HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/06/1978-Regularit:ne 6, 1978
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council - Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 5:30 P.M.
Aregular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
was held on Tuesday, June 6, 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.
Staff Members Present: Arnold, Lansperv, Sanfilippo, Waido,
Krajicek, Kaplan, Deibel, Jacobsen,
Thexton, Bingman, Deagle, McGraw, Liley,
Ward, Harmon and Lewis.
Also: City Attorney Arthur March, Jr.
Consent Calendar Items
These are items of a routine or non -controversial nature,
on which a unanimous vote of approval is expected. Anyone
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:
3. CONSIDER APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
MAY 16, 1978, AND THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF MAY 23 and 30,'
1978.
41" SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 45, 1978, AMENDING SECTION
118-62 OF THE CODE RELATING TO PERMITTED USES IN THE H-B
HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT.
This ordinance passed favorably on first reading at the
May 16th meeting. This section -of the Code has been amended
several times recently and staff has not received updates
from General Code Publishers in several months. This
ordinance amends the entire section to avoid confusion with
the various recent changes. Staff recommends approval.
A 318
June 6, 1978
5. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 50, 1978, REZONING EAST
VINE DRIVE.
This ordinance passed favorably on first reading at the
May 16th meeting. This is a staff -initiated item and
would rezone approximately 45 acres between Evergreen
Park and the Downtown from M-M to R-M-P. Staff recommends
approval.
6. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 51, 1978, REZONING NORTH
COLLEGE.
This ordinance passed favorably on first reading at the,
May 16th meeting. This is a staff -initiated rezoning
that would rezone to H-B the present commercially zoned
property along North College between the old power plant
and Hickory Street. Staff recommends approval.
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 53, 1978, ZONING DREHER
FIRST ANNEXATION.
This ordinance passed .favorably
on .first reading at the
May 16th meeting. It zones the
property included in the
Dreher First Annexation as follows: approximately 10.5
acres zoned H-B, and 18 acres zoned I-P. Staff recommends
approval.
8. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO.
54, 1978, ZONING EAST VINE
DRIVE 4TH ANNEXATION.
This ordinance passed favorably
on first reading at the
May 16th meeting. This ordinance zones the property included
in the East Vine Drive 4th Annexation as follows: 4.3 acres
zoned C and 2.6 acres zoned H-B.
Staff recommends approval.
9. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO.
55, 1978, CONSOLIDATING
STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #70,
71, 72, and 73; AND
AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BONDS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $614,000.
This ordinance passed favorably on first reading at the
May 16th Council meeting. It's purpose is to consolidate
these Districts and authorize the issuance of Special
Assessment Bonds. The bonds are being issued to pay for
the assessable portion or property owner's share of
construction costs in each district. Staff recommends
approval.
10. ENGINEERING CONTRACT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL SYSTEMS.
Two proposals were submitted for the engineering of the
computerized Traffic Control System for College Avenue.
This contract is with CH M Hill with engineering costs
estimated between $10,003 and $13,000. Staff recommends
approval.
319
June 6, 1978
11.. RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY.
The Housing Authority is required to renew their agreement
with the City annually. This agreement provides for the
Authority to reimburse the City $3,000 per month and governs
City administration of the Authority programs. Staff recom-
mends approval.
12. THIRD AMENDMENT OF EASTGATE P.U.D.: FINAL PLAT AND PLANS.
This is a proposal for 44 residential units and 12 commercial
uses on 6.2 acres zoned R-M-P and B-P, and located on
Riverside Drive between Montgomery and Pitkin Streets. Staff
recommends approval.
t
13.[ CREGER PLAZA SUBDIVISION, FINAL PLAT.
This is a proposal for 13 commercial lots on 21.4 acres
zoned H-B and located at the southwest corner of Horsetooth
Road and College Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the
final plat.
14. AMENDMENT OF SOUTH COLLEGE COMMERCIAL P.U.D.: FINAL PLANS.
This is a proposal to amend an approved final plan for
additional commercial development of the Everitt Home Center
site. Staff recommends approval.
No items were withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.
The ordinances presented for adoption on second reading, were
read by title by City Clerk Verna Lewis as follows:
4. Ordinance No. 45, 1978 being an ordinance amending section
118-62 of the Code relating to permitted uses in the H-B,
Highway Business District.
5. Ordinance No. 50, 1978 being an ordinance amending the
zoning ordinance of the City of Fort Collins by changing
the zoning classification for certain property (East Vine
Drive).
6.i Ordinance No. 51, 1978 being an ordinance amending the
zoning ordinance of the City of Fort Collins by changing
the zoning classification for certain property (North
College).
7. Ordinance No. 53, 1978 being an ordinance amending chapter
118 of the code of the City of Fort Collins and classifying
for zoning purposes the property included in the Dreher
First Annexation.
320
June 6, 1978
8. Ordinance No. 54; 1978 being an ordinance amending chapter
118 of the code of the City of. Fort Collins and classifying
for zoning purposes the property included in the East Vine
Drive Fourth Annexation.
9. Ordinance No. 55, 1978, an ordinance providing for the
consolidation of street, water and sanitary sewer district
No. 70, consolidated street improvement district No. 71,
consolidated street improvement district No. 72�and No. 73
into a special improvement district designated as the 1978
consolidated special improvement district and authorizing
the issuance of special assessment bonds for said district.
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman St. Croix
to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Gray, Russell, St. Croix and Suinn. Nays:
None. Councilmembers Bowling and Wilkinson abstained.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Adopted as Amended on First Reading
Zoning Fast Vine Drive Fifth Annexation
Following.is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
The zoning of this property was originally discussed on May 16.
