HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/04/1978-Regular' April 4, 1978
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council - Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 5:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort
Collins was held on Tuesday, April 4, 1978,,at 5:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins
City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following
Councilmembers: Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St.
Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Absent: None.
Staff Members Present: Arnold, Deibel, Kaplan, Phillips,
Bingman, Sanfilippo, Lanspery,
Krajicek, Liley and Lewis.
Also: City Attorney Arthur March, Jr.
' Mayor Bloom made the following statement:
"Before proceeding with the next item on the agenda, I
would like to acknowledge and express my appreciation
for the support given to me by the community, the City
staff, and Woodward Governor during the last year. As
we all know, it has been somewhat unusual and extremely
busy. Any Mayor willingly neglects a number of personal
plans, activities and family obligations. Normal Council
participation is much less demanding but still provides
the opportunity to be of service to the community. Two
members of Council have come forward, indicating their
support concerning a second term; I am honored by their
consideration, but must share with you a final decision
made only moments ago. I would ask for the understanding
of the entire Council and particularly those who have in-
dicated their support, but I prefer not standing for re-
election."
Mayor Bloom then stated Council would go to the election
of Mayor and called for nominations from the Council.
194
April 4, 1978
Councilman St. Croix nominated Councilman Richard Suinn t
as Mayor. Councilman Bowling nominated Councilwoman
Nancy Gray as Mayor. Mayor Bloom asked for further nomi-
nations; hearing none, he put the question with the fol-
lowing vote:
Bloom
-_ Suinn
Bowling
- Gray
Gray
- Gray
Russell
- Suinn
St. Croix
- Suinn
Suinn
- Suinn
Wilkinson
- Gray
Mayor Suinn assumed the chair.
Mayor Suinn then called for nominations for the office of
Assistant Mayor.
Councilman Bloom nominated Councilman Lloyd St. Croix.
Mayor Suinn inquired if there were other nominations.
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Gray that nominations close and that Councilman St. Croix
be elected by acclamation. Yeas: Bloom, Bowling, Gray,
Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. I
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Russell that the City Attorney draw up a resolution, to
be voted on at the next meeting, thanking Mayor Bloom and
Assistant Mayor Suinn for a job well done in the past
year. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Rus-
sell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
City Clerk Verna Lewis than administered the following
oath to Mayor Suinn and Assistant Mayor St. Croix:
195 1
STATE OF COLORADC
COL'NI7 OF LARIMER ) SS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS )
OATH OF RICHARD M. SUI11N
AS MAYOR
I Richard M. Suinn , do solemnly swear
that I will support the Constitution and Laws of the United States
and of the State of Colorado and the Charter and Ordinances of Fort
Collins; and that I will perform the duties of my office or employment,
and to the best of my knowledge and ability, maintain an efficient
service in the City, free from partisan distinction and control, so
help me God.
Subscribed and Sworn to Before Me
This p h Day of April
A. D. 19 F .
City Clerk
196
7 /
Q
(S EAL)
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF LARIMER ) SS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS )
OATH OF LLOYD ST. CROIX
AS ASSISTANT MAYOR
do solemnly swear
that I will support the Constitution and Laws of the United States
and of the State of Colorado and the Charter and Ordinances of Fort
Collins; and that I will perform the duties of my office or employment,
and to the best of my knowledge and ability, maintain an efficient
service in the City, free from partisan distinction and control, so I
help me God.
Subscribed and Sworn to Before Me
This 4th Day of Aoril
A. D. 19_1y.
(S E A L)
City Clerk
197
April 4, 1978
' Consent Calendar Items
These are items of a routine or non -controversial nature,
on which a unanimous vote of appoval is expected. Any-
one may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off
the Consent Calendar and considered separately. (The
purpose of this calendar is to allow Council to spend
its time and energy on more important items.)
The Consent Calendar presented was as follows:
4. CONSIDER APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 21,
1978.
5. AGREEMENT WITH EVERITT ENTERPRISES OFFERING THE HISTORIC LANDMARK
KN(7AN AS THE MILK HOLSE AND GREEN AREA SURROUNDING IT KNOWN AS
SPENCER PARK TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS.
Everitt Enterprises is Offering The Milk House and area surrounding
this house to the City. Staff reccmTends approval of accepting
this donation and the terms of the agreement..
6. POLICY FOR NAMING CITY FACILITIES.
This policy sets firm criteria for naming City facilities based upon
individuals families after wham
the significant contributions of or
the facility is requested to be named. Staff reconuends approval.
7. RESOIJJTICN APPROVING THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH POUDRE VALLEY MEMORIAL.
HOSPITAL.
This agreement between the City and the Hospital will renew a lease
for dormitory and bay space at Fire Station #2 for the Hospital to
operate an ambulance service. Staff recommends approval.
8. RESOLUTION APPROVING MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE POUDRE VALLEY RURAL FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT.
This agreement between the City and the Poudre Valley Rural Fire Pro-
tection District sets forth that each would respond to a request for
emergency assistance from the other if possible. Staff reocmrends
approval.
9. RFSOIl7TION APPROVING AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT FOR FIRE SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND THE POUDRE VALLEY RURAL FIRE PR7TECRTON
DISTRICT.
om
April 4, 1978
This Agreement between the City and the Poudre Valley Rural Fire ,
Protection District would designate response areas within which the
nearest available unit of either would resn_ond. Staff reocnTends
approval.
10. AGRM40T WITH 19ARRE24 LAKE RESERVOIR M-1PANY.
This agreement will resolve a number of concerns of the Warren lake'
Reservoir Conpany because of urban development around the Reservoir.
Staff recommends approval.
11. CROSSING AGREEMENT WITH CORORADO AND SOUTfiERi RAILROAD FOR SPRING
CREEK SEWER.
This agreement with C & S will permit the City to cross the railroad
tracks with the Spring Creek Sewer. There is a one-time charge of
$500. Staff recommends approval.
12. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
FOR UPGRADING HIGHWAY/RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING PROTECTION UNDER THE
FEDERAL SECTION 203 PROGRAM.
This eontragt is for the installation of safety devices across the & S
tracks at Lemay Avenue just south of Vine Drive. The City's share is 10%
or $7,500 and is budgeted in the 1978 Street Program. Staff recommends '
approval.
13. CONTRACT LIMITING USES IN THE CUNNINGHAM OORNER SECOND ANNEXATION.
(TABLED: March 14, 1978)
Tie would like to table this item again since the owner would like to
present a different version of this contract to Council at a work
session in April. We recommend tabling to May 16, 1978, Council meeting.
