HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/21/1976-RegularDecember 21. 1976
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council - Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 5:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
was held on Tuesday, December 21, 1976, 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, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Staff Members Present: Brunton, Bingman, Krempel, Liley,
DiTullio, Wood, Kaplan, Smith, Deibel,
Kelly and Dowell.
Also: City Attorney Arthur March, Jr.
Consider Any Items from Adjourned Meeting
Not Completed
The Council then went on starting with item number 10 on the
agenda for the adjourned meeting before going on with the agenda
for the regular meeting.
Agreement with DMA Plaza, Inc.
Councilman Russell left the room during the discussion and vote
on this particular item.
The City Manager's memo regarding this item follows:
"The City of Fort Collins has been considering the development
of a small parking lot on the southwest corner of Mathews and
Olive. To develop this parking lot we will have to acquire two
homes and have an agreement with the DMA Plaza to lease the unused
portion of their DMA Plaza parking lot. We recently received the
approval of the entire DMA Plaza Board approving the copy of the
enclosed lease agreement. Part of this agreement requires that
the DMA Plaza obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City
Council approve the lease agreement with the DMA Plaza, Inc., and
proceed with the acquisition of the two pieces of privately owned
property as soon as the Zoning Board of Appeals' variance is
received."
107
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to approve the lease agreement with DMA Plaza, Inc. and proceed
with the acquisition of the two pieces of privately owned property
as soon as the Zoning Board of Appeals' variance is received.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None. (Councilman Russell out of room.)
Capital Program - City Park Nine
The City Manager's memo regarding this item follows:
"The 1976 revised budget contained $31,000 for capital expenditures
at City Park Nine. Of this amount, $20,000 was allocated for
Phase I development of the underground sprinkler system which
consisted of a pumping station, a wet well, an 8-inch underground
pipe and electrical work.
The bid process for the construction portion of Phase I will not
be completed by December 31, 1976, as anticipated, therefore, the
unencumbered portion of the $20,000 appropriation will lapse. We
are anticipating that by the end of 1976 some $2,760 will be spent
on this project. Since the balance of the $20,000 anpropriation
will lapse, we will request an additional appropriation from
unappropriated surplus in the Golf Fund in the fall of 1977 to
cover the remaining expenditures. The total available appropriation
in the Golf Fund for this project in 1976 and 1977 will not exceed
$20,000.
Recommendation: This memo serves to inform Council of the necessary
accounting procedures required to complete Phase I of the sprinkler
system project at City Park Nine."
City Attorney March advised that this was only an informational
item and no action is necessary.
Administrative Policy and Procedure
in Regard to Private Water Mains
The City Manager's memo regarding this item follows:
"At the December 14, 1976, meeting the City Council received a
report on the private water main situation in the City of Fort
Collins. Prior to this meeting, they had received a copy of a
staff report on private water lines. This private water line
policy had been previously reviewed and recommended for approval
by our Water Board.
The report provides four alternatives. It was the recommendation
of the Administration and the Water Board that alternative number 4
be adopted.
108
r
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City
Council adopt by motion the policy designated as alternative
number 4 with regard to our private water line policy and
procedures."
Following is an excerpt from a memorandum from Roger E. Krempel,
Water Utilities Director:
"It is the staff recommendation and that of the Water Board, that
Alternate #4 be adopted as the policy which is stated as follows:"
'The City assume the maintenance
of the private lines
immediately upon petition of the customers
lines and execution of a written agreement
the City will provide at least a standard
include fire hydrants as needed to replace
a period not to exceed five years from the
ment or sooner if desired by the customers
and hydrants to be paid for, with interest
over a reasonable period of time.'
served by those water
by said customers that
residential size main to
the private line within
signing of said agree -
Costs of the main
at 6%, by the customers
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom
to adopt the policy designated as alternative #4 with regard for
our private water.line policy and procedures. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson
Nays: None.
Minutes of the Adjourned Council Meeting of November 23, 1976,
the General Improvement District Board on November 23, 1976,
the Regular Meeting of December 7, 1976, and the Regular Meeting
of the General Improvement District Board of December 7, 1976
Approved as Published
Mayor Wilkinson presented all of the above listed minutes for
comments or corrections.
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom to
approve the minutes of the Adjourned Council meeting of
November 23, 1976, the General Improvement District Board on
November 23, 1976, the Regular Council meeting of December 7, 197E
and the Regular meeting of the General Improvement District Board
of December 7, 1976 as published. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom,
Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Resolution Adopted Transferring Funds
Between Appropriations
The City Manager's memo regarding this item follows:
109
As in past years, it is necessary during the last quarter of the fiscal year
to amend our appropriation ordinance to reflect revised budget estimates.
The attached resolution transfers appropriation authority to departments with
projected overruns. These overruns in accounts within a fund may be handled
by resolution providing the overall appropriation capacity is available. The
attached resolution effectuates these necessary changes within this framework.
Listed below are specific justifications for over -expenditures in various
accounts which we have recommended transfers be made.
Account Amount Needed
General Fund
Justification
Human Resources $ 37,070 Increased participation in the
.elderly tax rebate program; increase
in management contract with Housing
Authority of which costs are reim-
bursable.
Transportation $ 5,000 Increased salary costs associated
with peak hour bus and program '.
supervisor's salary. Illlllj
City Attorney $ 7,500 Required to cover costs associated
with fulltime assistant City Attorney j
hired in July.
Traffic Engineering $ 11,500 Additional cost to put street lighting
payment schedule on current fiscal
year basis (13 payments required in -
1976).
Roselawn Cemetery $ 1,650 To cover salary costs expended here
but budgeted in the Grandview salary
account.
Insurance and Retirement $ 27,100 To cover unanticipated rate increases
for general liability and commercial
.property insurance coverage requirements.
Total General Fund $ 89,820
110
Account Amount Needed Justification
Water Fund
Water Source of Supply $ 20,000 To cover costs of increased water.
assessments.
Total Water Fund $ 20,000
Sewer Fund
Interest on Bonds $106,000 Interest was miscalculated due to
the incorrect schedule of bond
payments being used (annual instead
of semi-annual).
Total Sewer Fund $106,000
Councilwoman Gray made a motion to adopt the resolution transferring
funds between appropriations, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Sunn,
and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
RESOLUTION 76-80
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TRANSFERRING FUNDS BET14EEN APPROPRIATIONS
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance has recommended the transfer of funds
between appropriations pursuant to Section 15, Article V of the City Charter
as follows:
General Fund Transfers
Transfer from the following accounts:
Management Information Systems $12,000
Building Repair and Maintenance 12,000
Public Information Officer 7,500
Police 58,320
Transfer to the following accounts:
Human Resources
$37,070
Transportation
5,000
City Attorney
7,500
Traffic Engineering
11,500
Roselawn Cemetery
1,650
Insurance and Retirement
27,100
Water Fund
Transfer from the following account:'
Transmission and Distribution $20,000
$20,000
Transfer to the following account:
Water Source of Supply $20,000
$20,000
Sewer Fund
Transfer from the following account:
Sewer Capital Improvements $106,000
$106,000
Transfer to the following account:
Interest on Bonds $106,000
$106,000 _.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the transfers set forth above are approved and the Director of
Finance is authorized to make such transfers.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
December 21, 1976.
