating "that the property be developed as
Planned Unit Developments as the term P.U.D. is defined in the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Fort Collins," should be added.
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling, to
amend Ordinance No. 69, 1980, as stated by the City Attorney. Yeas:
' Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and
Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling, to
adopt Ordinance No. 69, 1980, as amended, on First Reading. Yeas: Coun-
cilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wil-
marth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Adopted on First.Reading.
Annexing Property Known as the
Cunningham Corners, 3rd Annexation
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item
"This is a request for annexation of a 10 acre parcel located north of
Horsetooth Road. and east of Shields Street. The parcel -.is .completely
surrounded by the City with land -uses being as follows:
W: Cunningham Corners P.U.D. (R-P and H-B)
' E: Foothills Park P.U.D. (R-L-P)
N: Woodwest Subdivision (R-L)
S: Chism P.U.D. (R-L-P)
148
May 20, 1980
Staff recommendation:
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board. recommend approval of the Cunning-
ham Corners, 3rd Annexation "(#25-80)."
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson, to
adopt Ordinance No. 70, 1980, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Zoning Property Included in the
Cunningham Corners, 3rd Annexation
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This is a request to zone a 10 acre parcel located north of Horsetooth
Road and east of Shields Street to R-P, Planned Residential District. The
parcel is completely surrounded by the City with land -uses being as fol-
lows:
W: Cunningham Corners P.U.D. (R-P and H-B)
E: Foothills Park P.U.D. (R-L-P)
N: Woodwest Subdivision (R-L)
S: Chism P.U.D. (R-L-P)
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of the Cunning-
ham Corners, 3rd Annexation zoning to R-P, Planned Residential (#25-80)."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, to
adopt Ordinance No. 71, 1980, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bowling, Gray, Kross, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: Council-
woman Reeves.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager's Report
City Manager Arnold gave Council an update on the progress of the Lemay '
Avenue Extension noting that completion was now set for June.30.
149
May 20, 1980
He then reported that the Land and Water Conservation Grant Fund had been
reduced considerably and that has affected the tennis center at Moore Park
in that that was one of the programs cut.
He next reported on the preparation for potential flood hazard on the Poudre
River.
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilman Bowling reported that he was leaving 'Thursday for an emergency
meeting of the Finance Intergovernmental Relations Steering Committee to
learn what additional funds the Carter administration is considering
withdrawing.
Citizen Participation
a. Resolution commending Curtis Smith for work on Urban Growth Area
Plan.
Mayor Gray read the Resolution and presented a framed copy of the Resolu-
tion to Mr. Smith.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by St. Croix, to adopt the
Resolution as read by Mayor Gray. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray,
Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Robert Rasmussen, 3900 Lynda Lane, appeared to voice his opposition to
the. adoption of the Ordinance annexing the property known as the Horse -
tooth -Harmony West Annexation which appeared earlier on the agenda. He
asked that the developed areas in Section 34 be included in the annexation
instead of being excluded as they are in Ordinance No. 68, 1980. .
Councilmembers suggested that Mr. Rasmussen petition the City to have the
developed areas annexed.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Assessing the Cost of Improvements in
Street Lighting Improvement District No. 5
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
' "This is the hearing date for the assessments for Street Lighting Improve-
ment District No. 5. This district was initiated in November, 1976 through
a petition from some of the property owners on Prospect Road and includes
the area on Prospect Road from Lemay Avenue west to Circle Drive.
150
May 20, 1980
Council should consider any questions and hear any comments relating to
the district from the affected property owners.",
Mrs. Ronald Carpenter, property owner at 1413 Robertson appeared to voice
her opposition to her assessment for this district.
City Attorney Liley noted that this Ordinance needed an amendment on page
six to establish the date of the first installment as "November 1, 1980,"
rather than "May 1, 1976."
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross, to amend
Ordinance No. 72, 1980, as outlined. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray,
Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kross made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves, to adopt
Ordinance No. 72, 1980, as amended, on First Reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED. '
I
1980-1981 Community Development Block Grant
Program Public Hearing and Resolution Approving
the 1980-1981 Community Development Block Grant
Program for the City of Fort Collins
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The following page summarizes the Citizens Steering Committee recommenda-
tions for the 1980-81 Community Development Block Grant program: The
recommendations remain the same as were presented to you at your work
session April 22, 1980. The Citizens Steering Committee held a''public
hearing on these recommendations May 8, 1980, and this hearing satisfies
the federal public hearing requirements.