14. REZONING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE FLETCHER - NORTH COLLEGE REZONING.
The petitioner has requested that this item be withdrawn from the
agenda.
15. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 19, 1978, ZONING THE CUNNINGHAM CORNER
SECOND ANNEXATION.
This ordinance passed on first reading at the February 7, 1978, meeting.
This annexation would annex 73.85 acres on Horsetooth Road just east of .
South Taft Hill. Staff recommends tabling this ordinance until flay 16.
16. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 140. 23, 1978, ALTIJWING THE HUMAN RELATIONS
C3MIAISSION TO HOLD CLOSED MEETINGS.
Th implement the proposed citizen commlaint procedure against police
officers, the Human Relations Connissi.on needs authority to hold closed '
meetings for the exclusive ouroose of considering confidential infotmatio
relating to these complaints. We recomneM approval.
199
April 4, 1978
53 OF THE
17.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE N�. 24, 1978, REPEALING CHAPTER
ODDE REBATING TO FOOD RDGULATIaIS.
All areas within Chapter 53 are regulated by state law and are enforce-
able by the county Health Department. Fore this reason, we reoomnend
that Chapter 53 be repealed.
18.
SECOND READING OF ORmWICD NO. 25, 1978, ANNEXING THE TREND HOthS
SECOND ANNEXATION.
This ordinance annexes 82.95 acres at the northeast corner of Horsetooth
Road and South Taft Hill with a requested zoning of R-L. We recom*end
approval, however, with a zoning of R-L-P, in order to encourage City
site plan review.
19.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 26, 1978, ZONING THF.TREND HaN'TFS SECOND
ANNEXATION. .
This ordinance zones the 82.95 acres listed in the preceding item with
R-L-P zoning in order to encourage City site plan review.
20.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 27, 1978, REGARDING ELECTRICAL
CONTRACIORS AND ELECTRICIANS REGISTRATION AND RFGISTRATION FEES.
This ordinance eliminates registration requirements for individual
'
electricians and places the responsibility for payment of registration
fees on electrical contractors. This fee is based on the number of
electricians working under the electrical contractor. The provisions
of this ordinance more closely respond to state requirements.
21.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 140. 30, 1978, ADJUSTING THE IN-LIEU-0F WATER
RIGHT'S PAYNENT'.
City Council and the Water Board have requested that we update these
payments every six months. After surveying surrounding mmmuiities and
districts, we are recommending an increase of $200 per unit for in -lieu -
of water rights payment.
22.
HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE N0. 31, 1978, RELATING TO
DEFERMENT OF ASSFSSMgT5.
This ordinance would implement the deferred assessment program for the
low -incase as discussed with Council on prior occasions. If low -inane
residents were unable to pay assessments, the City would take a lien on
the property until property changed ownership. .
1
200
April 4, 1978
The following item was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar: '
Item 5. City Manager Arnold requested that this item
be withdrawn to be discussed, and that Item
22 be corrected to read "Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 31, 1978."
The ordinances presented for adoption on second reading
were read by title by City Clerk Verna Lewis as follows:
16. Ordinance No. 23, 1978, being an ordinance amending
Section 8-2(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Col-
lins relating to disclosure and open meetings and
providing that the Human Relations Commission may
hold closed meetings.
17. Ordinance No. 24, 1978, being an ordinance repealing
Chapter 53 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
18. Ordinance No. 25, 1978, being an ordinance annexing
property known as the Trend Homes Second Annexation
to the City of Fort Collins.
19. Ordinance No. 26, 1978, being an ordinance amending '
Chapter 118 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins,
commonly known as the Zoning Ordinance and classi-
fying for zoning purposes the property included in
the Trend Homes Second Annexation to the City of
Fort Collins, Colorado.
20. Ordinance No. 27, 1978, being an ordinance repealing
Section 47-9 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
and amending Section 47-10 of the Code of the City
of Fort Collins relating to electricians and elec-
trical contractors and registration requirements for
the same.
21. Ordinance No. 30, 1978, being an ordinance amending
Section 112-66A of the Code of the City of Fort Col-
lins relating to the Water Utility and requirements
for furnishing water rights before connecting to the
Water Utility.
22. Ordinance No. 31, 1978, being an ordinance establish-
ing a program for deferment of Special Improvement
District and similar assessments for low income pro-
perty -owners.
11
201
April 4, 1978
' The resolutions presented for adoption were as follows:
7. Resolution 78-26 of the Council of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado approving the lease agreement with
Poudre Valley Memorial Hospital.
Resolution 78-27 of the Council of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado approving the Mutual Aid Agreement
for supplemental fire protection and rescue services
between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado and the
Poudre Valley Rural Fire Protection District.
Resolution 78-28 of the Council of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado approving an Automatic Aid Agree-
ment for fire services between the City of Fort Col-
lins, Colorado and the Poudre Valley Rural Fire Pro-
tection District.
12. Resolution 78-29 of the Council of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado authorizing the City Manager to
enter into an agreement with the State Department
of Highways, State of Colorado for the purpose of
upgrading highway railroad grade crossing protection
in the City of Fort Collins.
' City Attorney March stated for the record that Items 16
through 22 are for passage on second reading.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Council-
woman Gray to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn
from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom,
Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Suinn stated Council would go back to the item
which was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.
Agreement with Everitt Enterprises Offering the
Historic Landmark Known as the Milk House and
Green Area Surrounding it Known as Spencer Park
to the City of Fort Collins
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this
item:
202
April 4, 1978
"nvre is an agreement with the City and Everitt Enterprises, Inc.,
offering the Milk House and green area known as Spencer Park to the City. Basically,
the agreement states:
1. Everitt Enterprises, Inc., shall restore the exterior of
the Milk House and provide landscaping surrounding the
structure as agreed by both parties, and
2. the City shall be responsible for interior display
of the Milk House and shall agree to maintain the property
as a landscaped area."
City Manager Arnold stated Mr. Gary Haxton, representing
Everitt Enterprises, wanted to discuss the plans.
Mr. Haxton discussed the strip behind the Milk House and
the detention pond, which the donors wished the,City to
receive and maintain.
City Attorney March verified that this acceptance would
not change the previous arrangements for improvement of
the adjoining streets.
Councilman Bloom inquired into the maintenance of this
small parcel. Parks and Recreation Director H. R. Phil-
lips responded that there is a difference of about $600.00
between high maintenance and low maintenance; it is es-
timated that it will cost about $1600.00 for maintenance.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Gray to authorize this agreement and to authorize the Ma-
yor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the
City. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Russell, St.
Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilman Bloom.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading Vacat
a Portion of Buckeye Street in Moore's First A
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
'phis vacation was requested in connection with the Chenoweth, Smith,
Sibelrud South College rezoning. Since we do not anticipate any need for opening
this street to the public in the future, we recommend approval.
'this item was taken off the consent agenda for second reading since it '
did not pass unanimously on first reading. Itle vote was 5_2."
203
April 4, 1978
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Wilkinson to adopt Ordinance No. 22, 1978, on second read-
ing. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Russell, St.
Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilwoman Gray.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading
Amending the Uniform Mechanical Code
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This ordinance amends the 1976 Uniform Mechanical Code and would imple-
ment changes recommended by the Code Convattee and Building Board of Appeals.
Significant amendments deal with certain installation prohibitions for
appliances utilizing liquified petroleum or dependent on the canbustion of fuel, and
administrative authority to limit use of flexible gas connectors.
This ordinance was passed on first reading at the March 14, 1978, Council
meeting.
Since we are adopting the Code by reference, the second reading is the
formal hearing for this item."
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Bowling to adopt Ordinance No. 28, 1978, on second read-
ing. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, St.
Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilman Russell.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading
Amending the Uniform Plumbing Code
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This ordinance amends the 1976 Uniform Plumbing Cade and would implement
changes recommended by the Code Con ittee and Building Board of Appeals. Significant
amendments to the Uniform Plumbing code contained in this ordinance deal with compaction
of backfill material, backwater valves, and water saving devices for plumbing fixtures.
This ordinance was passed on first reading at the March 14, 1978,
' meeting.
Since we are adopting the Code by reference, the second reading is the
formal hearing for this item."
204
April 4, 1978
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman '
Russell to adopt Ordinance No. 29, 1978, on second read-
ing. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell,
St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Adopting a Fire Prevention Code
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This ordinance would adopt the 1976 Edition of the Fire
Code."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Gray to adopt Ordinance No. 32, 1978, on first reading.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St.
Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Stonehenge P.U.D., Fifth Filing, '
Final Plat and Plans Approved
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"'This is a proposal for 31 single-family lots on 8.51 acres zoned R-L,
Lcw Density Residential District, located on Welch Street, west of Brookwood Drive.
are attached.
A copy of the land use breakdown, maps, and other pertinent information
The plans for this area were reviewed by the Planning and zoning Board
in July and August of 1977 and were favorably approved. All requirements have been
ret, except we have not receival the landscape agreement. We recommend approval con-
tingent upon receipt of this document prior to Tuesday's meeting."
City Manager Arnold stated that the Administration is
recommending approval subject to receipt of the subdi-
vision and landscaping agreements.
205 1
April 4, 1978
' Mr. Reid Rosenthal, representing Stonehenge, stated he
would answer questions from Council, specifically the
landscaping question.
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Bowling to approve the Stonehenge P.U.D., Fifth Filing,
final plat and plans subject to receiving the subdivision
and landscaping agreements. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom,
Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Stonehenge P.U.D., Sixth Filing,
Final Plat and Plans Approved
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:.
"This is a proposal for 102 dwelling units on 22 acres zoned R-L, Low
Density Residential District, and R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District,
located south of East Stuart Street and east of Jemay Avenue.
' A copy of the land use breakdown, maps, and other pertinent information
are included in the preceding memo for the Fifth Filing.
The plans for this area were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board in
July and August of 1977 and were favorably approved. All requirements have been rapt,
except receiving the landscape agreement. We recomrend approval contingent upon
receipt of this document prior to Tuesday's meeting."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Wilkinson to approve the Stonehenge P.U.D., Sixth Filing,
final plat and plans subject to receipt of the subdivi-
sion and landscaping agreements. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wil-
kinson. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Ann
Property Known as the Parkwood East Ann
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
206
tion.
April 4, 1978
"This is a proposal to annex 119 acres located north of t
East Drake Road and west of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. It is
proposed for voluntary annexation.
This tract is the only lard west of the Union Pacific
Railroad which is not incorporated to the City. All urban services
are available.
Staff sees no problems with this annexation. Planning
and Zoning unanimously recommended approval."
The planning staff outlined the area in question.
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Bloom to adopt Ordinance No. 33, 1978, on first reading.
Yeas: Coiuncilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St.
Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Zoning '
Property Known as Parkwood East Annexation
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"'ibis ordinance would zone the area included in the Parkwood East Annexa-
The petitioner proposed zoning districts as follows:
R-L-M - 12.4 acres
R-L - 75.2 acres
R-P - 31.4 acres
Staff has several problems with the zoning requests:
1. Locating 12.4 acres of R-L-M contiguous to the railroad
tracts concentrates people near the tracks, and could
lead to the establishment of a continuous north/south
local street acting as a collector.
2. The proposed 75 acres of R-L zoning would provide for
single-family, standard subdivision development without
the open space or design variations afforded through P.U.D.
development. In addition, this zoning could result in an
underutilization of the land. '
207
April 4, 1978
' Staff does feel that the R-P zoning is well -located. Planning recommends
that we replace the proposed R-L and R-L-M areas with R-L-P zoning in order to allow
for P.U.D. review, provision of common open space, density shifting possibly to the
east, and greater site planning and design variation.
Planning and Zoning unanimously recommended in favor of the staff
zoning proposal, and the petitioner has verbally agreed to staff's suggestions.
Director of Planning Les Kaplan spoke to the petitioners'
original request, which had been modified to conform with
the staff recommendation of having only two zones of R-L-P
for 87.6 acres and R-P for 31.4 acres. This recommenda-
tion by the Planning and Zoning Board for approval was una-
nimous.
City Attorney March stated there were two ordinances pre-
sented; if Council wished to pass the amended petition
then they should adopt the ordinance labeled "A."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Gray to adopt Ordinance No. 34, 1978, Version "A" on first
' reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, St.
Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilman Russell.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Lot 3, Bankcenter Square
P.U.D. Preliminary Plan Approved
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
" This is a proposal for low intensity commercial uses to be located
behind (west of) the University National Bank.
The proposal has been submitted for review as a preliminary and final
at the same time.
Issues concerning the proposal which are discussed in the attached Plan-
ning staff memo concern parking, drainage, "remedial" landscaping, vacation of the
Mason Street right of way, and of ownership between the applicants and CSU on a small
piece of land included in the P.U.D. at the far west end of the site.
W.
April 4, 1978
We have prepared an ordinance which vacates the necessary portion of '
Mason Street referred to above. This ordinance is presented for your consideration
under item no. 24.