The attached ordinance zones this property in accordance with Council discussion at
that meeting.
Approximately 69 acres are placed in the R-L-P District, 11.24 acres in
C-Ccmnercial, 59.74 acres in T-P, and 61.98 acres in R-M-P.
We rec=ffend approval of the ordinance on first reading.
City Manager Arnold stated there is an error in the ordinance
as the portion listed as R-M-P, Medium Density Residential
should be "T" Transition.
Coiuncilmembers Wilkinson and Bowling spoke to the conditions of
this property consisting, of lime pits and difficult topographical
situations.
Ms. Lou Stitzel of Neighbor to Neighbor again requested that
that land which could be developed remain in the R-M-P zoning.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson
to amend the ordinance by deleting, the term "R-M-P" and sub-
stituting "T" on page 2 of the ordinance. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
321
June 6, 1978
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Ir St. Croix to adopt Ordinance No. 52, 1978 on first reading
as amended. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray,
Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Amending
r Ordinance No. 39, 1978, by Deleting the Legal
4' Description in Said Ordinance and by Substituting
1 a New Legal Description Thereof
Mayor Suinn stated he would withdraw from consideration and
voting on this item and the next item.
Following, is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
On April 18, Council approved a zoning ordinance which placed approxi-
mately 7 acres of property owned by CSURF into the B-P zone.
At the time of the zoning, we were well aware of the property to be
zoned. Maps were supplied which clearly delineated the property. The applicant,
however, gave us an inaccurate legal description of the area and we need to correct this
our ordinance. This ordinance corrects that legal description and anends the
sting ordinance accordingly.
We recoamend approval on first reading.
Attorney Linda Lazzerino, representing the Fort Collins Inn
Keepers Association, presented a letter which speaks to this
item and the next. She then read the following portions of
the letter:
"1. Why were the petitioners unable to submit an
aIcurate property description at the outset?
f 2. What was the nature of the error?
f 3. Is the inaccuracy merely clerical or, by the change
in the description, is there a substantive addition to the size
of the parcel of land previously zoned?
In light of information that has come to their attention
since the final passage of Ordinance No. 39, these opponents
present the following additional concerns. According to reports
of the State Auditor, for the year ended June 30, 1976 relating
to Colorado State University and to Colorado State University
Research Foundation, the subject land is correspondingly identi-
fied as land which will become the property of CSU after December
1; 1978. We therefore present the following questions:
322
June 6, 1978
1. Has the City reviewed those individual reports?
2. Is the City now aware of whether that status continues
91
or whether there has been some change since 1976 in the plan
fortransfer of the property?
3. .Has the Council or the City Attorney investigated
the tax consequences of a transfer of such a facility, as the
anticipated hotel -motel complex, to Colorado State University
which is generally a tax-exempt state owned institution?
4. What is the appropriate role and responsibility of
the municipal authority in scrutinizing such a transfer should
itiresult in facilitating the indirect accomplishment of an .
objective which is appropriately a matter of state review and
authority?
For example, by obtaining through land transfer either
a completed hotel -convention complex or one under construction,
Colorado State University may presumably avoid significant
impediments to an attempt to construct such a facility were
it required to submit to appropriate state procedures for the
review and control of its activities."
City Attorney March responded to the questions posed. He
further stated, for the record, that there had been comment 41
made in the letter about the propriety of Council proceeding
to do this,(consider the ordinance) in view of the pending
suit; there had been a hearing this morning before the
Court, and the Court did allow the City to hear these two items.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Wilkinson to adopt Ordinance No. 57, 1978 on first reading.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix
and Wilkinson. Nays: None. (Mayor Suinn out of room.)
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Approving an
Agreement Between CSURF, a Private Non -Profit
Organization and the City of Fort Collins Placing
Restrictions on the Use of Property Owned by Said
Corporation and Authorizing Execution of Said
Agreement
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
323
C June 6, 1978
On May 16, Council adopted by resolution a contract which stipulates
t only a hotel -motel ronplex is to be developed on 7 acres of property zoned B-P
and owned by CSURF.
One possible interpretation of the Charter could require adoption by
ordinance of any contract which places conditions on the zoning of a particular property.
The attached ordinance would approve the previously discussed contract
with CSURF and condition the zoning of this property on a particular use.
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Gray to adopt Ordinance No. 58, 1978 on first reading. yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, and
Wilkinson. Nays: None. (Mayor Suinn out of the room.)
THE MOTION CARRIED
Resolution Adopted Concerning the Petition for the
Formation of an Urban Renewal Authority in the City
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
We have received a petition for the formation of an Urban Renewal
thority for Fort Collins. The reason, as outlined in the petition is that there are
blighted areas in the City, especially in the core area of the downtown. In view. of
this, acquisition, rehabilitation, conservation, development and redevelopment of certain
portions of our city appear to be in the best interests of the public.
State law regarding the formation of an Urban Renewal Authority
requires that the petition be signed by 25 registered voters. The City Clerk has
certified that the petition submitted omplies with this provision. The law also requires
that the boundaries of the authority coincide with the limits of the municipality.
Among other powers, an Urban Renewal Authority can develop a plan for
an area and work with the necessary public and private agencies on irrple:mnting the
program. The plan must, however, be submitted to the City Council for approval.
The attached Resolution establishes an Urban Renewal Authority for the
reasons stated above.
If Council passes this Resolution, you should discuss how the commission
members will be appointed. State law provides that the Mayor can appoint 5 - 11 commis-
sioners. You might want to discuss what factors should be considered in selecting those
people as well as the method of selection.