Attest:
City Clerk ' k' -oe ut 112
: I
Ordinance Adopted on Second Reading
Relating to Elections
The City Manager's memo regarding this follows:
"At its December 7, 1976, meeting the Fort Collins City Council
adopted Ordinance No. 94, 1976, on first reading. This ordinance
raises the compensation for election of judges from $25 to
$30 per day. It also changes and corrects polling places to
coincide withthe recent changes made by the County and adopts
a new precinct map.
The increase in compensation of election judges from $25 to
$30 per day was recommended to make our rates consistent with
those paid by the County. It will cost the City $660 more per
election. This money was provided for in the 1977 Budget."
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn
to adopt Ordinance No. 94, 1976 on second reading. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 94 3.976
BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RELATING TO ELECTIONS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT.
COLLINS:
Section 1. That Section 9-3 of the Code of.the.City of
Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, amended by deleting
from said section the words and figures:
"twenty-five dollars ($25.)
and by substiuting therefor the words and figures':
"thirty dollars ($30.)".
Section 2. That Section 9-7 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, amended in the
following particulars:
113
a
A. The polling place for Precinct No. 24 is
changed from LaPorte Avenue School to Fullana School (no
change in address).
B. The polling place for Precinct.No. 28 is
changed from Lincoln Junior High School to Fort Collins
Community Pool '(no change in address). - ,
C. The polling place for Precinct No. 43 is
changed from Ellis Hall to Edwards South Lounge (no change
in address).
D. The polling place for Precinct No 46 is
changed from St. Paul's Episcopal Church, 1208 West Elizabeth
Street, to University Village West Center, 1600 West Plum
Street.
E. The polling.place for Precinct No. 47 is
changed from Bennett Street to Bennett School (no change in
address).
F. The polling place for precinct No. 55 is
changed from Free Methodist Church, 15'16 West Prospect
Street, to Prospect Greens, 1705 Heatheridge.
Section 3. That Section 9-8 of.the Code of the City of
Fort Collins be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as
follows:
"§ 9-8 Precinct map.
"The boundaries of the election precincts as herein
created in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, are
hereby fixed and established as shown.oh the -map -entitled
'Precinct Map' dated December 7 1976, which map
accompanies this ordinance and is hereby made a part
hereof. In the event the boundaries of the City of
Fort Collins are enlarged adjoining any precinct, the
existing boundaries between precincts shall be extended
in a straight'line into the additional territory so
that duly annexed lands are added to the adjoining
precinct." .
Introduced, considered favorably and. ',ordered published
this 7th' day of Dece_mber. A.D. 1976, and:to be presented
final passage on the_
for ''21az'day of December, A.D: 1976.
114
'4
M
ATTEST:
C' y erA�-20-11 I
k
City Clerk (Deputy),
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Dates Published
Attest:
mayor c--
December 7, 1976
December 21, 1976
December 12, 1976
Deputy City Clerk
(Vote: Yeas:
6,
Nays:
1)
(Vote: Yeas:
7,
Nays:
0)
and December
26,
1976
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Closing Out
Surpluses and Deficiencies in Special Improvement
Districts
The city Manager's memo regarding this item follows:
I
n
"This Ordinance will close out four special improvement districts
and transfer the surpluses or deficiencies in the districts to
the Surplus and Deficiency Account of :the Special Improvement
Fund. As indicated, all securities for all districts have been
paid and the figures in the Ordinance are the final result of the
district."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to adopt Ordinance No. 96, 1976 on first reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
115
Resolution Adopted Authorizing the Issuing of
$700,000 of Special Assessment Bonds
City Attorney March stated for the record that the resolution for
this item is found at item number 29 in the agenda.
The City Manager's memo regarding this resolution follows:
"Financing the Downtown Redevelopment Project comes primarily from
three sources; namely, special assessment bonds issued by the City,
general obligation bonds issued by the Board of Directors of the
General Improvement District, and funds from the City of Fort Collins.
The bond issues were negotiated between the City of Fort Collins
and Boettcher and Company. The understanding was that Boettcher
would purchase the bond issue at a negotiated interest rate. If
there was any delay in accepting this offer, the rate was tied into
the bond index. It was unofficially agreed that local banks would
purchase the special assessment bonds at the same rate as the
general obligation bonds. At the time of the negotiation, the
price was established at 6.339 percent. There was a delay in
accepting this offer because local banks needed the approval of
the Comptroller of the currency. When this approval was made,
the bond indicated a net interest rate of 6.136 percent. On
Monday, December 13, 1976, we met with representatives of all six
Fort Collins' banks and reviewed the details of the program.
At another meeting, we informed them they would be contacted by
Boettcher and Company acting as the pass thru agent to sell any
of the interested banks a part of this ussue. We had enough
guarantee from First National Bank and United Bank that they
would, if necessary, pick up the entire issue. However, both of
these banks indicated a desire to share this issue with all other
interested banks in the city. It is our understanding that all
but one of the local banks have indicated an interest to Boettcher
to purchase all of this issue at the 6.136 percent interest rate."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom to
adopt the resolution authorizing the issuance of $700,000 of
special assessment bonds. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
76-81
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE SALE OF BONDS _
IN DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 TO
BOETTCHER AND COMPANY
WHEREAS, in order to provide funds for the purpose of
constructing and installing local improvements in Downtown Im-
provement District No. 1, the City Council has determined to
issue special assessment bonds of the City,.,in the total principal
amount of $700,000; and 116
WHEREAS, the Charter of the City provides that all
securities -hall be sold or exchanged as determined by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined thatit
is in the best interest of the City that the bonds be issued and
sold to Boettcher and Company, Denver, Colorado, in accordance
with their proposal dated November 23, 1976.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, COLORADO:
1. That special assessment bonds of the City of Fort
Collins for Downtown Improaement District No. 1, in the principal
amount of $700,000, be issued and sold to Boettcher and Company,
Denver, Colorado, in accordance with their proposal dated November
23, 1976.