Staff concurs with the Committee's recommendations, with one exception.
The $10,000 proposal for a rental rehabilitation program by the Housing
Authority probably cannot be accomplished during the program year. Conse-
quently, staff recommends this $10,000 be placed in the contingency, re-
serve.
Margaret Mitchell, Chairperson of the Citizens Steering Committee, will be
available to answer any questions you have regarding their recommendations. '
151
May 20, 1980
' The projects listed below are those that were recommended last year by the
CDBG Citizens Steering Committee. These projects were proposed as "Year
Two" projects of the three year plan and are recommended for approval as
the 1980-81 CDBG Program.
PROPOSED
PROJECT
BUDGET
Housing/Redevelopment Proposals
Housing Rehabilitation
Project Grants and Loans
$175,300
Project Management
50,000
Neighborhood Improvements
50,000
Acquisition and Redevelopment
78,500
Rental Inspection Program
22,000
Handicapped Advisory Committee
40,000
Water and Sewer (Grandview -Frey)
15,000
Downtown Parking and Improvements
75,000
Facade Renovation Seed Money
10,000
$515,800
Other City Proposals
Buckingham Greenbelt
62,000
Andersonville Vest Pocket Park
10,000
72,000
Nonprofit Agency Proposals
'
Neighbor to Neighbor
33,000
Administration
77,600
698,400
In
addition, the Steering Committee recommends
that the balance of the expected funds for
1980-81 be allocated in the following priority:.
1.
Volunteers Clearing House
Building Expansion
10,000
2.
Planned Parenthood Rehab of Office
10,510
3.
Alta Vista Playground
9,500
4.
Andersonville Vest Pocket Park Increase
3,500
5.
City Housing Authority -Rental Rehab Interest
Supplement (10 Units)
10,000
6.
Capital.Improvement Study in Older
Fort Collins
9,000
' 7.
Frey Street Paving
17,388
69,898
8.
Contingency
7,702
Total 1980-81 Program
$776,000
152
May 20, 1980
Staff concurs with the above except the $10,000 noted as "City Housing
Authority - Rental Rehab Interest Supplement". Our recommendation is to
put that $10,000 in Contingency. Those are the only two numbers that would
change."
Councilwoman Reeves withdrew from participation because of her position on
the Board of Neighbor to Neighbor.
Margaret Mitchell, Chairperson of the Citizens Steering Committee, ex-
pressed agreement with placing the $10,000 earmarked for "City Housing
Authority" in "Contingency."
Sue Ellen Alishouse, 1209 Montgomery, Director of Planned Parenthood,
emphasized her group's need for funds.
Councilman Kross made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson, to adopt
the Resolution which includes placing the $10,000 in "Contingency" rather
than "City Housing Authority." Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross,
Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Reprogramming 1977-79 Community
Development Block Grant Funds
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"The following two pages summarize the financial status of uncompleted 1977,
1978, and 1979 Community Development Block Grant projects. This summary
was used by the CDBG Citizens Steering Committee to arrive at their recom-
mendations for reprogramming the unused funds. The summary indicates that
funds from two 1978-79 projects and four 1979-80 projects are available.
The summary also points out implementation of the Parking Commission
recommendations and purchase of the grain elevator site for a parking lot
as having already committed to reprogram $75,000. Therefore, with $108,516
available and $75,000 committed, $33,516 remains for reprogramming.
The Citizens Steering Committee voted to recommend a somewhat different
approach for reprogramming the entire $108,516. Their recommendation is to
reprogram the first $50,000 to a Respite Care Center project (proposal
included), the next $50,000 to Downtown Parking, and any balance to be
shared equally between the two projects. Their recommendation would not
provide sufficient funds for the already approved parking projects.
Additionally, it appears the
approved projects beyond those
of the 1979-80 project titled
available for reprogramming as
Handicapped Advisory
shown as committed.
Handicapped Advisory
indicated on the summary sheets.
Committee might have
If so, then a portion
Committee may not be
153
May 20, 1980
Staff recommendation:
1. Officially approve reprogramming $75,000 to the 1979-80 project titled
Downtown Parking and Improvements.