The petitioners have prepared a presentation illustrating what can be
accomplished in the care area with an Urban Renewal Authority.
324
June 6, 1978
Assistant City Attorney Liley stated before a presentation by
the proponents was made, she would like to present an overview
of contents of the statutes regarding urban renewal authorities.
I. An Urban Renewal Project - Definition of Terms.
A. Urban Renewal Project.
r
An Urban Renewal project as defined by the applicable Colorado
statute is a project to eliminate and prevent the development
or spread of slums and blight in an urban renewal area. The
activities may include:
1) Acquisition of the slum or blighted area or a portion of
that area;
2) Demolition and removal of buildings and improvements;
3) The installation or construction of streets, utilities,
parks, playgrounds and other necessary improvements;
4) .Disposition of any property which has been acquired,by
the Authority for purposes of the Urban Renewal Project
at fair value of such property for uses in conformance
with an Urban Renewal Plan for the area.
B. Slum Area.
A slum area is defined as an area in which there is a'predominance
of buildings or improvements which are detrimental to the public
health, safety, morals or welfare by virtue of delapidation,
deterioration, age, inadequate provision for ventilation, light,
air, sanitation or open spaces, high density of population and
overcrowding or any conditions which might endanger life or
property.
C. Urban Renewal Plan.
An Urban Renewal Plan is a plan for an urban renewal project which
conforms to the master plan for the municipality as a whole and
which is sufficiently detailed to indicate necessary land acquisition,
demolition and removal of structures, redevelopment, improvements
and rehabilitation in the urban renewal area, as well as any
zoning and planning changes which may be needed for the area and
which additionally shows land uses, maximum densities, building
requirements and the plans relationship to defined local objectives
regarding appropriate land uses, traffic, public transportation,
utilities and other public improvements.
r�
325
June 6, 1978
J
II. Creation of an Urban Renewal Authority.
A. Filing of a petition by twenty-five electors of the City.
B. Ten days notice of Council hearing to determine the necessity of
creating an Authority.
C. Hearing of the Council to determine whether to create an Urban
r Renewal Authority.
1) Full opportunity to be heard by all interested persons.
2) Findings that
a. One or more slum or blighted areas exist in the City.
b. The acquisition, clearance, rehabilitation, conservation,
development or redevelopment is necessary in the interests
0 of the public health, safety, morals or welfare.
ACreation of the Urban Renewal Authority is. in the public
interests.
D. Adoption of a resolution making the above findings.
E. Appointment of Commissioners by the Mayor.
1) An odd .number of commissioners of not less than five nor
more than eleven.
2) Only one of the commissioners may be an official of the City.
3) Staggered terms.
4) Designation of the Chairman for the first year by the Mayor.
5) Approval of the Council of the appointment of the commissioners,
as well as the designation of the Chairman by the Mayor.
6) Necessary expenses paid but no compensation for services.
F. Certificate signed by the Commissioners filed with the Secretary
of State setting forth the findings of the City Council and the
appointments of the commissioners. .
326
June 6, 1978
III. Powers of an Urban Renewal Authority.
A. The Authority has no power to levy or assess any type of taxes
against any property.
B. The Authority has all other powers necessary to accomplish the
purposes of urban renewal.
C. Some of the most important of these powers are as follows:
1) To undertake urban renewal projects and to execute any
contracts or other instrument necessary for those purposes.
2) To acquire property by any legal means including the acquisition
of property by condemnation.
3) To sell, lease or otherwise transfer property held by the
Authority for purposes in keeping with the Urban Renewal Plan.
4) To participate with the municipality in planning for the
Urban Renewal area.
5) To borrow money and to invest any of its funds.
IV. Approval of the Urban Renewal Plan.
A. After the City Council has by resolution created an Urban Renewal
Authority, appointed the appropriate number of commissioners and
designated a chairman, and certified the findings and the appoint-
ments to the Secretary of State, the following steps should be
taken for approval of an Urban Renewal Plan.
1) Development of a general urban renewal plan for the area by
the Urban Renewal Authority.
2) Submission of this plan to the Planning and Zoning Board for
review and recommendations, particularly with regard to con-
formance with the general plan of the City.
3) The Planning and Zoning Board submits written recommendations
to the Council within thirty days.
4) Hearing by the Council on proposed plan. Notice must be pub-
lished of the time, date, place and purpose of the hearing
and shall identify the urban renewal area covered by the plan.
5) Following the hearing, the Council must make findings including:
a. Conformance of the plan with the general plan for the City.
b. Ability of the plan to afford maximum opportunity for rehab-
ilitation and redevelopment of the Urban Renewal Area by
private enterprise.
327
1
June 6, 1978
r
V. Acceptance of Proposal for Redevelopment.
A. After approval by Council of a plan for the Urban Renewal .Area,
but, prior to any acquisition of property by the Authority, it
must publish notice asking for proposals from any persons interested
in undertaking a redevelopment or rehabilitation of the Urban
Renewal Area, in accordance with the plan for the area.
I
1) Consideration by the Authority of all such proposals taking
into consideration financial and legal ability of the persons
making the proposals.
2) The Authority may negotiate with any persons for such.proposals.
3) Acceptance by the Authority of the proposal deemed to be in
the public interest.
4) Notification of intent to accept the proposal must be filed
with the Council fifteen days prior to any such acceptance.
5) Execution by the Authority of appropriate contracts with
developer to accomplish the proposed redevelopment.
VI. Financing by the Authority.
A. Power to issue bonds of the Authority to finance its activities.
B. A number of alternative financing schemes are provided for by
statute. The bonds which are issued may be general obligation
bonds of the Authority or may be special obligations of the
Authority.