All concerns were addressed by the applicant except for the following:
1. remedial landscaping in front of the "Pop Shoppe";
2. approval of the drainage report by Engineering Services, and
3. resolution of ownership on mall portion of ground at west
end of the site.
The Planning and Zoning Board and staff recommend approval of the final
plan subject to completion of these details."
Councilman Bowling requested that the record show that
he is a partner in this development and therefore with-
draws from this discussion. Councilman Wilkinson made
the same request.
City Attorney March stated that this item had been pro-
posed as a preliminary and final plan, and is presented
at this time only as a preliminary plan. '
The planning staff made a presentation and spoke to the
items to be addressed on the final plan.
Councilmember St. Croix inquired into the Mason Street
extension and Councilman Russell stated his concern re-
garding the enforcement capabilities of the City regard-
ing landscaping.
Assistant City Attorney Liley stated that with new P.U.D.
requirements, landscaping is assured by way of a bond.
Petitioner Earl Wilkinson, 631 Monte Vista, responded to
Councilwoman Gray's inquiry regarding the drainage into
the ditch.
C. D. Bowling, 1900 Seminole, stated that Council does
have the opportunity to require landscaping in the al-
ready developed area as the property will be for sale.
Councilman Bloom made a motion, seconded by Councilman
St. Croix to approve the preliminary plan of Lot 3, Bank -
center Square P.U.D. subject to the resolution of the spe-
cial conditions on the final plan. Yeas: Councilmembers I
Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix and Suinn. Nays: None
THE MOTION CARRIED
209
April 4, 1978
I
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Vacating a Portion
of Mason Street in Bankcenter Square, First Filing
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This is the ordinance which would acocmplish the necessary va-
cation of Mason Street in Bankcenter Square, First Filing."
(Secretary's note: Councilmembers Bowling and Wilkinson
did not participate in discussion or vote on this item.)
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Bloom to adopt Ordinance No. 35, 1978, on first reading.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix and
Suinn. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Rezoning Procedures Set
' Following is the City Manager's memorandum and recommen-
dation on this item:
"T:, aid the Council in considering these items in the least amount of
tine, the Administration recommends that the petitions be considered
in the suggested order and according to the following procedures.
1
The City council is scheduled to consider seven rezoning petitions at the April 4,
1978, meeting. Several of these are extremely controversial, and a large citizen
turnout is expected.
This will be the order:
1. Betz - Eastgate T,ezoning
2. Buckeye - Buckingham Rezoning
3. faller - South Overland -rail Rezoning
4. CSU - west Prospect Street 7onin T
5. flnvAK
6. Cotich, et. al. - `7athews Street Rezoning
7. Skate Board Park P.U.D.
8. HCI - Ianay Avenue Rezoning
110 assure the most efficient use of time in considering these items, the following
prooe•:tures are Bugg ste"':
210
April 4, 1978
1. Introduction to all rezoning items. '
a. City Attorney
• Explanation of legally justifiable grounds for amendment to
zoning ordinance.
• Explanations of notification requirements, advisory role of Planning
and Zoning Board, responsibilities of City Council (i.e. findings,
of changed conditions, etc.)
h. Mayor
• Explanation of procedure to be followed for each item (as follows).
. Reference to planning reports in agenda, containing petitioner's
stated reasons for request, staff convents, minutes from the
Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and Planning and Zoninq Board
recommendation.
2. Procedure for each item.
a. Planning Director -- 5 to 10 minutes
• Identify area on map.
• Exolain specific amendment request.
. Summarize oro and con arqurents presented to Planning and Zoning Board.
2. b. Petitioner -- 10 minutes
. Additional arguments not contained in aqenda. '
c. Planning Director -- 5 minutes
Acknowledgement of petitions, letters, telephone calls.
d. Proponents — 10 minutes
• Excluding petitioner and representatives.
• Emphasize appointinq spokesmen and presenting new information.
e. Opponents — 10 minutes
. arphasize appointing spokesmen and presenting new information.
F. City Council
. Questions and decisions."
Assistant City Attorney Liley stated in rezoning matters
Council must have a showing and fact finding of changed
conditions; those can involve density, traffic volume
and patterns, or new developments.
L
211
April 4, 1978
I
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Rezoning Betz - Eastgate Property
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"'this is a proposal to rezone 2.27 acres located on Riverside Avenue
between Montgomery Street and Pitkin Street from R-M-P to B-L.
The petitioner feels the existing R-M-P zone imposes unreasonable use
limitations on the property and that B-L frontage is consistent with neighboring land
uses.
Staff agrees with the petitioner's justification for a zone change, .
but recrnnends that the property be rezoned B-P to provide site plan review and ensure
greater compatibility between resulting commercial uses and neighboring residential
uses.
The Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-3 to reomr end a zoning change
from R-M-P to B-P, not B-L as requested."
Planning Director Kaplan stated the petitioner has agreed
to the staff's recommendation to zone the area B-P.
' Petitioner George Betz, 1101 Kirkwood Drive, stated he
agreed with the B-P zoning.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Wilkinson to adopt Ordinance No. 36, 1978, rezoning the
area B-P, on first reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom,
Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Rezoning Buckeye - Buckingham Property
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
" This is a proposal to rezone 14 acres located east of 'third Street and
south of Buckingham Street from R-M to I-L.
The applicant for this rezoning contends that I-L zoning is necessary
in order to put this property to uses which are "economically realistic." The applicant
also indicates that this area was rezoned from I-G to R-M by error in 1972 when the
' entire Buckingham Subdivision was annexed. As evidence of this error, the applicant
submitted a zoning district map published after the Buckingham annexation which shows
the petitioner's lard zoned I-G.
212
April 4, 1978
We previously granted a rezoning request immediately north of this site. '
This request was for a change from R-M to I-L. Council approved a change to I-P
zoning for this parcel.
We recommend that the parcel in question be rezoned from R-M to I-P,
instead of the requested I-L. Most I-L uses are allowed in an I-P zone. Differences
between I-L and I-P zones involve performance standards and landscape requirements.
We feel I-P zoning is more appropriate because it would ensure proper buffering
between the site and Buckingham Subdivision."
Attorney Charles Unfug, representing the Buckeye Land
and Livestock Company, petitioner and owner of the land
spoke in favor of the I-L, Limited Industrial zone.
Councilman St. Croix made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Bowling to adopt Ordinance No. 37, 1978, on first reading,
rezoning the area I-F because a mistake had been made in
previously zoning this area. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom,
Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED I
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Rezoning
Miller - South Overland Trail Property
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This is a proposal to rezone 2.77 acres located on Overland Trail south
of Prospect Street from B-L, Limited Business District, to R-M, Medium Density Residential
District.