2. Approve reprogramming the balance to Respite Care Center project.
(Staff will have determined the availability of Handicapped funds by
the time of the Council meeting.)"
Margaret Mitchell, Chairman of the Citizens Steering Committee, stated that
the committee's preference was that the first $50,000 of unspent funds be
allocated to the Respite Care Center and the next amount up to $50,000 go
to Downtown Parking.
Others speaking were:
Mr. Wells, Chairman of the Architectural Barriers Committee
Pat Allen, City Grants Administrator
Dorothy Lasley, Vice -Chairman of the Handicapped Advisory Committee
James Weddell, Association for Retarded Citizens
' Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson, to
reprogram the $75,000 to the Downtown Parking with the balance going to the
Respite Care Center. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Kross, Reeves, St.
Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: Mayor Gray.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Public Hearing to Consider Changes
in Street Improvement District No. 74
and Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Providing for the Issuance.of Bonds to
Pay the Cost of Improvement in Street
Improvement District No. 74
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"City Council has held a public hearing this evening concerning the maximum
interest rate to be charged on assessments and interest during construction
of Street Improvement District No. 74 prior to considering this item.
A staff memo is attached that gives a recommended alternative plus two
other alternatives.
City Council
should
decide
if they wish to accept the recommended alter-
native or one
of the
other
two.
154
May 20, 1980
The Ordinance is written to accommodate the alternatives on Exhibit I or
III by inserting the amount of the bond issue in the ordinance.
If the alternative on Exhibit II is selected, the Ordinance is not required
at this time. Under this alternative, an ordinance authorizing the issu-
ance of bonds would be prepared upon completion of construction in the
District. The alternative on Exhibit II presents legal as well as steward-
ship of public monies problems."
The following persons spoke in opposition to the proposed interest rate and
the assessments on this district.
1. Robert B. Moore, 2305 W. Mulberry, who asked that the following quote
from a pamphlet issued by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank be placed
in record:
"What the Municipal Bond Rate is: As of March 7th it was 8.94%, March
14 - 9.08%, March 21 - 9.20%, March 28 and April 4 - 9.44%, April 11 -
9.07%, Apri118 - 7.89%, April 25 - 8.11%, May 2 7.96%, May 11 -
7.11%."
He noted that there was no reason to consider a 15% rate since rates '
are dropping.
2. Charles Fletcher, 2025 W. Mulberry
3. Tim Dunn, 2115 W. Mulberry
0
4. Kathleen Baltz, 2416 W. Mulberry
5. Dr. Stuart Patterson, 2009 W. Mulberry
6. Ray Pilkington, 2404 W. Mulberry.
City Manager Arnold outlined the amounts of the proposed assessments noting
that the 28 property owners were only being asked to pay for a residential
street (two lanes) with the City as a whole paying the rest. He noted that
it now looks like the interest rate will be no more than 11 112% when the
bonds are issued about July 15. He spoke of the three options presented to
Council and recommended Alternative I, which is for the City to assess the
interest at a 10% rate and for the City as a whole to pay the difference
between 10% and the actual rate over 10%.
Councilman Wilmarth expressed concerns about the size of the individual
assessments and the hardship created by large lots containing modest homes.
City Attorney Liley stated that Council could make adjustments to the
assessments when the assessment ordinance comes back after the improvements.
are installed.
155
May 20, 1980
Councilman Kross indicated that he would vote against any of the alter-
natives presented saying he thought another method of funding street
widenings should be found.
City Attorney Liley asked for an indication of direction from Council as to
which method of financing was preferred to allow staff to fill in the
blanks on Ordinance No. 73, 1980.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, to
approve Alternative I with a 10% interest rate with the City as a whole
paying the difference between 10% and the actual rate over 10%. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth.
Nays: Councilman Kross.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Liley noted that on page 1 of the Ordinance No. 73, 1980, the
second and third paragraphs should be deleted and that on page 2, Section
4, the figures $180,000 be inserted and in Section 5, the number 180 should
be inserted twice. Additionally, she noted that the Resolution would not
' need to be adopted because the interest rate does not need to be increased.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson, to
adopt Ordinance No. 73, 1980, on First Reading making the changes outlined
by City Attorney Liley. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Reeves, St.
Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: Councilman Kross.
n
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Wagon Wheel (Filing No. 3)
Preliminary P.U.D.
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"Applicants are requesting preliminary P.U.D. approval for a 20 acre parcel
consisting of 196 townhouse units, at a gross density of 9.78 DU/AC. The
site was originally platted as an outlot of Wagon Wheel Subdivision First
Filing and was recently rezoned to the R-P zoning district. The property
is located north of Horsetooth Road and West of Shields Street. The
proposed units are clustered in groups of four with covered parking pro-
vided on the ground floor of one of the units. Additional parking is
provided in center islands.
156
May 20, 1980
Land -Use Breakdown:
Gross Area:
Net Area:
Dwelling
Units:
Type
A - 2
Bedrooms
Type
A - 3
Bedrooms
B - 2
Bedrooms
.Type
Type
C - 2
Bedrooms
Type
D - 2
Bedrooms
Total
Residential Density:
Gross:
Net:
Coverage Breakdown:
Buildings
Driveway & Parking
Public R.O.W.
Open Space
Active Recreational
Open Space
Total
Parking:
872,810 sq. ft. 20.037 AC
802,597 sq. ft. 18.425 AC
24
25
49
49
49
TF
9.78 units/acre
10.64 units/acre
153,673 sq. ft. 17.6%
143,470
sq.
ft.
16.4%
70,213
sq.
ft.
8.0%
403,264
sq.
ft.
46.2%
102:190
s
ft.
11.8%
872 T6sq.
t.
100.0%
392 Spaces Provided
The applicant proposes, in conjunction with this P.U.D., to set aside four
lots in the adjacent Wagon Wheel Second Filing as a site for a future day
care center.
Land -Use Breakdown:
Building Coverage
Playground Area
Driveway & Parking
Public Street R.O.W.
Remaining Open Space
Total
Off -Street Parking
5,100
sq.
ft.
18.6%
10,290
sq.
ft.
37.5%
5,242
sq.
ft.
19.1%
-0-
-0-
6,820
sq.
ft.
24.8%
27,452 sq. ft. 100.0%
18 spaces
The applicant has self-imposed the following conditions upon the develop-
ment of the proposed day care center:
157
May 20, 1980
These lots will be made available for sale to a day care operator for a
period of time not to exceed the lesser of the following:
1. Such time as 75% of the 281 lots in Filing No. 2
have been sold.
2. 2 years from the date of final planning commission
approval of this P.U.D.
If the above period of time passes and no day care operator has agreed to
purchase and develop this site, the developer reserves the right to develop
these 4 lots as single-family residential sites.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Wagon Wheel P.U.D., 3rd Filing, and the
proposed day care center without conditions.
At their April 28, 1980, regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board
voted 3-3 on a motion to deny the project. (#203-79A)."
' Chief Planner Curt Smith highlighted the issues surrounding this proposed
P.U.D.
Dave Oyler, Melody Homes, presented slides of a project in Boulder which he
described as "designed very similar" to the project.
Councilmembers expressed concerns about the apparent monotony of design,
the landscaping.plan, the intense use in the area and the elevations shown.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix, to deny
the Wagon Wheel Preliminary P.U.D. plans. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling,,
Gray, Reeves, and St. Croix. Nays: Councilmembers Kross, Wilkinson, and
Wilmarth.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Stonehenge Preliminary
P.U.D. Amendment
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This is a proposal to replat the 5th Filing and a portion of the 6th
Filing of the existing Stonehenge P.U.D., located east of Lemay Avenue and
south of Stuart Street, The Stonehenge P.U.D. was approved at an overall
density of 5.65 DU/AC. The proposed replat involves 59 single family
158
May 20, 1980
platted lots, generally bounded by Lemay Avenue and Welch Street. The
16.51 acre site is zoned R-L and is presently vacant. Surrounding land -
uses area as follows:
N: Stonehenge 4th and 6th Filing - partially developed
S: Parkwood Subdivision
E: Lemay Avenue
W: Stonehenge 1st, 2nd, 3rd, - developed
The following land -use breakdown provides a comparison of the proposed
PUD amendment with existing approved plans:
Area: Gross 16.51 AC
Net 14.79 AC
Amendment
Dwelling Units: 84 single family
Density Gross: 5.08 DU/AC
Net: 5.68
Floor Area: 1800 sq. ft./unit max
Lot Size: 3280 sq. ft
Open Space: 9.98 AC
Existing
59 single family
3.57 DU/AC
3.98
1400 sq. ft. - 2700
sq.ft.