C. No bonds which are issued by the Authority shall be an indebtedness
of the City.
VII. Cooperation of the City with the Urban Renewal Authority.
The City may enter into a number of transactions with the Urban Renewal
Authority for the purposes of accomplishing the goals and objectives
of the Authority. Among these, it may
A. Sell, convey or lease any of its property to the Authority.
B. Cooperate with the Authority in planning for the Urban Renewal Project.
C. Provide for public improvements within the Urban Renewal Area.
D. Furnish administrative and other services to the Authority.
328
June 6, 1978
City Attorney March stated he needed to make a public statement,
for the record, which is as follows:
"Since I am City Attorney, and it has been printed in the papers,
I do represent the parties who have had an interest and do desire
to have this formed. For that reason, the staff attorneys'office
has done the work on this matter and will advise the Council on
the matter and I will not. I am not actually going to make
a presentation on behalf of the developers, they will make their
own presentation, and .for that, I'd like to introduce Ron Anderson."
Mr. Anderson made preliminary remarks.
Councilman Bloom questioned the propriety of considering this
plan at this time. Assistant City Attorney Liley stated there
isinothing irregular about hearing the presentation at this
time.
Mr. Charles Rapp, 1205 West Mountain Avenue, presented slides
of the proposed area and slides of similar areas as they relate
to the plan under proposal.
The following persons spoke in support of the Resolution creating
an Urban Renewal Authority:
1. Ed Norris, representing the DMA.
2. Tom Bennett, 1513 Lakeside Drive.
3. Dick Albrecht, Executive Director of the Chamber of
Commerce.
4. .Ray Dixon, member of the Cultural Resources Board.
5. Wayne Sundberg, 1636 Glenmoor.
6. June Bennett, currently identified with the Poudre
Landmarks Foundation.
7. Rick VanFleet, Branch Manager of E. F. Hutton in
Fort Collins.
Assistant City Attorney Liley stated the Resolution needs a
number to be filled in from 5-11.
Councilman Bowling stated he would like to receive applications
for commissioners. Other Councilmembers also requested that a
work session be set to discuss further details of the logistics
of forming an authority.
r
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Bowling to adopt the Findings and Resolution and insert the
figure "5-11" on page 2 of the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays:
Councilman Bloom.
THE MOTION CARRIED
329
June 6, 1978
Mayor Suinn declared a recess until 1:45 p.m. Upon reconvening,
the meeting, Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by
Councilman Wilkinson to change the agenda and go to item
number 28, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 59,1978
Rezoning Wells -West Mountain Property. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance Referred Back to Staff Rezoning
Wells - West Mountain Property
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
This is a citizen -initiated rezoning of 88 acres located west of
Shields Street on Mountain Avenue. It is a proposal to "down -zone" the area from R-M,
Medium Density, to R-L, Low Density Residential.
Citizens are distinctly divided on this issue. The petitioner's
contend, among other arguments, that preservation of the single-family character of the
neighborhood is consistent with our Goals & Objectives, and that continued conversions
to multi -family units would complicate existing problems with traffic, privacy and parking.
The opponents of the proposal have some concerns about the admi ustra-
tive processing of the request, and also contend that the low number of rmiltiple-family
onversions occuring since 1965 proves that the R-M zoning poses little threat to the
residential character of the neighborhood. Opponents also state that surrounding land
uses are not adversely affected by the R-M District, and that many of our Goals &
Objectives deal with the advantages of increased residential densities and adversity of
housing types.
More complete arguments on both sides of this issue are included in
your agenda packet.
Due to an administrative error in notifying surrounding property
owners, the Planrang and Zoning Board heard this proposal on March 6 and on May 8. At
the latter hearing, Planning and Zoning Board voted 4 - 0 in favor of the rezoning,
providing the area west of Bryan Street be excluded (The Frey Subdivision).
One of the concerns not completely addressed is what happens to the
existing or potential multi -family uses after down -zoning ---after they became non-
conforming uses. The Planning and Zoning Board tried to protect the existing single-
family homes potentially wishing to convert by making the ordinance take effect 6 months
after adoption. That would ostensibly allow those owners wishing to convert to multi- .
family that period of time to do so. But financial institutions may not provide loans
for a potential non -conforming use. Our non -conforming use provisions are lenient,
mitigating somewhat the problems.
we think the rezoning is consistent with our Goals & Objectives and
greoommend approval of this Ordinance on first reading.
330
June 6, 1978
City Manager Arnold stated that since this is a citizen
initiated rezoning, the procedure will be a presentation by
the proponents followed by the opponents, then the staff
comments.
Councilwoman Cray disqualified herself from discussion and
voting on this item.
Mr. Dave Frick, 1300 West Mountain Avenue, one of the petitioners
for this rezoning„ spoke in favor of the petition for all the
reasons outlined in the City Manager's memorandum. .
Attorney Charles Bloom, representing those persons living in
th'e Frey Subdivision, requested this area be excluded from this
rezoning request. Assistant City Attorney Liley stated it was
the intent to exclude the Frey Subdivision.
Attorney Kelsey Smith, one of the owners of the Kelger Park
Subdivision, requested this area also be excluded from the
rezoning request, and presented a brief on the matter.
Attorney Smith requested that appraiser Don Shannon report
to the Council the values of the Kelger Park Property.
Mr. Joseph Stern, 1221 LaPorte Avenue, requested that Council
retain the entire area in the R-M zone. He had previously
presented an 18 page brief and spoke to certain areas of the
brief.