2. That. the City Council and officers of the City of
Fort Collins are authorized to do any and all things necessary to
complete the delivery of the bonds to the purchaser thereof.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED AND APPROVED This 21st day of Decem-
ber, 1976.
e
( S E A L
Mayor
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
117
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Authorizing
the Issuance of Special Assessment Bonds
The City Manager's memo regarding this item follows:
"This Ordinance provides for the issuance of $700,000 of special
assessment bonds to be used for the construction and installation
of street and mall improvements included in the Downtown Redevelop-
ment Project. The particulars of this issue are explained in the
previously adopted Resolution."
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves
to adopt Ordiannce No. 97, 1976 on first reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
Other Business
City Manager Brunton presented the following:
A sole source purchase in connection with the downtown project;
a piece of trenching machine attachment and 22 sets of teeth. at
a total cost not to exceed $16,000 for the trencher and/or $16,250
for replacement teeth.
Following is the memo from Light and Power explaining the equipment:
Pursuant to your memo of December 10, 1976, Liaht & Power was authorized to
proceed with the installation of minimum underground conduits and wiring in
the midblocks of College Ave. and along side streets to be completed Flarch 1,
1977. The purpose of the construction is to provide power to each intersec-
tion for the canopy lights, traffic signals and for possible future street-
lights on a selective basis. At this time joint trench use for irrigation
control conduits and telephone pay station service is also contemplated.
Two alternatives appear to offer the most economic trench cost when compared
to the conventional method utilizing saw cuts, jackhammers and backhoe. The
I
wo alternatives are the purchase or rental of a heavy duty trenching attach-
ment for the Light & Power trencher. Estimated trenching, costs for the pur-
chase of a trenching machine versus conventional.jackhammer methods follows:
Cost
Jackhammer $75,263
Trenching machine method
(includes purchase of machine & teeth) $45,250
Trenching machine method (rental)
*Currently being investigated; unit prices not available at this time.
118
�I
For economic and construction scheduling reasons, authorization is requested
for the option to emergency sole source purchase a trenching machine attach-
ment and 22 sets of teeth at a total. cost not to exceed'S16,000 for the trencher
and/or $16,250 for replacement teeth. In the event that a cost-effective rental
or tradeback agreement can be obtained on the trenching machine attachment, only
the machine rental plus teeth purchase will be made.
Councilman Russell made a motion to approve the sole source
purchase of the trenching equipment with attachments to be bought
out of City funds and charged to the district on a rental basis,
and that prior to actual purchase the administration investigate
more thoroughly the uses of this equipment, its reliability, and
if in fact it will do what the manufacturer claims and check with
other owners of the equipment. The motion was seconded by
Councilman Bowling. Yeas: Councilmembers Gray, Reeves, Russell,
Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: Councilmen Bloom and Bowling.
City Attorney March had the following to present:
The City of Loveland is presently litigating a case
with the Public Utilities Commission arising out of their
relationship with the Poudre Valley REA. Loveland was „
successful in the lower court, the court holding that the
city is not a public utility within the meaning of the
Colorado statutes when it provides electric service outside
its boundaries and further holding that the PUC does not
have jurisdiction to regulate the service and rates of the
city in providing such service. These are issues of substantial
concern to the City of Fort Collins as well. Several rural
electrics, through the Colorado Rural Electric Association,
have requested permission to enter the case as an amicus
curiae. Lynn Hammond has indicated that it would desirable
if the City of Fort Collins petitioned to enter the case on
the side of the City of Loveland. 'I recommend that this be
done since this is an issue which is of substantial interest
to Fort Collins. If you do desire to petition to enter this
case, you should pass a motion authorizing me to take the
necessary action to do so.
119
0
Mr. March requested authorization to enter an appearance to the
Court on behalf of the City of Fort Collins.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling
to authorize the City Attorney to enter an appearance on behalf
of the City of Fort Collins. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Also from the City Attorney:
You will recall that Wood Bros. brought suit for declara-
tory judgment in order to determine the amount of water they
must furnish to the City. At the time they began their
purchase and annexation, they obtained a letter from Mike
DiTullio who was acting City Manager that eight shares of
Pleasant Valley water would satisfy their water requirements.
This was based upon the then requirement of two acre-feet
per acre and a yield for Pleasant Valley stock of 55.55
acre-feet per share. The yield has remained constant, but
the City's requirements have been increased. The City has
claimed that any land not previously satisfied must satisfy
on the basis of the current requirement. Wood Bros., on the
other hand, claim that the letter was binding for all time
in connection with this land. The district court ruled in
favor of Wood Bros. after the hearing. I recommend that
this decision be appealed since I believe there is a strong
probablity that the district court is in error and that.the
case would be reversed on appeal. If you desire to appeal
this ruling, you should pass a motion at an official Council
meeting authorizing me to take whatever steps are necessary
to perfect an appeal of this decision.
City Attorney March requested authoriziation to appeal the
decision to a higher court.
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves
authorizing the City Attorney to appeal this decision to a higher
court. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell,
Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Mayor Wilkinson adjourned the Council meeting to call the General
Improvement District Board to order and after the business of the
District Board was completed the Regular Council meeting continued.
120
City Manager's Report
1. Average property tax refund was $50.53.
2. Housing Rehabilitation program-38 grants or loans have been
made for a total of $154,815.
3. Two contracts signed with the High Plains Regional Library
system, one for library services and one for film lending
services.
4. Jim Harding has accepted the job as Finance Director in Canon
City.
5. 1041 application for $18,000 has been approved, our appeal to
get on a higher rate has failed, our amount for the first
year is $234,000 and we need to get our application in by
April, 1977.
6. Resolution received from the Platte River Power Authority
that in 1977 our electric rates will go up 26.3%.
7. 3taff met with the Planning and Zoning Board on December 17
1976; meeting at Lesher Jr. High for entire community in
January.
8. City Manager's office has been receiving many letters of
appreciation regarding the Police Department from the citizenery.
9. Tentatively set Monday, January 10, 1977 as the time the
Council will meet with the Parks and Recreation Board.
City Council Report on Committees
1. Councilman Bloom gave a very brief summary report on the
Colorado Municipal League Police and Fire Pension Fund
proposed legislation.
2. Councilman Bowling advised that the General Board meeting
scheduled for January 5, 1977 has been Dostnoned to January 12,
1977.
3. Councilwoman Gray advised that the Colorado Municipal League
Policy Committee met last week and did follow-up from the
Pension Fund Committee and will recommend that legislation
on the pension funds be pushed. They also requested that the
Pension Committee keep active.
4. Councilman Russell advised that the Platte River Power Authority
Board will meet Wednesday, December 22, 1976 and all are invited.
0 121
5. Mayor Wilkinson stated he had met with John Powers and
several contractors regarding work on the Avery House.
