Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/10/1994-AdjournedADJOURNED MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government May 10, 1994 6:30 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, May 10, 1994, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Councilmembers Absent: Smith Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek and Roy. City Attorney Steve Roy outlined the basic procedures for hearing appeals. He spoke of the grounds for the appeals and noted that the appeal proceedings are not open for public participation and are limited only to parties -in -interest. ' Consideration of the Appeal of the March 28, 1994, Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approving, with Conditions, a Development Project Known As Arapahoe Farm Townhomes, Final P.U.D.. Upheld with Conditions The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary On March 28, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Board approved, with conditions, Arapahoe Farm Townhomes, Final P.U.D. This project consists of 72 townhome units on 10.39 acres. The parcel is located north of Harmony Road and east of Seneca Street, approximately one-half mile west of Shields Street. On April 11, 1994, an appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. On April 25, 1994, an amended appeal was filed by the same persons. In the statement of appeal, it is alleged that: The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. 1 303 May 10, 1994 ' The Board abused its discretion, in making an arbitrary decision without ' the support of competent evidence in the record. The Board failed to hold a fair hearing by considering relevant evidence to its findings, which was substantially false or grossly misleading as it relates to issues of compatibility. The Board did not properly interpret and apply relevant laws. The attached documents include the appeal, Planning Department response to the appeal, and the information packet (Staff Report) that was received by the Planning and Zoning Board for the March 28, 1994 meeting. The procedures for deciding the appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code." Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, that there was sufficient grounds to hear the appeal. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Senior City Planner Ted Shepard gave a brief presentation on this item and presented Council with a copy of the site plan. ' Steven Gottschalk, appellant residing at 4505 Hilburn Court, thanked Council for taking the time to hear the appeal and expressed frustration regarding the way zonings for land -uses are changed. He requested Council modify the Planning and Zoning Boards final approval of the Arapahoe Townhome Development by reducing the amount of units in Buildings G and J. Kevin Walker, 4413 Hilburn Court, stated he was not opposed to multi -family use and spoke of property values for surrounding homeowners. He stated he opposed the design of the development and the type of roofing being proposed. Lucia Liley, attorney representing the James Co., developer of Arapahoe Farms Townhomes, spoke of the allegations in the appeal and of requirements for vacating the property. She stated discussions were held regarding requirements of the developer and presented Council with a verbatim transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Design, representing the James Co., stated the land -use for the project was consistent with existing City policies as well as the Neighborhood Compatibility Study. 304 1 11 May 10, 1994 Mr. Ward clarified there were homes in the area with asphalt shingles and highlighted several areas in the City where single-family dwellings were adjacent to condominiums and townhomes and showed slides of the project. He stated site plans were available for public inspection and spoke of additional berming and landscaping for the project. Rebuttal Kevin Walker, appellant residing at 4413 Hilburn Court, stated there was no discussion with the builder regarding the roofing, and stated the developer "informed" the neighborhood of what type of shingles would be used. He suggested a survey involving the most effected parties be conducted to determine what type roofing was preferred. He stated the "maximum" height on portions of the berming is 4 feet, but emphasized 4 feet was not the average. Steven Gottschalk, appellant residing at 4505 Hilburn Court, spoke of his concerns regarding the details of the project and spoke of traffic issues. He reported that the developer showed slides which he considered to be new -evidence under the definition given by the City Attorney. Eldon Ward stated the only new slide was the one showing the various meeting dates held regarding the project. ' After a short discussion it was decided that both sides would be allowed to show slides not introduced before. Steven Gottschalk continued his presentation, and gave a brief slide presentation to Council displaying the roofing in the surrounding area and spoke of erosion and landscaping issues. Lucia Liley confirmed that the slides that were shown, were shown before and were available at the time of the final hearing. Ted Shepard outlined the procedures for obtaining a building permit and responded to Council questions regarding roofing and landscaping issues. Gottschalk spoke of landscaping preferences, stating he would welcome trees that did not bear leaves and opposed planting of seedlings. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, that the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 1 305 May 10, 1994 1 Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Janett, that the Planning and Zoning Board did not abuse its discretion and used competent evidence in the record in making its decision. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, that the Planning and Zoning Board did properly interpret and apply relevant laws. Councilmember Horak offered a friendly amendment to the previous motion, that additional evergreen trees be included in the landscaping on the buffer located on the eastern edge of the project and that compatibility be achieved by the use of additional building materials. Councilmembers Kneeland and McCluskey accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment to their previous motion. City Attorney Steve Roy stated if Council was not comfortable making a decision regarding the type of roofing materials to be used, someone should be designated for that purpose. Shepard suggested that Building Inspector Felix Lee, Fire Marshal Mike Pretz, and I Planning Director Ron Phillips be assigned to make the decision on the type of roofing materials to be used. Councilmember McCluskey supported the amendment and spoke of the dangers of cedar shingles. Councilmembers Kneeland and McCluskey incorporated Shepard's suggestion as an amendment to their original motion. Councilmember Janett spoke of the difficulties in dealing with different land - uses. City Attorney Steve Roy clarified an affirmative vote on the motion would modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the development proposal with additional conditions. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. M.: May 10, 1994 Consideration of the Appeal of the March 28, 1994 Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke PUD, Preliminary, Decision Upheld with Conditions. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after consideration, either (1) remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board or (2) uphold, overturn or modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. n March 28, 1994 the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-1 to approve the Northbrook Patio Homes at Fairbrooke PUD, Preliminary with a condition regarding access. The Northbrook Patio Homes PUD is a residential development for 42 attached patio homes on 7.07 acres (6.12 acre net) with a gross residential density of 5.9 dwelling units per acre. The site is located at the southeast corner of West Prospect Road and Hampshire Drive. The property is zoned RL, Low Density ' Residential. On April 11, 1994 an appeal of the Board's decision was filed by Robert Clay, a resident of the adjacent neighborhood. On April 25, 1994 an amended appeal was filed by the same individual. In the statement of appeal, regarding the Board's decision on the preliminary PUD, it is alleged that: 1) The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering substantially false and grossly misleading evidence offered by staff and the developer. 2) The Planning and Zoning Board did not properly interpret and apply relevant laws. The attached documents include the appeal, Planning Department response to the appeal, and the information packet received by the Planning and Zoning Board for the March 28, 1994 hearing. The procedures for deciding the appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article 11, Division 3 of the City Code." City Attorney Steve Roy spoke of the two allegations of error listed in the appeal. 307 May 10, 1994 Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, that there was sufficient grounds to hear the appeal. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Planner Kirsten Whetstone gave a brief staff presentation regarding this item. Robert Clay, appellant residing at 2313 Cedarwood Drive, spoke of fencing concerns. He stated the developer did not follow the Land Development Guidance System guidelines and spoke of water issues. Bob Bacon, 1706 Hinry, spoke of safety concerns stating Hampshire is very busy with pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic and requested a copy of the traffic study. He noted that the developer and the Traffic Department endorsed the Prospect entrance/exit, but the Planning and Zoning Board believed it should be located on Hampshire Road. He asked Council to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board with the modification that the entrance/exit be moved to Prospect Road. Dick Rutherford, Stuart and Associates, representing Gary Mackey, briefly summarized the project and spoke of street access issues. He emphasized that he was more concerned with the progress of the project rather than where the access ' road was going to be. He spoke of stormwater and drainage issues and clarified the groundwater problems are not caused from the surface drainage from his project. Rebuttal Robert Clay spoke of rerouting the entrance and exit road, claiming he did not want to delay the project or have it remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board. Bob Bacon stated the majority of people residing in the neighborhood travel south on Hampshire Road, and stated he wanted to reduce the volume of traffic on Hampshire Road as much as possible for safety reasons. Dick Rutherford spoke of groundwater levels and subdrain systems. Whetstone clarified landscaping is not dictated for single-family dwellings or duplexes and stated it may be beneficial to investigate two entrances into the subdivision. She clarified that the traffic study with the access road located on Hampshire Road was not yet completed. Director of Transportation Rick Ensdorff spoke of the process of evaluating the "safe route to school" study and responded to Council questions regarding turn bays and access onto Prospect and Hampshire Roads. 308 1 May 10, 1994 Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, that the Planning and Zoning Board held a fair hearing. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, that the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld. Councilmember Kneeland offered an amendment to the motion to add a second egress onto Prospect Road. Councilmembers Apt and Horak accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment to their previous motion. The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to 1) study the institution of a school zone with 20 mph speed zone; 2) install blinking lights and a crosswalk where it would best serve Bauder School children; 3) add additional signage along Hampshire Road and near Blevins Park alerting motorists that school children are in the area; and 4) correct the issue of blind corners. ' Councilmember Horak stated he would like to see the plan implemented by the time school begins in August. Councilmember Apt requested that the traffic department examine a left turn lane onto Prospect Road. The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 94-87 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending Resolution 94-68 Accepting the Report of the Director of Engineering and Directing Staff to Proceed with The Choices 95 Shields Street Improvement Projects Option B Adopted as Amended. Mayor Azari spoke of the process for discussion of this item. Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt Resolution 94-87 Option A, reinstating right turn lanes. 1 309 May 10, 1994 Councilmember McCluskey spoke of the need to reduce congestion and traffic ' issues. He stated Option A would not interfere with Council's longterm goals. Ken Bonetti, a Fort Collins resident, spoke of options available and suggested staggering work hours to reduce peak. flow traffic and strategic locations for bus routes. He urged Council to adhere to the April 19 decision removing the right turn lanes. Gary Karnes, Vice-president of Citizen Planners, congratulated Council on the process and for listening to citizen concerns. He believed that the ultimate decision would greatly increase the safety of all modes of transportation on Shields Street. David Roy, 1039 West Mountain, spoke of safety and pollution problems caused by automobiles and thanked Council for its efforts. Ed Stoner, 2236 Apache Court, questioned how the values of 4 people could override the vote of the people. Ward Luthi, 1630 West Swallow, supported Council's decision eliminating the right turn lanes and opposed adding any back into the project. He stated right turn lanes have been proven to be detrimental to the safety and environmental health and economic prosperity to a community. He stated the goals of the Choices 95 Shields Street project could be accomplished by using alternative modes of transportation. He believed Council was within its legal rights making the ' modifications to the Plan. Linda Hopkins, 1809 Rangeview Drive, spoke of the changing values in the community. She urged Council to remember the election and the vote of the . people. Lucia Liley, attorney representing citizens in the Shields Street neighborhood, clarified that she was focusing on whether legal authority existed permitting Council to omit right turn lanes in view of the Choices 95 vote. Bridget Heckel, a Fort Collins resident, stated she had not heard anything positive regarding the right turn lanes and supported the decision of April 19. Transportation Director Rick Ensdorff briefly outlined the definition of a free rights and gave locations of intersections with free rights and turn lanes. Councilmember Janett stated she would not support replacing all right turn lanes. She spoke of traffic models used by staff and the need for alternative modes of transportation and the ability to access all streets. She stated putting sidewalks and bikelanes on either side of the street promotes efficiency, safety and reduces pollution. She believed the modifications would make the project better and emphasized the intent is to move people. 310 1 May 10, 1994 Councilmember Apt opposed adding the turn lanes back into the project.- He stated his intent was not to make driving more difficult but to make it safer for pedestrians and cyclist. He stated he has received calls from concerned citizens in the area who requested a pedestrian bridge. He spoke of the need to use the funds to assure the public's health and safety, and believed Council's actions were legal. Councilmember Kneeland spoke in support of the motion and commented on the ballot language which approved the project. She stated it was the duty of Councilmembers to live by the desires of the original voters. Councilmember Horak spoke of the need for traffic safety and stated the most significant change was that bicycle lanes were put on the street. He stated the original project, when approved in 1988, was a concept not a final design. Councilmember McCluskey stated his interpretation of the Choices 95 decision by the voters was that policy makers are required to implement what the voters voted on. Mayor Azari spoke of the need for safety and stated additional information received during the process emphasized the need for the free right turn lanes. She commented that the project needs to move forward and hoped that additional alternatives would be reviewed. ' The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kneeland, McCluskey. Nays: Councilmembers Apt, Horak and Janett. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt Resolution 94-87 Option B as amended to add right turn bays at Elizabeth and Shields.. City Attorney Steve Roy commented revisions to Option B had been made and read the resolution with amendments into the record. He proposed the following language for Section 3: to direct staff to investigate additional methods for controlling traffic flows at all of the foregoing intersections. He stated this would allow staff to investigate changes in signalization at all three intersections. Councilmembers Horak and Apt accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment to their previous motion. Councilmember Apt stated this option provided for cyclist and pedestrian safety. 0 May 10, 1994 Mayor Azari stated the current operation of the right turn lane at Laurel Street is dangerous and needs to be looked at.. She requested staff consider Code changes regarding pedestrian traffic on the streets. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Resolution 94-87 (Option B) as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak and Janett. Nays: Councilmembers Kneeland and McCluskey. THE,MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Council member, Janett reported on a recent meeting of the Loveland/Ft. Collins Larimer County Corridor Committee. She spoke of a luncheon hosted by Larimer County Affordable Housing Task Force and briefly highlighted issues that were discussed. She suggested future meetings of this nature be televised. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. ATTEST: City Clerk 312 menL r Mayor ' 1