Mr. Tom Brubaker, 1246 West Mountain, spoke in support of the
rezoning request with the exclusion of Kelger Park.
Mr. George Lane, 1412 West Mountain,stated he did not want
to convert his home into a multiple_ family dwelling.
Mr. Richard Siever, realtor, stated the area in question is one
of the most popular in the area for resale.
Mr. Michael Wells, 1426 West Mountain, spoke to the focus of
the petition: -to preserve the neighborhood.
Mr. Kemper Riffe,. 116 Lyons Street, stated the petitioners
did not have the support of 70% of the property owners for the
rezoning as has been stated, repeatedly.
Mr. Kenneth H. Gross, 145 North Roosevelt, requested all those
persons in attendance to indicate their position in favor of
the rezoning request by raising their hands.
City Manager Arnold then recommended Council consider their
findings in this matter and refer the matter back to staff
for inclusion of those findings in the ordinance. Councilmembers
considered the facts of the preceding hearing.
331
June 6, 1978
0
City Attorney March spoke to the pending motion that would
be an understanding that Council has concluded the hearing
and the only action on June 20, 1978 would be to approve or
reject the ordinance.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Wilkinson that this ordinance be referred back to staff for
inclusion of the findings, for exclusion of the Kelger Park
property and exclusion of the six month time limit and to
be placed back on the agenda on June 20, 1976. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and
Wilkinson. (Councilwoman Gray out of the room.)
Mayor Suinn then declared a five minute recess.
Upon the meeting being reconvened, City Manager Arnold stated
the next six items are preliminary plans with the exception
of item 19 which is a preliminary and a final; all of these
have been recommended for approval subject to staff concerns
being met on the final and Council may want to act on.these
by one motion. Council concurred in the recommendation.
Following are the next six items:
19. Lot 18, South Mesa Subdivision P.U.D., Preliminary and
Final Plans - Approved
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item: .
This is a proposal for a oamiercial P.U.D. on .46 acre zoned H-B
and located on Horsetooth Road east of South Mason Street.
The applicant received a variance to the 2-acre requirement on
All concerns of staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have been
met. We recamiend approval of this P.U.D.
20. The Wharf: Landings Fifth Filing, P.U.D., Preliminary
Plans - Approved Subject to Staff Concerns
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
1
The Wharf is a proposal for 38 multi -family units on 3.2 acres
zoned R-P and located on Horsetooth Road west of Landings Drive.
Staff camiented on the intensity of use on the west end of the site,
and suggested that buildings be shifted, units eliminated or landscaping added in order
to correct the problem.
332
June 6, 1978
Staff also noted the need to provide 24 feet of backup space for 900
parking spaces. In addition, driveway entrance radii should be increased to provide
adequate back-up space.
Other comments included signage of private streets, provision of the
private street maintenance guarantee, utility plan specifications, and security lighting.
The applicant has agreed to oomply with all staff canmments.
We recommend approval of this preliminary subject to staff oamnents
being met on the final plan.
21. Greenbriar P.U.D., Preliminary Plan - Approved Subject to
Staff Concerns
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
This is a proposal for 199 dwelling units on 79.5 acres zoned R-L-P
and located on Willox Lane at lemay Avenue. This P.U.D. is planned for a mix of uses
including single-family, townhouse, multiple -family and comnercial.
Staff comments concerned the development of Willox lane to accommodate
4 traffic lanes, street patterns, open space, and utilities.
The developer has agreed to meet all staff comments on the final plans
Both Planning and Zoning. Board and staff recomnennd approval subject to staff concerns
being addressed on the final.
We recommend approval with staff comments to be met on the final plans.
22. Evergreen Park Subdivision Fourth Filing, Preliminary
Plan - Approved Subject to Staff Concerns
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
This subdivision is for a proposed 102 single-family lots on 33 acres
zoned R-L-P and located on Redwood Street south of Conifer.
Staff made the following recommendations concerning this plan:
(1) No residential development should be allowed in
Dry Creek Flood Plain in the southern portion of
the site.
(2) Lots abutting the expressway should have a depth
of 150 feet for noise abatement.
(3) The applicant needs to submit a complete drainage
report.
333
June 6, 1978
other staff comments concerned parkland acquisition, building place-
finent and street names.
A separate, but related consideration here is the future Redwood Street
in relation to the Ebrt Collins Expressway. Although under this proposal Redwood Street
would be developed for access, we have been concerned about the eventual extension of
Redwood past the Expressway and the development of this street as a major traffic route.
Recent discussions with the State Highway Department indicate that they are willing to
cooperate and construct a grade separation where Redwood would intersect with the
Expressway, providing the City participates in the funding. Since our option for extend-
ing Redwood is open, staff feels a frontage road between Redwood and lkmy on the south
side of the Expressway is unnecessary.
Both staff and Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval subject
to staff's comments being addressed on the final plan.
23. Brownstone Square Subdivision, Preliminary Plan - Approved
Subiect to Staff Concerns
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
This is a proposal for four (4) multi -family lots on 1.97 acres zoned
R-M, Medium Density Residential District, located on Overland Trail south of West Prospect
treet.
The Planning and Zoning Board concurred with the following concerns
voiced by staff:
(1) Overland Trail should receive the standard arterial
improvements, except the bike path. (Bikes will be
acccmiodated on the east side of the street.) A 4-
foot standard walk should be provided and separated
from the street.
(2) If on -site detention is to be provided within the Bureau
of Reclamation easement, the applicant should obtain
written approval of that agency.
(3) Individual water service to each lot may be accomplished
by bringing in four 1" service lines in a single trench.