Agreement on Avery House
City Manager Brunton reviewed briefly the grants which have been
applied for, received and not received to date. Following is
the report submitted:
"The purpose of the Agreement is to effectively transfer $10,000
of grant money from the Colorado Centennial -Bicentennial Commission
that the City cannot match unless we exceed the $100,000 allocation
from the Seven -Year Capital Program. Enclosed are some summary
sheets of the financial analysis of the Avery House project and
a copy of the proposed Agreement.
We will explain this information in more detail at the Council
meeting. The Poudre Landmarks Foundation will have adequate money
to provide the work under the grant; namely, electrical, plumbing,
heating, etc.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the Council
approve the Agreement for the Poudre Landmarks Foundation."
AVERY HOUSE
GRANT SUMMARY
Total City.'s
Project Cost Share Grant
Property Acquisition-1974 $79,141 $73,141 $ 6,000 .1
Property Acquisition-1975 45 45 -
Preparation of Master Plan
Jim Cox 7,877* 7,877* -
Jim Stewart 250* 250* -
Restoration 16,000 8,000 8,000
Restoration 20,000 10,000 10,0.00
122
*This can be used as soft match.
AVERY HOUSE
Budnet Detail
February 28, 1974 - -October 31, 1976
Property Acquisition
.(1974) $79,141
(1975) 45
Master Plan .
Jim Cox $ 7,877
Jim Stewart 250
Reimbursable Items
Post Cards.(Dexter Press) $ 475
Sketches (Don Art Printing) 292
Cook Book (Citizen Printing) 200
Roof Restoration
Miscellaneous
ALREADY SPENT
COMMITTED
Al Hockett $21,600
Misc. 423
123
x
$ 79,186
„z
8,127 !"
967
2,409
1,297
$ 91,977
22,023
$114,000
POSSIBLE METHODS OF USING, PART OF OR ALL OF:
CENTENNIAL -BICENTENNIAL GRANT
1. Match money: has to come from other sources.
2. Use part of Centennial -Bicentennial money for roof and chimnev
work.
3. Be allowed to use Jim Cox's master plan as soft match.
Centennial -Bicentennial
Grant:
Cash
Total
Cif
Grant'
Available
Grant $20,000
$10,000
$10,000
Soft Match 16,554
8,127
8,127
$ 8,127
Hard Match 3,446
1,723*
1,723
3,446
11 , 573
*would have to find this money
4. Go back to City Council for additional money.
5. Give back grant.
124
��I
City Attorney March advised Council that the reason for the
agreement with Poudre Landmarks is that the City has spent the
amount set aside for the Avery House and now in order to apply
for matching grants someone else will have to put up the match
money.
City Attorney March stated the following, changes needed to be
noted so as to accomplish this change; the agreement should not
state the dollar for dollar match it would have to be a dollar
for dollar match to the extent that other City funds have not
already matched the grant.
On page 2, paragraph 3, 5th line and 6th line the word "grant"
should be inserted before the word "funds," and on the bottom
line of the same page, before the last sentence begins, the
following should be inserted: "The foregoing match requirement
shall apply only to the extent of previous City expenditures,
have not already qualified as matching funds for this grant."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to approve the agreement with the Poudre Landmarks Foundation
as amended and authorize the City Manager to sign said agreement.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Suinn and Wilkinson..
Nays: Councilman Russell. Abstain: Councilman Bloom. (This
vote counted as a."yes" vote.)
Citizen Participation
Proclamation declaring Town Meeting Day, January 27, 1977 was
read at length.
Chief Smith of the Police Department presented the following
commendations to Officer James Black and Officer Art Lewis.
125
FORT COLLINS POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL COMMENDATION
To: James W. Black Date December 21, 1976 ,
FROM: Ral ph M. smi th Chierf-%of --P.olic2--" �p
I wish to commend officer Jamesl W, ,Black-'"'' -• � k ,
+Patrol A. � � Division
who is presently assigned *to the
for the following: f -a
ct Be and 'the Call of Duty'
Outstanding Police J+ctionlit - _ �A S
.X'
Unusual Bravery IIIIll6uai l .iitenLlOn t0 DDutyy,
Citizen Praise or; Compliment - other Meritorious Act
•' .i .i l; 1. 1. -'7 � J { I' III• - _
WHEREAS �it is realized that. the great bulk of policeiwork is doneF routinely by good police-
' _ -: <•/,J
men, let it be known tiat the above named of9eer'displayed Witt ative and. alertgess decidedly in
excess of the nirm,in this --particular instance ;
Fact Situation
'.Ybugare be n9 given this commendation for.'youT>quick response
to an accidental shoting thatdci cuFred'December`1,'1976, at KA S. Whitcomb.
-J;j; 94'i{. p
to
t'that address, a young,�,an''had
,accental{ly-Shot himself
in the thigh with a AC8 rifle. He.manaded to stl�i-lIt alit "df his anartrnont
and onto the lawn where he,wasinoticed by: neighbor.s,who ca.Tled the police.
You. along with OfficeT.�Lthur'I:''I recaus. ;rif: , y6itr extensiveknnvledgP
of first aid, were able to' -contain i;he.profuse.ibleediod •and apply pressure to
the necessary pre re-¢ int and6inn;,IVoi sa\Ad the vrning nan'c life
—
the bV's'
;_• � ,ill, ''j:al'�!i�,!I•i'��:'.�
You are beino`;ggivel fh�is`'comr�ndation for the speedy manner in
which you answered the call end for the 'exoer-t"assistance that you randPrd
that resulted in the young man's= rlFc
overy. :Congratulations on a Job well
done.
n Chief of Police
126
FORT COLLINS -POLICE DEPARTMENT
F
OFFICIAL COMMENDATION
TO: Arthur L. Lewis
FROM: Ralph M. Smith, Chief;-,iolf':-
Date
o i i.ce T J.'It,
I wish to commend Officer. Arthur Lewis
who is presently assigned to the,,, rcWJ
for the following: A
- Outstanding P01166 Mtl6b 6 . fBeyond1 'the Call of Duty
to Duty
U nu. ttention
Umsual Bi
Citizen Pralse or1., onp inen Ottee ritoroci Act
1 5'. " iqjI!Cf
December 21, 1976
A'
WHEREAS ff is '-ealized that. the great bulk � of police work Is done:roudnely by good police-
men, let it be kn
Iown that the above named offl6t6r_displayed. initiative and alertness decidedly in
; : I . . . .
it
excess of the njrm this particar instance. to.. ..... 1,
Fact Sit7Uati`6n:
,,)'6u re being gJ,ven this -co rnendat-ign $o: ri!, y'jo`u-r, q A ck response
to an accidental- 5hootin,g-!hA 6cCu"rrtd'bec!'`Imbe*l, 1 76 3,21 S. Whitcomb.
At, 'that addressla young han:hao accidentally -shot himself
1�_ 4 _k a04 Fl,� .1�14 m PK 00 hie Aa nrtmpnt
. !I 'H 'n
and onto the lawn '-where he was noticed by:neighbors�"'Who called the police.