4800 sq.,ft. - 8600
sq.ft.
7.55 AC
Unit types proposed in this replat are detached single family on fee simple
lots. The units are clustered, typically in groups of 6, around a common
courtyard. Garages for each unit are located around the perimeter of the
cluster and are reached by alleys, keeping main entries pedestrian oriented.
Recommendation:
The proposed amendment introduces an innovative approach to single-family
developments, clustering units around common courtyards. The amendment
fulfills the City goal of increasing density in order to more efficiently
utilize vacant land within the City. There is significant neighborhood
opposition to this proposal. Concerns expressed include increases in
traffic, impact upon the school, impact upon the surrounding residences who
bought .with the existing plan in mind, and increased density. Staff has
looked at the concerns and feels the impacts stated will not occur. So
approval is recommended.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommends approval of the preliminary
plan amendment, with the condition that the final be submitted in three
phases, from west to east, and that all finals come back to the Planning
and Zoning Board (#26-80)."
159
May 20, 1980
Reid Rosenthal, applicant and developer of the project, gave a history of
how the project and concept evolved.
He explained the alterations to his proposal that he had made to accom-
modate some objections made by residents during the earlier Planning and
Zoning Board meeting. These alterations included increasing green spaces
in some areas and eliminating one home from the proposal. He presented a
group of slides explaining the configurations of the entire project and
gave particular emphasis to the relationship of the green areas to the
cluster homes and the existing single-family homes.
Other persons speaking in favor of the proposal were:
1. H. H. Winsett, 1519 Rolf Court
2. Ken Nelson, 1121 Buttonwood
3. John Beake, 1906 Bear Court
Those speaking in opposition to the proposal were:
1. Sam Flores, 2019 Brookwood Drive
2. Lonie Swensen, 2006 Brookwood Drive
' 3. Al Corbett, 1912 Avery Court
4. Carol Sparks, 2013 Brookwood Drive
The four persons speaking in opposition to Mr.'Rosenthal's proposal were
acting as spokespersons for the area residents. Their concerns focused on
misrepresentation, i.e. that a different sort of development was platted at
the time they purchased their homes, the reduced green belt areas and the
increased density of this new proposal.
City Attorney Liley noted that the matter of misrepresentation was a civil
matter that should be resolved among the parties involved. Additionally
she noted that matters of code related problems with existing developments
were a separate issue and not to be considered with the approval or dis-
approval of this particular proposed replat.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Kross, to table
the .amendment to Stonehenge Preliminary P.U.D. plans to allow time to
explore solutions to some of the concerns expressed such as the density
and, in addition, to let the Planning staff decide whether any changes
proposed are major enough to warrant resubmitting to the Planning and
Zoning Board. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St.
Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
160
May 20, 1980
Ordinance Adopted as Amended
on First Reading Authorizing Conversion of Property
at 415-431 West Mulberry From Residential to Non -Residential Uses
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"Proposal:
A request to convert the four lots on the southeast corner of Mulberry
Street and Sherwood from a residential land use to a commercial and office
complex. The proposal consists of the following:
Lot Area
Proposed Office Use
Proposed Restaurant Use
Building Total
Parking Lot
Building Height
12,000 sq. ft.
3,000 sq. ft.
15,000 sq. ft.
64 spaces
36 feet
40,000 sq. ft.
Presently, there are four older one-story dwelling units - 3 single family
and one duplex on the subject parcel. Extensive mature landscaping exists
on site.
Neighborhood Description:
The area to the south, east, and west is residential of varying density and
age. Most of the single family units are located along Sherwood with the
multi -family along Meldrum Street. The one exception is an office building
at the southwest corner of Mulberry and Meldrum. The Lincoln Center
Complex is situated north across Mulberry Street.
Major Issues:
1. The proposal conflicts with the following adopted City goals:
"Land Use Compatibility
1. Protect the character of new and existing residential neighborhoods
against intrusive and disruptive surrounding development.
3. Encourage neighborhood commercial facilities which blend with the
residential character of the area.