The Board recomme-nded approval of the proposed plan subject to the
above conments being met on the final plat.
We recamiend approval subject to staff cc orients being addressed on
the final plat.
334
June 6,.1978
24. Overland West Subdivision, Preliminary Plan - Approved
Subject to Staff Concerns
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
Overland west Subdivision is a proposal for 61 single-family lots on
20.14 acres zoned R-L and located on Overland Trail at West Elizabeth.
Concerns which staff recanmenls be addressed on the final plan
include:
(1) Submission of a detailed and caplete drainage
report.
(2) Redesign of the intersection at "Station Drive" and
the unnamed cul-de-sac so that it is perpendicular.
(3) Provision of standard collector and arterial street
improvements on Elizabeth and Overland Trail, includ-
ing a bikepath on Overland Trail.
(4) Provision of common driveways for Lots 25 and 26.
(5) Possible enlargement of Lots 27, 1 and 41 to make than
easier to build upon.
(6) A new name for "Station Drive" because it is a duplication.
The Planning and Zoning Board concurs with staff, and reoonTnends
approval of the plan providing staff comnents are addressed on the final plan.
We reoamiend approval subject to staff concerns being met on the
final plat.
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Bowling to approve items 19 through 24 subject to staff
recommendation. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray,
Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Citizen Participation
Attorney Scott Albertson of Golden,Colorado, speaking on behalf
of Wood Brothers and Medema Homes, reported to Council that the
final plat of Woodwest 7th Filing had been approved by Council
on March 14, 1978, subject to execution of a subdivision agree-
ment and an agreement with the New Mercer Ditch Company. Since
that time, various agencies of the City have attempted to include
in the subdivision agreement a condition which would impose an
obligation for Wood Brothers to construct Storm Drainage facilities
335
June 6, 1978
within Woodwest 7th Filing sufficient to accept Storm Drainage
water presently owned by Bartran Homes. Attorney Albertson
gave an oral report as to the historic runoff in the area
and the history of meetings held with city staff regarding the
terms of the agreement and requested that Council remove its
condition from the prior approval of Woodwest 7th Filing or
in the alternative that City Council direct the city staff to
execute the subdivision agreement as drafted by the City with
the deletion of paragraph 7-C.
He then presented a letter summarizing his argument and requested
a response from the City within one week. City Manager spoke
to -the entire drainage problem and requested the Director of
Public Works,Roy A. Bingman address this issue. Roy Bingman
and Assistant City Attorney Liley spoke to the City staff's
attempt to resolve this problem and requested time to review
the letter and attempt to resolve this problem.
Attorney Albertson agreed to this procedure.
City Manager's Report
City Manager Arnold made the following report and announcements:
(a) East Drake paving has been rescheduled to June 13, 1978
due to the inclement weather.
(b) There will be a meeting with the School Board on Wednesday,
June 7, 1978 at 12:00 p.m.
(c) The first Council meeting in July will be held on Monday,
July 3rd rather than on Tuesday due to the holiday.
(d) A meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 8,
1978 in the Canyon Room concerning the Lemay Avenue Extension.
(e) On July 13, 1978 at 11:45 a.m. there will be a tour of
the Lincoln Communitv Center.
(f-) The Colorado Municipal League meeting will be held June 21
i through 23.
(g) City Manager Arnold then publicly commended John Brooks of
the Parks and Recreation Department for staying up all
night and shaking the snow from the trees in the downtown
area.
(h) The Cable TV Advisory Committee has met and has scheduled
further meetings. A report will be forthcoming to Council.
(i) The branch pickup is about 90% completed; the staff expects
it to be done by June 12.
336
June 6, 1978
(j) The Highway Department has awarded the contract for
construction of the last mile between Fort Collins and
Loveland.
(k) This is City Planner Les Kaplan's last Council meeting
before leaving the City.
Report from City Council Members on Committees
(a) Councilman Russell reported that the next meeting of
Platte River Power Authority will be on June 19, 1978
at 2:00 p.m. in Loveland.
(b) Councilwoman Gray requested Council's input on a letter
from COG regarding the funding for COG. Council will
respond to Councilwoman Gray individually.
(c) Councilman Bowling reported that the Steering Committee
for the Corridor had met and voted that the original
six member steering committee would be the steering
committee and that the two committees would be staffed
immediately. County Commissioner Thayer has been elected
Chairwoman.
Collindale South Subdivision, First Filing,__
Preliminary Plat - Tabled to June 13, 1978
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
The 1041 group, and the Urban Service Area Steering Committee discussed
the Collindale Annexation in April. Discussion centered on the B-P zoning. In response,
City Council persuaded the developer to change that zoning to T-Transition---pending
completion of the Urban Service Area Study. With that change, Council approved the
zoning and master plan in February.
In discussions with the County Commissioners concerning Park South, it
became clear the County felt that approval was contrary to the Urban Service Area Study
reccmmmendation. While staff suggested the Council's feeling about the Urban Service Area
Steering Committee's concern was net with the T zoning, that didn't seem to satisfy the
Commissioners.
At the last Urban Service Area Steering Committee meeting the plat was
recommended to be tabled and the past misunderstanding was re -discussed.
Our responsibility is to make our decisions as sound as is possible,
using all available information ---including the recommendations of the Urban Service Area
Steering Committee. While the staff agrees that the development proposed is sensible,
there's a question of trust and support for the Urban Service Area Steering Committee's
work.
we think it's reasonable to recommend tabling until completion of the
Study. 2 months will not likely make a serious -difference.