, -,
You, alono with Officer James :It.'. -Black- bcscausI P " f vo r extensive knowledoe
of first aid, were all%to c n thq 'prd_fusei;ble,edind 'and apply pressure to
.. I !.! 1 ure ointp_ Hk'sIb_i�
the necessary oress an
sad' h young man's life.
�trqmein�aifon f speedy manner
You are being oi-ven tHi ' .60mmendation for the you rendered
in
which you an, he call ant the dxttrt'.assistance thatd
resulted
t � .4
that d g he young man -s- trecove r:,,,1 Congratulations on a job well
done.
Chief of Police
127
Invitation given to Council to attend the annual Christmas Open
House in the Finance Department.
City Manager Brunton expressed appreciation to Boettcher and
Company and Dunn Krahl for their work in the Downtown Redevelop-
ment Project and Bond Sale.
Dunn Krahl listed those banks in the community who supported the
issue as follows:
First National Bank $325,000
United Bank 250,000
Rocky Mountain Bank 50,000
University National Bank 50,000
Fort Collins National Bank 25,000
Total $700,000
Ordinance Denied on First Reading Relating
to International Investment - Prospect at Lemay Rezoning
Les Kaplan, Planning Director, stated that this rezoning as well
as the others on the agenda were evaluated on the following four
criteria:
"Criterion One: Has there been a substantial change of conditions
in the vicinity of the property in question? Have time and experi-
ence demonstrated that the existing zone is unwise or in need of
change?
Criterion Two: Are there adeauate transportation, recreation,
educational, utility and other facilities to accommodate the uses
permitted?
Criterion Three: What is the need in the vicinity and/or in the
community as a whole for the addition of the requested zone? Where
are there existing undeveloped parcels of this requested on similar
zones?
Criterion Four: What might be the impact of this rezoning upon
the immediate neighborhood, district and the City as a whole?
Summary of Staff Recommendation
In the opinion of the staff, the application of the above -stated
rezoning criterial substantiates the reasonableness of a commercial
land use at the southeast corner of Lemay and Prospect. A B-P,
Planned Business Zone would assure the City and,,vicinity residents
review of the required planned unit development plan. However,
a rezoning of 15.8 acres from.the R-P, Planned Residential, zone
to B-P would provide for a "community -wide shopping center" of
approximately 125,000 square feet, which would overwhelm and
disrupt the area rather than serve it.
128
F
As an alternative to the proposed acreage and in response to
what appears to be valid reasons for changing the zoning ordinance,
the Planning Department has recommended to the Planning and Zoning
Board that not more than nine (9) acres (approximately 7.5
developable acres) be rezoned from R-P to B-P. This would accom-
modate the development of a "neighborhood shopping center" of
approximately 50,000 square feet of gross leasable area in the
west -central section of the community.
A neighborhood shopping center is defined by the Urban Land
Institutue as providing for the sale of daily living needs.
These are "convenience goods" such as food, drugs, hardware and
personal services. A supermarket is the principal tenant in
this type of shopping center. The staff feels that this scale of
commercial deleterious effects of a shopping center on the scale
of possible through the re -zoning as proposed and satisfy many
of the land use considerations previously described.
Planning and Zoning Board Review
At its September 8 regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Board voted unanimously to approve the petitioner's request that
the Board table to its.December 6 meeting the consideration of
the Prospect-Lemay rezoning petition. The action to table was
in response to the petitioner's expressed desire to add additional
dimensions to his.arguments in support of rezoning and to hold
meetings with the residents in the vicinity.
Prior to the December 6 meeting, the petitioner supplemented
his application with a December 1 letter which addressed the
four above -stated criteria for a change to the zoning ordinance.
Additionally, the petitioner held two meetings with vicinity
residents.
Attached are the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board's
consideration of this item. There was an enormous degree of
opposition to the requested rezoning, including ten (10) letters
from vicinity residents and two (2) petitions (See minutes for
details). At least sixty (60) residents protesting the change
attended the meeting. There were no letters or speakers in
support of the change, other than the petitioner.
The following is a summary of the major concerns and contentions
raised by the residents opposing the change:
1. The area is already adequately served by commercial development,
2. Development of the site in question could drastically change
the runoff characteristics of the area,
3. Commercial development would aggravate to an intolerable
degree the already existing traffic problems of the area,
4. Commercial development would be problematical to the four
crhnnl5 in the area.
129
5. This rezoning would lead to subsequent rezonings, principally
at the northeast corner of the intersection,
6. The past record of the petitioner in Fort Collins is poor,
7. It is not the function of zoning to guarantee financial
profit for the property owner,
8. The City has previously refused commercial zoning on this
corner,
9. The petitioner's market analysis is superficial, inaccurate
and misleading.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: Denial
At its December 6 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted
unanimously to recommend denial of the petitioned 15.8 acre
zoning change or any part thereof from the R-P, Planned Residential
District, to the B-P, Planned Business District. The Board did
not elaborate on which of the petitioner's contentions were weak
or invalid; nor did it elaborate on which of the resident's concerns
were most convincing in justifying no change to the zoning ordinance."
Mr. James Hicks, President of International Investment, spoke in
support of the petition.
Mr. Garth Rogers, Attorney, spoke for the opponents to this petition..
Mr. Gene Mitchell, representing HCI and Scotch Pines, spoke in
opposition to this application.
Mr. Castle spoke on behalf of the area residents who are in opposi-
tion to this rezoning.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Suinn
that Ordinance No. 98, 1976 relating to the rezoning of property
owned by International Investments at Prospect and Lemay be denied.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn
and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Mr. Hicks advised Council that as a matter of record this decision
would be appealed.
130
Ordinance Tabled on First Reading Rezoning
Foothills Apartments on Shields Street
Petitioner, Gene Fischer, asked to table this request if there
were any opposition since he will be out of town.
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell
to table Ordinance No. 99, 1976 on first reading. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Reeves, Russell and Wilkinson. Nays:
Councilmembers Gray and Suinn.
_ Ordinance_ Denied _
Rezoning Deines - Glenmore Drive
The City Manager's memo regarding this item follows:
"This rezoning consists of 2.5 acres located on Glenmore Drive
between Plum and Elizabeth Streets. The request is to rezone
the property from R-L, Low Density Residential District, to
R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District. The Ordinance
would accomplish the rezoning requested by the owner. Enclosed
is a memo on this subject. The Planning staff and the Planning
and Zoning Board recommended denial. It was the unanimous feeling
that this property should be developed as a PUD with R-L, Low
Density Residential District, and thereby not change the complexion
of a single-family area by having multi -family dwelling units."