6. Protect older residential areas from encroachment by commercial
uses which may impair the viability of the residential neighbor-
hood.
161
May 20, 1980
Neighborhood Identification
4. Protect against the intrusion of incompatible commercial and
business activities which have a significant negative impact upon
predominantly residential areas.
Restrict extraneous motorized traffic from residential areas."
Impact on Neighborhood
A. The proposal would eliminate 5 dwelling units from the area. The
conversion of the land to commercial uses would mean the loss of
future residential potential and will most likely add additional
pressure for further conversions in the area. Because of the close
location to both the downtown and the University, residential land
uses may be the most appropriate long-term use. The present land
uses are an under utilization of the residential potential of this
parcel.
B. The proposal will have a negative impact upon the residential
living environment of this neighborhood. The proposed restaurant
use will have more of an impact than the office use. The negative
impact will be from the external traffic drawn into the area,
sound, hours of operation, among others. However, these four
parcels are somewhat impacted by the traffic on Mulberry Street.
C. The proposal will have a traffic impact upon the neighborhood.
This area is already impacted by the overflow parking from the
Lincoln Center. The traffic from this proposal will aggravate the
parking situation. In addition, there will be truck traffic making
deliveries to this complex which does not presently exist.
3. Compatibility
The proposal is not compatible with the existing residential neighbor-
hood. One of the problems of this proposal is the depth of intrusion
into the neighborhood. This subject parcel comsumes one-half of the
block face, which means the proposal will affect the whole block
between Mulberry and Myrtle along Sherwood Street.
The proposal's use, potential uses, scale, and size are not compatible
with the present neighborhood. The area is predominately one and two
story small single family residential. The existing apartment complex
blends into the existing neighborhood fabric. The only structure
which is out of place in the area is the office complex at the south-
west corner of Mulberry and Meldrum. The Lincoln Center has sufficient
' setback and landscaping to not be obstructive in the area.
162
May 20, 1980
One of the applicant's points of rationale for this complex is the
close proximity to the Lincoln Center. A restaurant within easy
walking distance would be an ssset to enhance both the Lincoln Center
and the restaurant itself. There is no argument that such a use is
appropriate and would enhance the Lincoln Center. However, there are
other alternative locations for such facilities presently existing.
There are areas on Meldrum, Canyon, and Howes which are already zoned
B-G, General Business. In addition these areas are orientedto the
main entrances of the Lincoln Center and would not require people to
cross Mulberry Street nor disrupt a residential neighborhood.
4. Site Plan
The applicant has raised the issue of site -plan control in conjunction
with this R-H conversion application. It was the staff's intent at the
time of the development of this R-H Conversion Ordinance to exclude
site -plan and/or site -plan control and deal solely with the land use
question. Any site plan submitted, however, would have to meet all the
requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances unless variances
were granted by a P.U.D. or the ZBA.
Recommendation:
Balancing all of the factors and issues of this proposal, the staff recom-
mends denial of the request based on the following findings:
1. The proposal would have a negative impact upon the residential environ-
ment of this neighborhood.
2. The proposal would eliminate approximately one acre of residential land
in an area appropriate for residential uses close to the University and
the downtown.
3. External traffic would be drawn into this neighborhood which would
further impede the residential environment.
4. The proposal's uses, scale, and depth of intrusion into the neighbor-
hood is incompatible with the residential neighborhood.
5. There are alternative locations with equally close proximity to .the
Lincoln Center to provide auxiliary services to the Lincoln Center.
However, the Planning and Zoning Board recommends that this request be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The restaurant not exceed 3,000 square feet.
2. The office area not exceed 12,000 square feet. ,
163
May 20, 1980
3. The building envelope not exceed 9,100 square feet.
4. The structure not exceed 36 feet in height from ground to highest
point.
5. The major trees on the site be preserved.
6. The design of the structure be compatible with the neighborhood.
Unique Situation:
Because this is the first conversion, some confusion exists about process-
ing. The P&Z Board recommendations deal with site plan conditions, while
the staff did not. Staff's understanding and approach on the R-H conver-
sion is that we look at the land use concerns only; after conversion has
been approved, if a P.U.D. is required, then site plans are to be looked
at. The developer feels this process will take too long; he plans on
beginning construction in June.