This is a highly unusual dawn -zoning request by the property owner.
Were the property in the B-P zoning district, rather than B-L, the requested R-M uses
would be allowed by right.
While this request is not justifiable on the strength of the petition
itself, the rezoning would continue the Council's identified objectives for Overland
Trail, principally discouraging higher traffic -generating uses.
request."
The Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to approve this rezoning
213
April 4, 1978
' Petitioner Rex Miller, 3833 Spruce Lane, stated his in-
tention had been that the rezoning run concurrently with
the one lot subdivision.
City Attorney March advised him that the ordinance takes
two readings and the subdivision only one hearing.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Council-
woman Gray to adopt Ordinance No. 38, 1978, on first
reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray,
Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Zoning CSU - West Prospect Street Property
Mayor Suinn requested that he be allowed to withdraw
from participation and voting on this issue. Assistant
Mayor St. Croix chaired the meeting.
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"Because of the serious consequences of this proposal, this office
listened to both sides of the issue before preparing a recrnmiendation. Planning staff
ccTmrents detail the fact that the site is appropriate for the hotel, but recortresd
denial because of the passible harm that could be caused the proposed downtown hotel.
7he Planning and Zoning Board reasoning followed similar lines.
Admittedly, if we had two proposals before us, each of equal quality,
one in the downtown and the other on this site, we would recamnend and Council would
likely choose the downtown site. But that choice we don't have; and we don't want to
appear to draw the issue as if we do have that choice. We should look at the request
before us alone and judge it on it's merits.
Whether the City should deny an otherwise suitable use to aid the develop-
ment of a downtown hotel is arguable. on the other hand, overwhelming cony unity goals
should be sought with City powers. But of course no one wants us to abuse those pavers.
Zhe City has an expressed interest in seeing the downtown hotel a reality.
We've tried to encourage it tiith tax incranent financing. And we are working on further
ideas.
We expect to continue to work for the downtown.
This project alone, however, is reasonably appropriate for the site. It
' contributes to traffic problems on Prospect, a heavily traveled artery, and sanzwhat
encourages southward growth. "
214
April 4, 1978
Planning Director Kaplan identified the area via slides '
and presented Planning and Zoning Board recommendation
for denial of this zoning request.
Councilwoman Gray stated she did not think that Council
should be put in an "either/or" situation and requested
clarification from legal staff on procedure.
City Attorney March stated that from a legal standpoint,
it would be improper for the Council to consider one
site versus the other from a competition standpoint. He
did feel it was proper to consider the one site as far
as the planning goals of the City; those goals might con-
sider traffic implications of the proposed site, the
growth aspect in particular areas, and whether additional
zoning of this nature is needed, in view of the existing
property that is zoned for this purpose and availability
of that property. City Attorney March stated one more
issue which should be brought out is that this is unusual
in that this property has been in the City for a long
time, but this is not a rezoning; this is an initial zon-
ing, which still must be appropriate to the overall plan-
ning goals of the City. The reason this area was not pre-
viously zoned is that this area was annexed as a part of
an annexation that annexed a great deal.of CSU property '
and the annexation ordinance specified that the land be-
longing to CSU would not be zoned, or that the zoning or-
dinance would not apply so long as the land was owned by
CSU. At that time, the City believed or was advised that
CSU did own the land. In fact, CSURF has always owned
the land.
Assistant Mayor St. Croix inquired if the property is
not owned by CSU, what the tax situation was.
City Attorney March stated that this area has not paid
taxes because CSURF is exempt from taxation as long as
it is devoted to .the non-profit purposes that CSURF is
organized for. If the land is changed to a commercial
purpose, then it would be taxable.
Mr. George Olson, 1909 Mohawk Street, President of CSURF,
requested this property be zoned B-P, Planned Business
in order to allow the Foundation to enter into a long-
term lease or sale for the development of a hotel on
the site. It is intended that the developer of the land
pay taxes on the land and improvements, and sales tax on
the operation.
215
April 4, 1978
' Mr. Dick Siever of Van Schaack & Company introduced
several persons, including Mr. Eric Hilton, who outlined
the design of the proposed hotel and method of operation.
Attorney John Walker, representing the Fort Collins Inn
Keepers' Association, spoke in opposition to the zoning,
which he termed a question that might have to be deter-
mined by judicial review; he stated further that the
plan is contrary to the City's comprehensive plan. At-
torney Walker also addressed the current traffic and pol-
lution aspects the proposed hotel might create; his brief
addressing this and other issues was presented for Council
consideration.
Mr. Harold Miller of Poudre Valley Construction reported
to Council that his company is progressing with their
proposal for a hotel complex at 1300 South College Avenue.
Mr. Richard Siever stated that the petitioners are request-
ing a conditional zoning, conditional upon the construc-
tion of a hotel.
Assistant Mayor St. Croix inquired of City Attorney March
whether it is possible to grant zoning conditioned on one
use; then if the use is not forthcoming, to revert to the
original zoning.
City Attorney March stated it is possible; it is not en-
couraged as it is a fairly new concept. It is possible
but has not been looked into by the staff; a contract
relating to the use to be made of the property could be
drawn up.
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Bloom to adopt Ordinance No. 39, 1978, on first reading
and refer to the legal staff for an opinion on the tax
question and for a contract to come back at the time of
second reading conditioning this zoning on this use.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, St. Croix and Wil-
kinson. Nays: Councilmembers Gray and Russell. (Mayor
Suinn out of the room.)
THE MOTION CARRIED
Executive Session Authorized
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman
' Russell to adjourn into Executive Session of the Council
for the purpose of discussing litigation. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn
and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
216
April 4, 1978
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Council-
manISt. Croix to adjourn this meeting to Poudre High
School, 201 Impala Drive at 8:00 p.m. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn
and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
The meeting was reconvened at Poudre High School Audi-
torium at 8:15 p.m.
Legal Action Against Larimer County Authorized
City Attorney March stated the Council had previously
discussed the Park South Subdivision, and had indicated
its opposition to that development. It is his under-
standing that the City made a presentation on the matter
when it was approved by the County Commissioners; he has
done some preliminary research into the possibility that
the City could bring action to prevent the development,
or at least to make it comply with County regulations and '
State law, and this possibility has been discussed. If
the Council desires to proceed, it will be necessary to
authorize him to bring such action.
Councilman Bloom made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Gray that the Council authorize the City Attorney to
bring action against the County. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wil-
kinson. Nays': None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Appeal Tabled from Decision of City Clerk
Denying Renewal of Pawnbroker's
License for the City Pawn Shop
Mayor Suinn announced that the City is in receipt of
a request from the petitioner to table this hearing to
April 18, 1978. He then inquired if there were anyone
present to speak on this matter. Hearing none, he in-
quired of Council what their wishes were on this matter.