The following isa part of the memo from Les Kaplan to Bob Brunton
dated December 10, 1976:
"Reason for Rezoning Request (as per Rezoning Petition, November 15,
7
'This parcel of land was created by separate subdivisions
being built around it, leaving a long narrow corridor, open
only at one of its ends on to Glenmore Drive. Its width, 170
feet, precludes dedication of a street running down its center
with lots on either side, since these lots would be only 55 feet
deep. A dedicated street on one side would create double frontage
lots on that side.
This leads to the conclusion that standard subdivision of the
property is impractical, and the flexibility of a planned unit
development (P.U.D.) is necessary. Although a P.U.D. is per-
mitted in the existing zone, this zone allows only single-family
building. It has been determined that a single-family P.U.D.,
with its required maintenance guarantee and homeowner's
association would not be economically feasible in this location
and at this scale.
0 131
We therefore feel that the minimum zone necessary to develop
this land, and thereby rid the neighborhood of an unsightly
vacant lot in an R-L-P zone.'
Planning and Zoning Board Review
This request for a change to the zoning ordinance was considered
by the Planning and Zoning Board at its December 6 meeting.
Approximately fifteen (15) residents of the neighborhood attended
the meeting to protest a zoning change that would allow multi-
family dwellings. The petitioner presented development and
maintenance cost figures to substantiate that single-family
construction on this site vis-a-vis the P.U.D. would increase
unit costs to the consumer by approximately $5,000 (over twenty
years).
PlanninP and Zoning Board Recommendation: Denial
The Board voted unanimously to deny the petition for a zoning
change from R-L to R-L-P on the basis that the single-family
character of the neighborhood should and could be preserved."
Mr. Frank Ronco, 729 Skyline Drive, spoke in opposition to the
application.
Councilman Bloom made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling
to deny Ordinance No. 100, 1976 on first reading requesting to
rezone the Deines property on Glenmore Drive. Yeas: Council -
members Bloom, Bowling, Cray, Reeves, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None. (Councilman Russell out of room.)
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Annexing
the Strachan Fourth Annexation =
Les Kaplan, Director of Planning, spoke to this item, locating it
for the Council and giving a brief review. Following is a Dart
of the staff comments, recommendation, Planning and Zoning Board
Review, and Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation:
"Staff -Comments
The petitioner is requesting that the 7.13 acres within the proposed
Strachan Fourth Annexation be zoned as an H-B, Highway Business
District. There is already approximately 22 acres of undeveloped
H-B zoned property within the tract bounded by College,Avenue,
Monroe Drive, Horsetooth Road, and Stanford Road. Additional
H-B zoning would increase the amount to approximately,,27 acres
of undeveloped H-B zoning -- The Foothills Fashion Mall is
approximately 38 acres in size.
132
The question of the reasonableness of additional H-B zoning in
the City at the proposed location indeed has many facets. An
accurate analysis of the "need" for additional H-B zoning in
the City or just along College Avenue is beyond the resource
capacity of the Planning Department. The Department expects
to have a breakdown of all existing land uses within the City
in several months, once., the computerized land use inventory is
programmed. This would provide important information necessary
for approximately the "need" for more (or less) of the various
land uses in the City.
Perhaps the most justifiable argument for H-B zoning is one
based upon surrounding land uses. The site is surrounded on
three (3) sides by H-B zoning, all of which is undeveloped.
The "let's have a symmetrical pattern" approach to zoning is
usually countered by the "where does the obligation for consis-
tency end" school of thought. While a designation of H-B
zoning would be consistent with the existing pattern of extended
strip commercial highway business uses south along College Avenue,
it could also be an aggravating factor to the mounting number of
City concerns dealing with:
1.
the
predominant "strip city" pattern of local growth,.
2.
the
disporportionate growth to the south,
3.
traffic congestion along College Avenue,
4.
the
distribution of commercial locations throughout the
City,
5.
excessive reliance on the automobile,
6.
the
importance of re -orienting citizens to Downtown Fort
Collins
and
commercial activity along North College Avenue,
7.
the
increasing incidence of urban -density development in
the
County
near the south edge of the City,
8.
and
so on.
The petitioner has had a study completed by the economic consultants
Hammer, Siler, George and Associates, entitled Market Potentials
for Retail Development at South College Avenue an Horsetooth
Road, For Collins, Colorado, completed November, 1976. The study
is for a acre site at the northeast intersection of South
College Avenue and Horsetooth Road. This 14 acre site includes
the seven (7) acres within the present Strachan Fourth Annexation
petition. The study concludes that the ultimate capacity of this
site is 120,000 square feet of leasable retail area, with 80,000
square feet for the initial phase of development. According to
the study,
'The concept proposed is that of a speciality shopping
center anchored by one or more large speciality shops
but without a major department store . . . As such we
estimate that by 1980, if fully developed, the site
could capture eight percent (87) of the available
shoppers goods market within the primary trade area.'
6 13 3-
�t
Recommendation:
Annexation -- The staff recommends that the City proceed with
annexation of the entire 21.58 acre enclave of which the Droposed
Strachan Fourth Annexation comprises the west 7.13 acre section. 4
Zoning -- Designation of the H-B, Highway Business District, on
the proposed site would set the stage for the development of a
major shopping center. An analysis of the full range of impli-
cations of this additional shopping center at this northeast
corner of South College Avenue and Horsetooth Road far exceeds
the limitations of the Planning Department. However, additional
time is necessary to prepare a potential, general impact analysis
of the large scale commercial uses which seem inevitable for the
site if H-B zoning is approved for the 7.13 acres in question.
For this reason the staff recommends that the Board table the
zoning question on this 7.13 acre site in order to allow the
staff time both to more fully consider the requested H-B zoning
and also to consider the zoning question for the entire 21.58
acre tract.
Planning and Zoning Board Review
Mr. Gene Mitchell of HCI spoke on behalf of the petitioner.
In addressing the Board on the questions of annexation and zoning,"""
Mr. Mitchell contended that the H-B, Highway Business District,
would not _promote "strip city" commercial activity, but rather would
"bell out" highway business uses to a terminus point at Horsetooth
Road. Concerning annexation, he stressed the fact that an
individual should be allowed the opportunity for voluntary
annexation, when the involuntary option is available to the City;
additionally, he preferred to maintain a psychological distance
from the remaining 14.45 acres of the overall 21.58 acre tract.
Plannine and Zoning Board Recommendation:
The Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of this 7.13
acre voluntary annexation. Additionally, the Board voted
unanimously to recommend that the City proceed with the involuntary
annexation of the remaining 14.45 acres of the overall 21:58
acre tract.
Concerning zoning, the Board was unanimous in its vote that
zoning if for the petitioned site should be considered as part of
the zoning question for the entire tract and consequently, tabled
the zoning question until its January, 1077, meeting."