IWA
June 6, 1978
One of the five partners in this venture, Mr. Bill Tiley,
presented a chronological review of negotiations and actions
on this plan starting in February of 1977. Mr. Tiley stated
that any further delays in this proposal would jeopardize
any proposals for this site. A representative of ZVFK Architects
presented slides of the proposals.
City Manager Arnold presented an alternative for Council I
consideration; that would be to have the 1041 Steering Committee
members or the entire Council meet with the County Commissioners
on the Committee and see if this preliminary plan could be
approved. This matter could then be scheduled to an adjourned
meeting of the Council on June 13. The petitioners agreed to
this recommendation.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Wilkinson
to set a meeting immediately with the County Commissioners to
make a presentation to them and explain the situation and problems
of,this particular development and ask their cooperation. This
matter is to be on the agenda on June 13, 1978. Yeas: Council -
members Bowling„ Cray, Russell, St. Croix, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None. (Councilman Bloom out of the room.)
Amendment of Spring Creek Plaza P.U.D. Approved
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
This is a proposed amendment of a commercial P.U.D. on 2.37 acres
zoned B-P and located at the Southwest corner of South Shields and Stuart Street.
. The requested amendment to the approved site plan is to identify a
tavern use in the P.U.D.
Cn March 14 Council passed an Ordinance which would allow tavern
uses in the B-P zoning district provided such uses are shown on the unit development
plan. Because of this ordinance requirement, the applicant is submitting the proposed
amendment. (Prior to approval of the ordinance, Council had interpreted the B-P
District as not including taverns as permitted uses.)
The applicant feels the amendment does not substantially alter the
site plan. iHe has also obtained a tavern liquor license. His current approved plan
provides for' a restaurant and he could obtain a restaurant liquor license without this
amendment.
The applicant contends that the actual difference between a "tavern"
and a "restaurant" with a liquor license is negligible, and that either use would be
oriented to neighborhood use.
The Planning and zoning Board is split 3-3 on this issue. Those
Igainst the amendment feel:
338
June 6, 1978
(1) A tavern violates the neighborhood concept,
(2) Is inconsistent with the original intent expressed
when this area was rezoned to B-P,and
(3) A tavern would cause both traffic and parking problems.
Those favoring the amendment see, no traffic or parking problems and feel the proposal
affirms the neighborhood concept.
When Council adopted Ordinance 21 in March, it was felt that the
provision of site -by -site analysis of tavern uses in the B-P zone would permit Council
to determine the appropriateness of such uses for a particular area.
Before we use governmental power to deny a requested use, there
should be some reasons submitted substantiating that denial.
We can find no reason why a tavern in this P.U.D. should not be
allowed. The current approved restaurant and proposed tavern both would seat 50 people.
The applicant could receive a liquor license for the restaurant. Because of their
similarity, the restaurant and tavern would have similar impacts on parking and traffic.
In addition, the size of both uses suggests a neighborhood orientation.
Moreover, in reviewing the tavern license, the Liquor Licensing
Authority received a petition in favor of granting the license that was signed by 1200
residents. No petitions were submitted in opposition. Since the Authority looks at the
requirements of a neighborhood in evaluating license applications, it seems that it's
already been determined that a need for such a facility exists in this area. we,
therefore, can find no reason for denying this request, and recommend approval of the
amendment.
Attorney Eugene Fischer, representing the developers,Mr, and
Mrs. Winfred Kurtz of 1000 Stuart Street, reviewed the history
of the petition at the time of rezoning which he stated clearly
included a restaurant. Attorney Fischer then stated that
Mr. Carlson had contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Kurtz to sign a
lease subject to the granting of a hotel/restaurant liquor
license. They later decided to apply for a tavern license.
The Liquor Licensing Authority had held a hearing and petitions
in support of the application had been received containing
1,200 signatures. The petitioners did not feel that the action
of the Council in requiring this amendment was legal because a
"bar" had never been defined until Council recently did so.
339 8
June 6, 1978
Attorney Fischer stated that Mr. Carlson is here to show that
just because.he will operate with a tavern license it will
still be a restaurant. Therefore on this basis he requested
that City Council make the technical interpretation in favor
of this applicant.
Attorney John Reid, representing Mr. Carlson the liquor license
applicant, stated Mr. Carlson would speak to what he proposes
to do at the establishment. Mr. Carlson explained the hours
of operation, the proposed menu and his method of operation.
Mr. Delmer Baird, 1643 Independence Road, -.spoke in support of
the opening of the tavern licensed outlet.
Mayor Suinn inquired if there was anyone else to speak in
support of the amendment, hearing none, 1�e inquired if there
was someone to speak in opposition to the amendment.
Mrs. Peggy Reeves, 1931 Sandalwood, stated she did not oppose
liquor licensed outlets, but was concerned that a restaurant
facility is going to draw in a lot of traffic and could not
recall that a restaurant had been proposed at the time the
the area was rezoned.
Councilwoman Gray expressed concern that neighborhood
residents had not been notified who were opposed to the
tavern license.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Bloom to approve the amendment of Spring Creek Plaza P.U.D.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Russell and Wilkinson.
Nays: Councilmembers Gray, St. Croix and Suinn.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Allen Farm Subdivision, Preliminary;
Trend Homes Subdivision Preliminary
Tabled to a Later Date
Following is the City Manager's memorandum on this item:
Allen Farm Subdivision is a proposal for 312 single-family lots on
86.9 acres zoned R-L-P and located on South Shields north of Horsetooth Road.
Trend Farms is a proposal for 535 single-family lots on 156.8 acres
zoned R-L-P and located on Taft Hill Road north of Horsetooth.