217
April 4, 1978
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Wilkinson to table this appeal to April 18, 1978. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix,
Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Appeal Tabled from Decision of
the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding
the Goode Taste Crepe Shop, 400 East Oli
Mayor Suinn announced that the applicant has requested
this item be tabled to April 18, 1978.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Gray to table this appeal to April 18, 1978. Yeas: Coun-
cilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn
and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
' Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Rezoning
Kotich et al. - Mathews Street Property
Councilman Bloom reported that he has been advised by
his personal attorney that he feels there is no con-
flict of interest in participating is this discussion;
Councilman Bloom had determined that he would rather
not participate in discussion or vote on this item or
the next item.
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item
and the memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney re-
garding the legal aspects of this proposed rezoning:
This is a request to rezone 3.54 acres located at the northwest corner
of Mathews Street and Dartmouth Trail from H-B and B-P to R-M-P.
This is a downzoning request and is justified by the petitioner on the
basis that R-M-P uses are mere compatible with the present neighborhood. The applicant
sites the proposed Skate Park P.U.D. as evidence of the incompatibility of uses allowed
in the present zone with the surrounding area.
Planning staff does not feel that the petitioner has demonstrated how
' changed conditions warrant an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Staff notes that
site plan review requirements for development within the H-B zone are intended to pro-
tect nearby uses from unreasonable intrusions.
218
April 4, 1978
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the petitioner's I
request. The Board apparently felt B-P uses provided greater orientation toward
neighborhood services and protected the surrounding area."
"Legal Aspects of Proposed Kotich, et. al. Rezoning
A proposed rezoning of approximately 3.54 acres of property
at the northwest corner of Mathews Street and Dartmouth Trail
from H-B, Highway Business, and B-P, Planned Business, to
R-M-P, Medium Density Planned Residential, has been presented to
and recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board
and is now before the Council.
Particularly in light of the fact that this proposed rezoning
is a "down zoning", a number of legal questions were raised both
prior to and during the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Thus,
we felt it necessary to have a brief analysis of the legal issues
involved in this rezoning.
I. Prior Zoning of the Property. Since there was some
confusion expres% at t e Planning and Zoning Board meeting about
the zoning history of this property, the past zoning was thoroughly
reviewed with the following results:
A. Initial Zoning - The entire piece of property was in- '
itially zoned D-Commercial (one of four possible zones
in the City and one which encompassed all business
and commercial uses.)
B. 1965 - A comprehensive rezoning of the City was
approved by the Council; as a result of that rezoning,
the property was zoned into the B-P and B-G zones.
C. 1970 - After the creation by the Council of the
H-B zone, that portion of the property formerly zoned
B-G was rezoned into the new H-B zone.
D. The current zoning is thus B-P and H-B.
II. Function of the Council in Considering a "Down Zoning"
Pptitinn.
A. Quasi-judicial Hearing.
Since Council is sitting in a quasi-judicial
position in a rezoning matter, it must afford to all
parties proper notice and an adequate opportunity to
be heard. The burden of proving justification for
219
April 4, 1978
the rezoning is on the petitioner. Council should
' consider all evidence that is presented by boththe
petitioner, and any opponents to the proposal, as
well as comments from the Planning Staff and the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and
should then make certain findings based upon all
the evidence. The findings should be specific and
based upon appropriate criteria.
B. Relevant Standards in a "Down Zoning".
In Colorado a "down zoning" is apparently not
treated any differently than any other rezoning;
therefore, the same criteria necessary to justify
any rezoning is the criteria which should be used
in a "down zoning".
The case law in Colorado has consistently
stated that a showing of substantial change of cond-
itions or a mistake is necessary to justify a re-
zoning of a property. Very recently, the courts
have indicated that rezoning in conformity with an
adopted master plan or a comprehensive rezoning
(e.g. city-wide) may require only a showing that the
rezoning is for the "general welfare" of the commun-
ity.
' With regard to this specific proposed rezoning,
it would be my legal opinion that the Council must
make a finding, based upon the evidence, of either
changed conditions or mistake for two reasons: first,
because the City does not have an adopted master
plan and secondly, because the proposed rezoning
could hardly be considered a comprehensive one
since it would involve only approximately 3� acres of
land. The Colorado Supreme Court in many cases has
held a rezoning to be invalid where changed condi-
tions were not shown by the evidence and where the
area to be rezoned was a relatively small one
(e.g. 3 lots of a city block; single tract of 25
acres).
C. "Changed Conditions_
In making a determination as to whether or not
conditions in the area have substantially changed
since the prior zoning was placed on the property,
the Council may look at a wide variety of factors:
new development; traffic volume and patterns; type of
ownership; density; etc.
D. Mistake.
If the Council makes a determination that there
' was a mistake in the prior zoning of the property, it
could also justifiably rezone the property into an
appropriate zone. This doctrine appears to be,
220
April 4, 1978
however, fairly limited and is usually a justi-
fication for rezoning only in the situations in t
which a governing body intended to zone the property
other than it was actually zoned or where the govern-
ing body had relied on inaccurate, false, or mis-
leading information when zoning the property.
III. S t Zon
ce ers in - Another Consideration. Spot zoning is a
legal, term whih rto zoning of property which is designed
to confer a special benefit or advantage or to give rise to a
singular detriment to a particular tract of land. Spot zoning
is, of course, illegal because it does not promote the general
health, safety and welfare of the community as a whole.
Cases in which the courts have found that a rezoning
constituted spot zoning typically have involved small tracts
of land where the sole purpose of the rezoning appeared to be.
of benefit to a particular property owner or to prohibit a
particular use of the property which otherwise would be allowed.
Since the spot zoning issue was raised at the Planning and
Zoning meeting by an opponent of the rezoning and in view of the
facts that the tract of land involved here is very small and the
downzoning petition was submitted in reaction to a proposed plan
for the use of the property, the Council should critically examine
all the evidence presented and make a determination as to whether
this particular rezoning furthers the legitimate objectives of
zoning in general, '
Summar . To summarize, if the Council desires to rezone the
property, it must take the following actions:
1. Make a specific finding based upon the evidence.
2. The necessary finding must be that of changed
conditions or mistake.
3. Make a determination as to whether or not such a
rezoning would be for the general welfare or would
constitute spot zoning."