The staff review and discussions with the Planning and Zoning Board point
to a number of procedural changes that need to be considered. Staff
is working on these changes
and
will bring them forth soon. When Council
'
approved this new
ordinance,
it
was for a one-year trial period. Cleaning
up the procedures
is part of
the
trial period process." (#33-80)
Chief Planner, Curt Smith, noted that this was the first application for a
conversion from a residential to non-residential use in the R-H zone under
a recently adopted Ordinance. He further noted that staff had some con-
cerns with the restaurant use and the size of the project. The applicant
has changed the request for conversion simply to an office use and staff
now feels that the project will still create many impacts but not of the
magnitude as originally proposed. Accordingly, staff has changed their
recommendation from denial to approval of the sole office complex at a
15,000 sq.ft. maximum size limitation.
Lary Kendall, realtor with The Group, Inc., developer of the project and
major tenant in the building, expressed agreement with the staff recom-
mendation that the site be limited to an office building. He felt the
building was compatible with the residential areas to the south and would
act as a buffer to those residential areas.
City Attorney Liley requested that the R-H conversion be approved by
Ordinance so a record could be made of the limitations placed on the
property. She noted that standard Ordinances had been prepared.
Deputy City Clerk, Wanda Krajicek, read Ordinance No. 74, 1980 at length.
164
May 20, 1980
Councilmembers expressed concerns relative to the procedure being followed
and suggested a Resolution might be less formal or time consuming than an
Ordinance.
City Attorney Liley responded that whenever restrictions are placed on
private property, Charter requires action by Ordinance.
Councilman Wilkinson asked that the Ordinance be amended to include the
restaurant use as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board so that the
developer would not be precluded from adding a restaurant should he so
decide.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson, to
amend "Section 2" of Ordinance No. 74, 1980 to read as follows:
"Section 2. That said approval is expressly subject to and condi-
tional upon the property being used for restaurant and general office
purposes. "
Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson,
and Wilmarth. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED. '
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves, to adopt
Ordinance No. 74, 1980 as amended on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Authorizing
Conversion of Property at 304 West Mulberry from
Residential to Non -Residential Uses
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This is the first application for conversion from a residential to a
non-residential land use in a R-H Zoning District. The request is located
at 304 E. Mulberry on the northeast corner of Mulberry and Mathews. There
is a large, oldVictorianhouse on the subject parcel which has been placed
on the National Register of Historic Places. Applicant has submitted a
brief history of this structure (see attached). The request is to convert
the structure containing two dwelling units into a 2,700 square footpro-
fessional office building with a maximum of 10 employees. ,
165
May 20, 1980
1
Neighborhood Description:
North: residential at varying density from single family to an apart-
ment building.
West: real estate office at corner of Mulberry and Mathews, otherwise
residential.
South: a church and residential.
East: real estate office and residential.
Issues:
1. Compatibility of Request with Goals.
This request is compatible with the aforementioned goals. There are no
policies which deal directly with this request, nor has an area plan
been done for this area.
2. Impact of Request on Neighborhood.
If approved, two dwelling units would be lost. There will be the
addition of employee, client and service traffic, a parking lot, and
signage into the area. However, the subject parcel does front onto
Mulberry and it's somewhat impacted by traffic. The latest traffic
count on Mulberry is 14,300 ADT which is less than the 1977 count of
14,700. In addition, the approval of this request will encourage
similar requests along Mulberry.
Balancing these factors, it is felt that this request will have a
minimal impact upon the neighborhood.
3. Compatibility with Neighborhood.
It is proposed by the applicant that the existing structure will
remain, which helps to blend the office use into the neighborhood.
There are two existing offices adjacent to the subject property. The
existing offices and commercial are all located on the north side along
this portion of Mulberry Street. It is felt that this conversion and
the office use will be compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Recommendation:
Staff and Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of this proposal "
(#32-80).
' Reed Mitchell, 604 Garfield, expressed concerns that all persons within 500
feet of this conversion had not received proper notice. Staff was directed
to check into the process and report back.
166
May 20, 1980
City Attorney Liley noted that the language of this Ordinance would be
identical to the previous one with the exceptions of the address and the
condition placed upon the property.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson, to
adopt Ordinance No. 75, 1980, on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bowling, Gray, Kross, Reeves, St. Croix, Wilkinson, and Wilmarth. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
1
167