Mr. Gene Mitchell, representing the petitioner, spoke in support
of the application.
Mr. Douglas Miller, President of D.C. Miller, & Co. of Denver,
spoke in opposition to this annexation.
134
Mr. Bill Dressel spoke as a member of the Planning and Zoning
Board and asked that Council not consider the zoning until a
later date.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Reeves
to adopt Ordinance No. 104, 1976, annexing the Strachan Fourth
Annexation on first reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Councliman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell
to refer the involuntary annexation known as the Brune Annexation
to the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents for
consideration. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves,
Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Ordinance Denied on First Reading Relating to
First Betz Riverside Avenue Rezoning
Following is a part of the memo from Les Kaplan dated December 10,
1976:
"Reason for Request (as stated in the Rezoning Petition, November 15,
1976)
"This property
not its owner
in conjunction
large 'medical
business) is a
the property a
zoning would b
was put into its present zoning by a person
contemplating purchasing it and utilizing it
with other property in the area to build a
center.' Owners submit that B-L (limited
ppropriate zoning considering the size of
nd its potential uses. B-L (limited business)
e compatible with surrounding zoning and use's.'
Staff Recommendation: Denial
The petitioner has not adequately justified the need for a rezoning
of this 4.1 acre site, nor does the staff see a justification for
a change to the ordinance. While the requested change to the
B-L, Limited Business District, would probably facilitate the
commercial use of the site, it would remove the overall planning
considerations which presently assure that the site is utilized
in the best interests of the vicinity and the community as a
whole. While the B-P district requires a unit development plan,
there is no basis for concluding either that this would impose
a hardship to the property owner or that it is a superfluous
requirement for development.
Planning and Zoning Board Review
The petitioner did not attend the December 6 Planning and Zoning
135
,
M
Board meeting but was represented by an attorney. Added to
the justification for a zoning change contained within the
petition was the contention that the surrounding area did not
need the type of protection from business development that a
P.U.D. development approach would promote.
Planning and Zoning Board Action: Denial
Due to the importance both of overall planning considerations
in developing this site and also of maintaining consistency with
the Board's adopted zoning plan for the area, the Board voted
unanimously to recommend to the City Council that the zoning on
the site not be change from the B-P, Planned Business, and I-G,
General Industrial Districts, to the B-L, Limited Business District."
The City Manager's memo regarding this item also follows:
"This involves rezoning property south of Riverside Drive between
the existing hardware store and laundry and the intersection with
McHugh Street. The property is presently zoned B-P and the
request is to change the zone to B-L. The two zones allow
basically the same uses, the major difference being the requirement
for a plan and a minimum of two acres of development under the
plan if it remains in the B-P zone. The property owner argues
that the area is surrounded by property in the C-commercial and
I-G zones and a plan is not required to protect the surrounding
area. The present zoning was accomplished at the request of a
contract purchaser who later defaulted on the contract resulting
in the previous owner taking the property back. The property
had been zoned in the commercial zone and the present owner feels
it should be at least returned to a zone which will permit
development without a plan. This would appear to have some merit.
The Planning staff recommended against the change as did the
Planning and Zoning Board as shown by the attached materials.
Recommendation: It is the recommendation of the Administration
that this rezoning request be granted. In our view the area
does not justify requiring a plan or two acres of development."
Mr. Bill Dressel representing the petitioner apoligized for
being a member of the Planning and '.oning Board and.also counsel
for the petitioner in this particular case.
Mr. Dressel went on to speak in.support of this request for,
Mr. Betz.
City Attorney March reviewed the history of the rezoning requests
for this area to date.
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to deny Ordinance No. 101, 1976 on first reading relating to the
First Betz Riverside Avenue Rezoning. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bowling, Gray, Reeves and Suinn. Nays: Councilmembers Bloom,
Russell and Wilkinson.
136
0
7!
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Relating
to Second Betz Riverside Avenue Rezoning
Following is part of the memo from Les Kaplan dated December 10,
1976:
"Reason for Rezoning Request (as per Rezoning Petition, November 15,
76
'R-P (Planned Residential) is not the proper zoning for this
property nor is it the best and proper use for the property.
This property is a buffer between residential to the south
and industrial and business usage to the north, placing
residential property on this narrow strip would not be
desirable for inhabitants considering the type of property
across the street including the railroad tracks. Considering
the type of traffic on Riverside Drive as well as the type
of uses on Riverside Drive, it is submitted that R-H (High
Denisty Residential) is a proper utilization of this ground.'
Staff Recommendation: Denial
The Planning staff recommends that the request for the petitionp,
for a change from, the R-P, Planned Residential District, to the:
R-H, High Density Residential District, be denied, but that a
zoning change occur to the B-L, Limited Business District.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: Denial
In the opinion of the Board, a residential zoning district is
inappropriate for this 3.7 acre site and, therefore, the zoning,
change as requested, from the R-P, Planned Residential District;
to the R-H, High Density Residential District, is inappropriate.
The Board took the matter a step further and is recommending that
the existing R-P District zoning on this site be changed to the
B-L, Limited Business District. It is unclear as to the petitioner's
support of such a zoning change."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to adopt Ordinance No. 102, 1976 on first reading relating to
the Second Betz Riverside Avenue rezoning from R-P,Planned
Residential to B-L Limited Business. Yeas: Councilmembers
Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson.
Nays: None.
137
. .w
4t
Ordinance Adopted on First Reading Annexing
Suitts First Annexation
Following is a part of Les Kaplan's memo dated December 10, 1976:
"Planning and Zoning Board Review
On December 3, 1976, just prior to the Planning and Zoning Board's
consideration of the Suitts First and Second Annexation petitions,
the petitioner unofficially changed the requested zoning for the
First Annexation from the I-G, General Industrial District to the
I-P, Industrial Park District. Also, the Suitts Second Annexation
zoning request was changed from the C-Commercial and I-G, General
Industrial Districts, to a combination of the I-L, Limited
Industrial, H-B, Highway Business, and I-P, Industrial Park
Districts. On the evening of the Planning and Zoning Board
meeting, the petitioner again changed the requested zoning for
the Suitts First Annexation.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
The staff recommends for approval of both the Suitts First and
Second Annexation petitions and for the I-P, Planned Industrial
District, for the entire 139.5 acre site.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation:
Annexation -- There was concern expressed by three Board members
that the gained City leverage for involuntary annexation of the
property immediately west and south of the Suitts First and Second
Annexations was unfair to the owners of that property. However,
the Board voted 5 to 1 to recommend approval for both annexation
petitions.