Planning Director Kaplan identified the area in question,
which is a citizen initiated rezoning request to 'rezone
approximately 3.54 acres from H-B and B-P zoning districts.
to the R-M-P zoning district.
Mr, John Kochenburger, attorney in Fort Collins repre-
senting the petitioner, stated they believed that the
zoning on this site is improper; further, that histori-
cally it was improperly zoned and that in any event the
circumstances have changed. The petitioners then pre-
sented slides of the area depicting the changes over the I
years.
221
April 4, 1978
I
Mr. Harry Plate, 205 Dartmouth Trail, presented 57 pe-
titions with the following heading:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, being residents of the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado, respectfully request that the Council of -the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado rezone the property hereinafter described from Highway Business
and Planned Business to Medium Density Planned Residential District.
Tract 2 of replat of Block 2, and Lots 1 to 7 inclusive of Block
1 of the St. Vrain Subdivision and a tract of land situate -in the
South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 7 North,
Range 69 West of the Sixth P.N., Fort Collins, Colorado, which
considering the West line of the said Northwest 1/4 as bearing
N 00007' E and with all bearings contained herein relative there-
to is contained within the boundary lines which begin at the
Southeast corner of Tract Two of the Replat of Block 2 and Lots
1 to 7 inclusive of Block 1 of the St. Vrain Subdivision, Fort
Collins, Colorado and run thence N 81049' E 54.28 feet; thence
N 23°53' W 123.51 feet; thence along the arc of a 387.18 foot
radius curve to the right a distance of 162.18 feet, the long
chord of which bears N 11053' W 161.00 feet; thence along the
Easterly line of said Tract Two, S 00007' W 63.13 feet and again
along the arc of a 432.79 foot radius curve to the left a distance
of 162.09 feet, the long chord of which bears S 10°36'45" E
161.14 feet and again S 00°07' W 56.70 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 5521 square feet.
Mr. Plate indicated there are 1,554 signatures, which
represent 30% of the number of people who registered to
vote and cast ballots in the last City election.
Mr. Gary Goss and Mr. Paul Harder spoke in support of
the rezoning petition.
Attorney Jim Martell, representing the property owner, Mr.
Bill Franz, stated they were opposed to the down zoning
and had prepared a brief of what they believe to be the
issues involved in the down zoning, and that if Council
down zoned the area it would restrict the uses of this
property and would substantially diminish the value.
Attorney Martell stated the petitioners did not live in
the area and had petitioned to down zone one piece of
property to prevent one particular use (skateboard park).
He added that he did not believe a mistake had been made
in zoning this property, and proceeded to provide the
' history of zoning, in this area and the uses allowed under
each zone.
222
April 4, 1978
Attorney Martell stated that "it is necessary that the
down zoning show that there has been
'
proponents of this
a substantial change (in the neighborhood) under Colo-
rado law, not merely a change. A substantial change
does not mean that houses have been built where they
were supposed to be built; it means that the character
of the neighborhood is changed, in the sense that it
has moved from a business to a residential, or from re-
sidential to business, or possibly from very high to
very low intensity residential. It does not mean that
the development that was expected to occur did in fact
occur in accordance with the zoning and the planning
for the area."
Attorney Martell indicated that there is still another
problem in this down -zoning and that is that it is
"illegal spot zoning."
In closing, Mr. Martell requested that Council deny
both petitions, to deny the rezoning to residential and
deny the rezoning to Planned Business, and to move on
to confront the issue that is at hand, the Skateboard
Park itself.
Attorney Bill Wyatt, representing Vigor Construction '
Company, who will be presenting the Skate Park P.U.D.,
concurred with Attorney Martell's presentation, and
submitted a map depicting the H-B zoning in the City.
Mr. Gene Clark, owner of Bomberg's Bicycles and Skate-
boards in Fort Collins, stated he wanted to have it
noted that regarding the petition that had been cir-
culated, he had been called, indicating that some sig-
natories were unaware of the intent of the petition.
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Council-
man Bowling to deny Ordinance No. 40, 1978, Version
"A" (rezoning this area to R-M-P.)
This motion was withdrawn by the motion maker with the
consent of the second.
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Council-
man St. Croix to deny Ordinance No. 40, 1978, Version
"B" (rezoning this area to R-M-P, petitioners request.)
Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, St. Croix, Suinn
and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilman Russell. (Council-
man Bloom did not vote on this issue, having asked to
be excused from participation or vote.) I
THE MOTION CARRIED
223
April 4, 1978
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Council-
man Wilkinson to adopt Ordinance No. 40, 1978, Version
"B" (rezoning this area to B-P, Planned Business.)
Yeas: Councilmembers Gray, Russell, Suinn and Wilkin-
son. Nays: Councilmembers Bowling and St. Croix.
(Councilman Bloom did not vote on this issue.)
THE MOTION CARRIED
Skate Park P.U.D., Preliminary Plans Tabled
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"This proposal for a recreational P.U.D. on two acres zoned H-B, Highway Business
District, is located at the northwest corner of Mathews Street and Dartmouth Trail.
The applicant is Vigor Construction, 5800 Fast Vine Drive, Fort Collins. They
propose outdoor recreational use of the site with a skateboard area containing
contoured concrete skateboard runs covering a majority of the site. The use includes
a relatively small building containing a skateboard pro shoo, pinball arcade, lounge
and observation deck, and vending machine area with adjacent parking.
' The attached report from the Planning staff discusses the expected impacts of the
use in terms of visual aesthetics, lighting, noise, and parking, as well as measures
that could be taken to mitigate these impacts.
The basic question to be determined by the City Council at this point is whether or
not the proposed use is or can be made compatible with adjacent uses. If the Council
feels that undesirable external effects of the proposed use cannot be sufficiently
mitigated by measures such as those described in the Planning staff report or others,
then the preliminary plan should be denied.
If, on the other hand, the'Council feels that the use is not necessarily incompatible,
then it should give specific direction on treasures to be taken on the final plan.
The major points of the Planning and Zoning Board and/or staff recomrendations
concerning measures to be addressed on the final plan are as follows:
1. Introduction of significant natural landscaped areas into the
skateboard use area (e.g. 20% or more).
2. Reallocation of the unused 1/3-acre area at the north end of the
P.U.D. into the design of the park, utilizing this grace as land-
scaping to be converted into additional parking if it proves to be
necessary as well as to provide extra room for landscaping the skate-
board use area as in #1 above.
3. Prohibition of outdoor music (through prohibition or regulation of
' outdoor speakers); provision that noise generated by the use should not
exceed 60 dba daytime or 50 dba nighttime when measured at any adjacent
residential use.