Although separate action must be taken on each proposal, because they
are adjacent to each other and both applicants are using the same design firm, they are
being considered together.
340
June 6,.1978
Staff camients are lengthy on both subdivisions and basically concern
(1) the scale and homogenity of development, (2) street layout and access, and (3) expo-
sure and access to the park area.
Planning staff reoonre xied to the Planning and Zoning Board denial
of both preliminary plans because they did not respond to the following:
(1) In Trend Homes there is a need for more variety, and
sites for alternative uses should be provided.
(2) Streets in both subdivisions should be redesigned to
provide adequate exposure and access to the park.
(3) In Allen Farm Subdivision, differentiation of streets
from cul-de-sacs is needed and a more direct street
access to the 13.4 acre tract appears necessary.
The Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-2 to approve the Preliminary
plans subject to staff camients and that the lateral ditch be incorporated into the
park and not used as a boundary.
The developer has submitted a revised plat of Trend Hares which responds
to most of staffs co:mients concerning street layout and access to the park.
The developer has indicated uewillirgness to conply with recannendations
on the final. The question is one of urban design philosophy. Council may wish to
address the question with the developer.
Staff mmients on both these subdivisions can be addressed on the final.
For that reason, we recoamend approval of both preliminary plans providing staff concerns
are handled on the finals.
Planner II Paul Deibel spoke to the Planning staff recommendations
which are as follows:
Planning Staff Recommendation: Denial
The Planning staff does not recommend approval of the preliminary plats in
their present form because we do not feel that they respond to the following
concerns:
1. Concerning scale in the Trend Subdivision, we feel some sites for alter-
native uses (e.g. church, day care center, small tracts for higher or
lower density development should be provided to increase the variety of
land use in this 1/4 square mile area;
341 1
June 6, 1978
2. Concerning the park, we feel it and adjacent streets in the Trend and
Allen Farm Subdivision should be redesigned to provide adequate exposure
and access to the park. Optimally, the park should be bounded by
streets on its south and east sides as well as west side;
3. Concerning street layout in the Allen Farm Subdivision, we feel that:
a) the best way to "differentiate through streets from cul-de-sacs"
would be to design shorter, straighter cul-de-sacs off "through"
streets rather than a "loop" street; however, differentiation of
cul-de-sacs with signs and narrower streetwidths would be acceptable
if the subdivision ordinance is revised to allow narrower streets;
b) a more direct street access to the 13.4 acre tract (e.g. via Swallow
Road) appears to be necessary if development at a density greater
than 6 d.u./acre is anticipated on either the 13.4 acre tract or the
10.0 acre tract. (This comment is based on a rough estimation of
peak hour tra-fic counts, and may be subject to qualification upon
further analysis.)
Mr. Ron Hoisington of THK representing both of the petitioners,
addressed the staff comments and revisions in the plan which
had been made in response to the comments.
Councilmembers spoke at length to the following concerns:
1. Allen Farm - access to arterial streets.
2. Trend Homes
(a) Park frontage
(b) Urban design considerations
(c) Lack of reference points
(d) The desire to meet with the School Board to determine_
whether a school truly would be necessary in the area.
(e) The desire of the staff to have the area provide for
churches, schools and day care centers.
Mr. Bill Bartran spoke to the Allen Farm Subdivision and requested
Council approve the preliminary plan.
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell
to table the Trend Homes Subdivision and ask that it come back
after the staff has met again with the developers to discuss
Council's concerns and Council meets with the School Board
regarding the school and that it be brought back as soon as
possible. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray., Russell,
St. Croix and Suinn. Nays: Councilman Wilkinson.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell
to table the Allen Farm Subdivision with the same recommendations
(as the previous motion). Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray,
Russell and St. Croix. Nays: Councilmembers Suinn and Wilkinson.
THE MOTION CARRIED
342
June 6, 1978
Acquisition of Detention Pond Site
Approved
Following is a memorandum from Director of Public [corks
Roy A. Bingman:
One of the areas identified by the Storm Drainage Board and
in the Storm Drainage Program as a problem is the Clearview
area. This area is bounded by Lake Street, Taft Hill Road,
Elizabeth Street and Overland Trail.
The drainage problem is that there is an insufficient easement
for major runoff, beginning at about Cypress Street, and contin-
uing east to nearly Taft Hill Road. Without a detention facility
located somewhere west of Cypress Street, many of the houses
located adjacent to the drainage channel are subject to flooding.
Over the past five years we have noted cases of flooding of houses
during moderately heavy rainfall.
The Storm Drainage Board has voted to recommend to the City
Council the purchase of a ten acre site for a detention pond.
The pond is part of an overall plan for drainage in the Clear -
view area, which includes the construction of the pond and in-
stallation of a concrete lined drainage channel to provide control
of runoff at a reasonable cost.
The City has negotiated with Evelyn Minatta for the purchase
of the south ten acres of her property which is located along
the drainage channel. This site would work well for a detention
pond.
The Storm Drainage Board has recommended purchase of the site,
using funds from the Seven Year Capital Program allocated for
storm drainage.
1
343
June 6,.1978
Councilman Wilkinson made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Gray to approve the acquisition of the dentention pond. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Russell, St. Croix and
Wilkinson. Nays: Councilman Suinn.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Other Business I
(a) Councilwoman Gray requested a report from the administration
on keeping the.Library open on Sunday afternoon.
(b) Councilman St. Croix stated a Corridor Study meeting had
been held today and an announcement had been made relative to
a public hearing on June 12 at Rocky Mountain High School from
7:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Adjournment
Mayor Suinn declared the meeting adjourned to June 13, 1978 at
1:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
9
344