Zoning -- On the Suitts First Annexation, the Board concluded --
unanimously with the petitioner's unofficial revised request for
the I-P District. However, concerning the Suitts Second Annexa-
tion, the Board was concerned not only with the dedication of a
trail along the Poudre River, but also with the protection of
that trail from intrusive industrial use. For this reason, the
Board voted unanimously to recommend the I-P zoning,district for
the Suitts Second Annexation as well."
Mr. Jim Junge, planner for the petitioner, spoke in favor of the
annexation.
Councilman Russell made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bloom
to adopt Ordinance No. 103, 1976 on first reading annexing the
Suitts First Annexation. Yeas: Councilmembers 'Bloom, Bowling,
Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
138
I
Councilwoman Reeves made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell
directing the City Attorney to prepare the zoning ordinance with
I-P zoning to be presented at the January 4, 1977 Council meeting.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell,
Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Westgate Subdivision, Third Filing:
Final Plat, Approved
Following is City Manager Robert Brunton's memo regarding -this
item:
"Westgate Subdivision is located on the west side of Overland
Trail south of Prospect Street. Although the plat is for a
relatively small area, or phase of the development as a whole,
it raised issues concerning drainage and access for the rest
of Westgate Subdivision development in the future. The Planning
and Engineering Departments have worked with the developer to
resolve these problems..
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends that the City Council approve
the final plat of Westgate Subdivision, Third Filing."
Councilman Bowling made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Gray
to approve the Westgate Subdivision, Third Filing, Final Plat.
Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell,
Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
s:
Cimarron Square PUD, Preliminary Plan
Approved
The City Manager's memo regarding this follows:
"The Cimarron Square PUD is located at the southeast corner of
West Drake Road and South Shields Street and consists of 13.2
acres zoned R-P, Planned Residential District.
The developer plans to construct 24 buildings, 14 of which would
contain 8 units and 10 of which would contain 4 units each. The
density would be 11.52 units per acre.
At its December 6 meeting the Planning and Zoning Board recommended
unanimously for approval of this preliminary plan with several
suggested revisions. The developer has agreed to all revisions.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City
Council approve the preliminary plan of the Cimarron Square PUD."
0 139-
The memo from the Planning Department dated December 15, 1976
states in part:
"Comments
In general the staff feels that the P.U.D. proposal has been
well thought out. The plan is largely successful in achieving
its primary design objectives:
1. The relatively large complex has been broken up into smaller
scale better defined living areas. The proposed building
type lends itself to this configuration.
2. The layout provides a good distribution of useable open
space areas directly accessible to each building. Individual
dwelling units orient towards the open space.
3. The plan provides good vehicular circulation without creating
speedways and allows close -in parking while largely separating
automobile use areas from living areas.
4. Peripheral treatment orients well to adjacent arterial streets
and residential uses. The buildings have been recessed from
adjacent residential uses to avoid lines of sight into single -_
family backyards.
The architect's statement of planning objectives, which is attached,
describes in detail the ways in which the project's design responds
to the planning considerations applicable to this type of develop-
ment and to this particular site.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: Approval
At its December 6, 1976 meeting, the Board voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the preliminary plan subject to several
revisions as suggested by the staff which were:
1. Layout of clubhouse area should be revised to create greater
distance between swimming pool and tennis court facilities
and the adjacent single-family residential uses.
2. Parking should be distributed so.that each parking lot meets
requirements of P.U.D. ordinance for buildings served by that
lot. Additional backup space is necessary for some parking
areas.
3. Preliminary sewer main layout may need some revision to provide
better vehicular accessibility to manholes. Building locations
should not encroach upon utility easements.
The developer has agreed to these revisions."
140
Ms. Bob Sutter, architect for the petitioner, was present to
answer questions regarding the development.
Councilman Suinn made a motion, seconded by Councilman Russell
to approve the Cimarron Square P.U.D., Preliminary Plan. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Replat of Tract "A", Lemay Subdivision Approved
The City Manager's memo regarding this item follows:
"This replat consists of a single lot to be subdivided into
two lots. This one-half acre site is located on the east side
of Robertson Street, south of East Elizabeth Street. Its
present zoning is B-L. Both the planning staff and the
Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the plat.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City
Council approve the replat of Tract "A", Lemay Subdivision
dividing a single tract into two lots."
Paul Deibel, Senior Planner, advised Council that approval of
this plat should be conditional upon all of the property owners
signing the plat.
Councilwoman Gray made a motion, seconded by Councilman Bowling
to approve the replat of Tract "A", Lemav Subdivision subject
to the plat being signed by all of the property owners. Yeas:
Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves, Russell, Suinn and
Wilkinson. Nays: None.
Amendment to Zoning Ordinance With Regard
to Requirements for Dav Care Centers
The City Manager's memo regarding this item states in part:
"This matter was discussed by the Planning and Zoning Board at
its December 8, 1976 meeting. The Board unanimously recommended
that a 1,500-foot separation by direct pedestrian access be the
minimum distance allowed between day care centers in the R-M,
Medium Density Residential District.
Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City
Council approve the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board
and request the City Attorney to prepare the necessary amendment
to the zoning ordinance."
141
�J
The memo from Les Kaplan dated December 10, 1976 regarding
this matter states in part:
"Staff Comments
The Planning staff has conducted further research on the question
of a minimum distance requirement between daycare centers.
Currently, the only city in the Northern Front Range area which
has a means of controlled distribution of daycare facilities
within a zone is Greeley, where such facilities are considered
as "uses by special review." The Fort Collins zoning ordinance
discourages the special review of uses within zones. Longmont
is in the process of preparing a new zoning ordinance which will
include a minimum separation of 750 feet between daycare, elderly,
or other specialized group home facilities.
Planning and Zoning Board Review
The Planning and Zoning Board considered the question of a
minimum distance requirement at its December 8 special meeting.
Both the Planning staff and the Board felt that the only zoning
district in which the incidence of daycare centers is potentially
problematical is the R-M, Medium Density Residential District.
The controls available with the P-Planned Residential Districts
and the intended mixture in the R-H District of residential and
non -retail commercial uses are both absent from the R-M District.
The Board was unanimous in its thinking that the existing zoning
districts which permit daycare centers are adequate. However,
both the Planning staff and the Board should encourage daycare -
facilities within residential P.U.D. development, if a need in
the vicinity exists.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation _
The Board unanimously recommends that a 1500 foot separation
(approximately 4 blocks) by direct pedestrian access be the
minimum distance allowed between daycare centers in the R-M,
Medium Density Residential District."
Councilman Bloom made a motion to accept the recommendation and
authorize the City Attorney to draw up the necessary amendments
to the zoning ordinances. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Bowling. Yeas: Councilmembers Bloom, Bowling, Gray, Reeves,
Russell, Suinn and Wilkinson. Nays: None.
142 It
L
rJ
j It
Adjournment
The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
143
I