224
April 4, 1978
4. Wider peripherial treatment along Remington Street. '
5. Use of low, nonglare lighting fixtures, pigmented oament.
6. Review of final plan by the Planning and Zoning Board.
7. Designation of a special permit procedure for special events.
8. Provisions for a first -aid facility within the building.
It is evident especially with the weather warming that skateboards are becoming more
and more popular with the youth in this city. Young people can be seen using skate-
boards on the streets and paved portions of the Hansen Canal. It appears skateboards
are here to stay and private development of such a recreational area provides
skateboarders a safe place in which to enjoy their sport. We think any adverse
effects can be minimized and recommend approval of the preliminary Flans with
Planning's commnts noted above to be addressed on the final plans.
Attorney Bill Wyatt stated he felt the petitioner, at
this point, sees the P.U.D. as a moot question; there-
fore, without prejudice, the petitioner would respect-
fully request that the P.U.D. be tabled until the second
reading of Ordinance No. 40, 1978.
Councilman Wilkinson made
a motion, seconded by Council-
'
man Bowling
to table Skate
Park P.U.D. preliminary plans
to April 18,
1978. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bowling, Gray,
Russell, St.
Croix, Suinn
and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
(Councilman
Bloom did not
vote on this issue.)
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading
Rezoning HCI - Lemay Avenue Property
Councilman Bloom requested that the record show he did
not participate or vote on this issue.
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
"'this is a proposal to enlarge an existing 5.4 acre B-P zone located at
the Southwest intersection of Drake Road and Ianay Avenue. The proposal is to rezone
5.4 acres of R-P to B-P zone, resulting in a doubling of the original site to 10.8
acres.
The petitioner's reasons for the request are outlined fully in the
attached report. Basically, they contend that substantial changes have occurred in I
the area since the original zoning was established, and an increase in B-P area is
needed to adequately service the area.
225
April 4, 1978
' There has been substantial growth in this area, and there are no com-
mercially developed areas in the southeast quadrant. Both Drake and Iemay are desig-
nated arterial streets and should be capable of handling any additional traffic generated
by this development.
This development is somewhat contrary to the South Fort Collins General
Land Use Plan which recommends only neighborhood -scale shopping centers in the quadrant.
because of the assumption that the area along College and Horsetooth Road will develop
into a regional and community scale commercial area. The proposal does, however,
address our broader goal of encouraging development of facilities and services at loca-
tions other than along College Avenue.
Because this request will not introduce a new zoning district into the
neighborhood, but rather enlarge an existing one, we feel the impact on the neighborhood
would be minimal.
In addition, the enlarged proposal allows the petitioner to design the
center in a more aesthetically pleasing fashion.
Althouah this nrormosal is slightly larger than the typical neighborhood,
cormmercial facility, it is the only site in the southeast quadrant. The Planning and
Toning Board voted 5 to 2 to ar)nrove the rezoning_ request. In addition, the petitioner
limit
has agreed to enter into a contract to lit the square footage of this development to
85,000 square foot. without this limitation, if the rezoning were granted, he could
develop up to 131.0,000 square feet. We feel then that the petitioner has been responsive
to our concern that this be a neighborhood -oriented commercial facility. This contract
will be prepared prior to the second reading of this ordinance; however. if there are
any problems with the contract, we will try to solve then prior to second reading. If
there are any rrohlems with the contract that cannot be resolved prior to the second
reading, we do not recotmend passage of the ordinance on second reading."
Planning Director Kaplan spoke to the Planning and Zo-
ning Board and staff recommendations for approval of
this rezoning.
Petitioner Eugene Mitchell spoke to the request that
the site be increased by approximately 5 acres for a
total of 10.8 acres, and addressed the drainage prob-
lem of water going into Parkwood Lake.
Mr. Lloyd S. Bjorlo, 2712 Aberdeen Court, spoke in
support of the request of the petitioner.
Planning Director Kaplan summarized the letters re-
ceived in favor and in opposition to the rezoning re-
quest.
Mayor Suinn then inquired if there were persons wish-
ing to speak in opposition to the proposal.
226
April'4, 1978
Those speaking in opposition were as follows:
Rick Niles, 1316 Parkwood Drive, President of
the Parkwood Home Owners Association,
Barbara Rutstein, 2917 Oxford Court,
Audrey Fishman, 2701 Aberdeen Court,
Wayne Patton, 2749 Alexander Court,
Larry Glass, 2612 Parklake Drive, and
Gordon Kyser, Jr., 1312 Rollingwood Lane
Their concerns were added infiltration into Parkwood
Lake, added traffic, and the possibility of this area
being a regional shopping center, which they felt was
not needed.
Mr. William Brenner of Robb & Brenner, Architects, re-
sponded to Council inquiries regarding the drainage.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Council-
woman Gray to adopt Ordinance No. 41, 1978, on first
reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Russell,
St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None. (Coun-
cilman Bloom did not vote on this issue.)
THE MOTION CARRIED
Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals
Relating to a Non -conforming Sign Owned
by Wallace R. Noel Overruled
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
" This item was tabled at the March 14 City Council meeting.
On November 10, 1977, the petitioner, Wallace R. Noel, applied to the Zoning Board
of Appeals for a variance which would allow a 104 square foot per face free-
standing sign to stand 23 feet high at the Mountain Avenue street right-of-way line
(i.e. at 0 set back). The hardship pleaded by the petitioner was that moving the
sign would involve tearing up the park area in front of the building. The staff
recomrendation was for denial on the grounds that the sign was much too large to
stand at the property line.
The application for variance was denied by
petitioner requested that the Board rehear
the ZBA. The Board did rehear the variance
submitted pictures of the property as well
cmply with the zoning code.
227
the Board by virtue of a tie vote. The
the matter at the February 9 meeting of
request. At that time, the petitioner
as cost estimates to make the.sign
Li
April 4, 1978
At the rehearing, the Board denied the variance request on a 3-to-1 vote.
petitioner is now appealing that decision to the City Council. Attached
of a letter submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals by the petitioner's
as cell as minutes of the February 9 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting."
Attorney Charles Bloom, representing Mr. Wallace Noel,
stated the removal of the sign would be a financial
hardship to his client, adding that the removal would
detract from, rather than enhance, the site; he then
requested the variance be granted.
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Coun-
cilman Russell to reverse the decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals and grant the variance. Yeas: Coun-
cilmembers Gray, Russell, St. Croix and Wilkinson.
Nays: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling and Suinn.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Adjournment
Mayor Suinn declared the meeting adjourned at 11:35
ATTEST:,
City Clerk
228
M.
The
is a copy
attorney