Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/30/1989-AdjournedJ ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAY 30, 1989 6:30 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, May 30, 1989 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Information Center in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy Citizen Participation Leann Thieman, Live POW Committee, presented a POW/MIA flag to the City of Fort Collins. Consideration of Two Appeals of Actions of the Planning and Zoning Board on April 24, 1989 Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council should consider the appeal based upon the record on appeal and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. After consideration of the hearing, Council should uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. On April 24, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Board granted approval to amend the Oak -Cottonwood Farm Master Plan to allow a Community/Regional Shopping Center as an additional land use on Parcel B-1. Prior to the amendment request, the parcel was designated on the Master Plan as allowing Business Services. Uses allowed under Business Services were listed as retail shops, offices, indoor theatres, restaurants, health clubs, hotels, medical clinics, and similar uses. The amendment request also included designating detailed, specific land uses on Parcels 1-G and I-H in order to provide a transitional buffer of allowed uses. The second action of the Planning and Zoning Board was to grant preliminary •approval for the Harmony Market P.U.D. This was a request for a Community/Regional Shopping Center on 50.90 acres with a total leasable floor area of 332,550 square feet divided between three retail anchor tenants, five retail spaces, future additional pad sites, and one office pad. -300- May 30, 1989 The third action of the approval for the Harmony included a Pace Membership 16.12 acres. Planning and Zoning Board was Market P.U.D., First Filing. Warehouse consisting of 100,000 to grant final This request square feet on These three actions are being appealed to the City Council for a finding and a resolution. Summary of the Appeals: There are two notices of appeal presented to City Council for consideration. The first appeal is referred to as the "multi -party appeal". The appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure in granting a preliminary and final approval of the project at the same meeting date. In addition, the multi -party appellants allege that the traffic count considerations were not validly determined, that the project is too intense for the area, and that the architectural compatibility with the residential neighborhood is questioned. FinaI7y, the multi -party appellants state that noise and pollution considerations have not been satisfactorily addressed. The second appeal is known as the Bigelow appeal. This appeal alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board acted without sufficient knowledge or that they were misled by the preponderance of information provided by the developer. It is also alleged that information provided by the Planning Department was ambiguous and misleading. In addition, the appeal alleges that the board failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter in not allowing a specific period of time to take place before other actions can be approved under a master plan amendment. According to Mr. Bigelow, the board also failed to interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter by accepting the Planning Department's concurrent handling of the Preliminary and Final phases of the P.U.D. Finally, the appeal alleges that Site Access Study and the Air and Noise Pollution Study were presented with` insufficient time for Mr. Bigelow and other residents to properly investigate, study, and make independent information available to counter the project's data. Scope of Council Consideration The issues that the Council must resolve in this appeal are as follows: Did the Board abuse its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in'the record? 1 -301- May 30, 1989 2. Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, including the Land Use Policies Plan, and the Land Development Guidance System? 3. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that it exceeded its authority, ignored its previously established rules of procedure, or considered evidence relevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading? The Council packet attached to this summary contains the information provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, minutes of the April 24, 1989 public hearing, as well as information pertaining to both appeals." Councilmember Mabry withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. City Attorney Roy outlined the appeal process that would be followed. Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, not to hear the multi -party appeal. Larry Batterton, 4512 Maxwell, spoke regarding the appeal process and the documents that he had signed. Councilmember Kirkpatrick commented about a letter that was received by Council regarding the appeal and noted her support for the motion. Councilmember Horak stated he would not support the motion and noted his concern regarding the appeal process. He encouraged Council to have a more liberal and less stringent attitude regarding these matters. Councilmember Azari stated she would not support the motion because multi -party appeal dealt with issues that were not illustrated in the Bigelow Appeal. Jean Tinnermeier, 4940 Hogan Drive, appellant, spoke regarding the appeal process and the three decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board. Councilmember Edwards stated he would not support the motion due to the implication that the appeal would not be heard because the multi -party appellants failed to attend the meeting and commented on what he believed was Council's obligation to finish the process that had been initiated. Mayor Winokur noted his discomfort with some of the appeal procedures and the difficulty in trying to make modifications. The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion not'to hear the multi -party appeal was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kirkpatrick and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, and Maxey. (Councilmember Mabry ' withdrawn) -302- May 30, 1989 THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, that the written grounds of the multi -party appeal conform to City Code requirements. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Kirkpatrick and Winokur. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) HUAL1i1161INKiGIS31:01 Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, that the written grounds of the Bigelow Appeal conform to City Code requirements. Lucia Liley, 110 West Oak, attorney representing PACE, pointed out the appeal was limited to the actions of the Planning and Zoning Board and indicated the need for clarification regarding Council's motions and referenced to the sufficiency of the grounds for the appeal. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion on the Bigelow Appeal was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. City Planner Ted Shepard presented site location information and summarized I the agenda materials included in the packet. Edwin C. Bigelow, 818 Sandy Cove Lane, appellant, stated his concerns regarding the adverse effect the project would have on the surrounding community. He commented on Planning Director Tom Peterson's endorsement of the project and the abuse of discretion by the Planning and Zoning Board and noted its decision was without support of competent evidence of record. Scott Mason, 861 Sandy Cove Lane, party -in -interest, spoke in support of the appeal and noted that the Planning and Zoning Board decision to approve the final plan for Harmony Market was in error and based on incorrect information. He referred to the guidelines in the LDGS regarding retail use and activity for a regional community shopping center and commented on the failure of the Planning staff to include changes in the Master Plan in any of the neighborhood meeting announcements. Craig Coogan, party -in -interest, (Landings/Sandy Cove), spoke in support of the appeal and commented on the Planning and Zoning Board substantially ignoring its previously established rules of procedure. He also summarized the evidence that was improperly considered and evidence that was not considered. -303- May 30, 1989 The following parties -in -interest spoke in support of the appeal: Allen R. Scott, 900 Whaler's Way, spoke of his experience as a PACE shopper in Denver and the associated traffic problems he had observed. Larry Batterton, 4512 Maxwell, noted the exact location of the Mallards subdivision and commented on the speed of the review process regarding the PACE project. He commented on the lack of neighborhood meetings and urged Council to reconsider the PACE project. Richard Patterson, 5349 Wheaton, commented on the way in which the developer presented the project by referring to it as a "regional wholesale warehouse" and noted that at the Planning Board hearing, the "regional wholesale warehouse" was not mentioned. He commented on the City Planner's error when he agreed that the "regional warehouse" fit under Business Services. Art Judson, 5025 Hogan Drive, expressed concern regarding the quality of living in the residential subdivision and stated he believed that citizens should not have to sacrifice neighborhood integrity for a commercial development. The following citizens spoke as project proponents: Tony Fiest, Fiest-Meager of Denver, representing the developer of the ' project, commented on the substantive issues that were raised. Lucia Liley, 110 East Oak, attorney representing PACE, addressed the comments and concerns raised by the appellants and urged Council to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. Jayne Herren, 500 Palmer Drive in Fairway Estates, expressed concern regarding the development along College Avenue which borders Fairway Estates and stated the reasons why she is now in support of the PACE project. Ralph Waldo, 1336 Tarryton Drive, pointed out past PACE project opposition in Golden Meadows and noted the fact that not one citizen spoke against the project at the Planning and Zoning hearing. He also stated that the Golden Meadows Homeowners Association had voted unanimously to support the project. Armando Ballofet, air quality consultant, commented on the conclusions of the air quality analysis and the significant variations of air quality. Natural Resources/Street and Stormwater Utilities Director Brian Woodruff commented on the conclusions and validity regarding the significant variations of the air quality analysis. City Planner Ted Shepard outlined the 750 foot setback from Harmony Road ' and clarified the minimum set back distance of 80 foot (by virtue of the landscape buffer) for the eventual build -out of additional sites. -304- May 30, 1989 Planning Director Tom Peterson, explained the rationale for permitting an application for the final plan to be concurrent with the preliminary plan. Transportation Planner Eric Bracke, spoke to the accuracy of the traffic study and the verification of the process that was used. Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, that in the case of the multi -party appeal, the April 24 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld. Councilmember Azari stated she did not believe the Planning and Zoning Board acted in an arbitrary manner or that the Board abused its authority. She stated she did believe that every effort was made to meet the all development criteria and that the evidence that had been presented indicated a fair hearing had been conducted. She noted the changes in the Master Plan, the preliminary, and the final acceptance of the plat and indicated that the Planning and Zoning decision had been made clear and the issue is without conflict with the City Code. Councilmember Kirkpatrick commented on the grounds in both appeals and the allegations in the multi -party appeal regarding the project being too intense for the area. She stated she believed that the information that was provided on air pollution, noise, and traffic generation was above and beyond the usual amount that is provided for the neighborhood and the Planning and Zoning Board. She noted that she did not believe this type of land use would adversely impact the air pollution levels. She indicated her discomfort with the preliminary and final being together and questioned the procedural ethics of the issue. She noted the difficulty this issue caused her in making her decision, but stated she would support the motion. Councilmember Edwards commented on the rules of the LDGS and stated he could not find substantial information to conclude that the Planning and Zoning Board erred in its discretion and indicated his support for the motion. Councilmember Horak commented on the conclusionary nature of the appeal information presented to Council and commented on the issue of the preliminary and the final appeal being addressed concurrently. Mayor Winokur commented on the development process and the possible improvements needed in the LDGS. He pointed out the need to adhere to the standards that are currently in place but stressed the need to continue to make improvements. He stated he believed that there was no evidence to substantiate that the Planning and Zoning Board refused or failed to receive relevant evidence that would have altered the final decision. He commented on the acceptability of the idea regarding the combining of the preliminary and final plans and indicated his agreement that the Planning and Zoning Board did not err or abuse its discretion regarding the final decision. -305- May 30, 1989 The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion that in the case of the multi -party appeal, the April 24 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, that in the case of the Bigelow appeal, the April 24 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld. Councilmember Horak commented on the hard work that went into the project, expressed his discomfort with the concurrent hearing of the preliminary and final plans and stated he would not support the motion. Councilmember Azari stated her support for the motion, but supported efforts to ensure that citizens were informed of every step of the appeal process and suggested Council review the LDGS to alleviate problems in the future. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion that in the case of the Bigelow appeal, the April 24 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Horak. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 89-110 Directing the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge to Develop a Creative Strategy to Address the Problems Associated with Cruising. Adopted as Amended Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact associated with adoption of this Resolution. An appropriation ordinance for supplemental funding for implementation of the cruising strategy will be available for Council consideration on June 20, 1989. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December, 1988, the Council Health and Safety Subcommittee was asked to review the situation surrounding cruising in the downtown and make recommendations to Council. Based on the information gathered by the ' Subcommittee during the intervening months, the Subcommittee recommends that the City Manager be directed to develop a creative strategy to address -306- May 30, 1989 the problem behaviour, traffic congestion and air quality problems associated with cruising. That strategy should include, but not be limited to, the following elements: ■ using creative measures to change traffic and/or parking patterns, ■ reviewing the Municipal Court fines for the violations most commonly associated with cruising, and possible recommendations to increase fines, ■ assessing the feasibility of using alternate sentencing upon conviction of cruising -related offenses, ■ dedicating to the downtown area sufficient police resources to implement the changes necessary, ■ examining the level of prosecution currently employed, and making recommendations regarding the level of prosecution of cruising -related offenses, ■ initiating a public relations program to inform the citizens of Fort Collins and the surrounding communities of the steps to be taken, ■ assessing the potential to expedite some of the lighting improvements recommended in the draft Downtown Plan, ■ forwarding to the City Council recommendations regarding the cost of this strategy and potential funding sources, ■ continuing to work with the Council Health and Safety Subcommittee to monitor the effectiveness of the program. If Council adopts this Resolution, staff will develop a strategy to implement Council direction, and will bring to Council at its June 20 meeting an ordinance requesting a supplemental appropriation to cover the additional costs of these steps. The Subcommittee recommends that the estimated cost of any ongoing efforts beyond 1989 be added to the recommended 1990 budget, which will be reviewed by Council during the next few months." Councilmember Kirkpatrick introduced a video tape that was shot by Channel 14 which highlighted the downtown cruising problem. Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt Resolution 89-110. Police Chief Bruce Glasscock described the violations and offenses that are occurring in the downtown area by the cruising and non -cruising individuals. 1 -307- May 30, 1989 Councilmember Maxey described the control measures that need to be established to correct the cruising problems and stated the desired outcome would be that the downtown area become a family oriented environment. Councilmember Azari commented on the impact that would be felt by the entire community regarding the new fine structures and sentencing regarding law infractions. Councilmember Mabry thanked the Council Subcommittee and the citizens' task force for the superb job that was done regarding the cruising problem. He stressed the need for the Resolution to be strong and stern and suggested the following amendments as a friendly amendment, seconded by Councilmember Edwards. In Section 2, change the word "develop" to "implement", under the second bullet, change the word "reviewing" to "revising", and striking the phrase "making recommendations to Council regarding increases" and insert the word "increasing". The next amendment was striking the phrase "examining the level of prosecution currently employed, and making recommendations regarding", and inserting the word "undertaking" and under the fifth bullet striking the words "assessing the feasibility of" and. change the word "expediting" to "expedite". Councilmembers Kirkpatrick and Maxey accepted Councilmember Mabry's suggestion as a friendly amendment to their previous motion. I Councilmember Kirkpatrick commented on the intent of the program to deal with the traffic congestion, reduce the undesirable behavior, and to reduce the feeling of intimidation in the downtown area. Councilmember Maxey commented on the financial investment in the downtown area and the measures in the Resolution that would bring about a family atmosphere in downtown Fort Collins. Councilmember Azari reminded Council that the destructive and undesirable issues were not just limited to the downtown cruising scene and noted the vandalism which occurred in Rolland Moore Park over the weekend. Mayor Winokur thanked the Health and Safety Subcommittee and those citizens associated with the hard work related to resolving the cruising problem. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Resolution 89-110 as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 89-111 Approving the Nomination of Susan Kirkpatrick to the Board of Directors of the Colorado Municipal League Adopted ' Following is staff's memorandum on this item: Em May 30, 1989 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' This Resolution formally approves the nomination of Councilmember Kirkpatrick to the Colorado Municipal League's Board of Directors. City Council has expressed its strong support in nominating Councilmember Kirkpatrick to the Board of Directors of the Colorado Municipal League. The attached Resolution formalizes the approval of that nomination." Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution 89-111. Councilmember Horak expressed his delight with Councilmember Kirkpatrick's involvement in the League. Councilmember Mabry spoke of the benefit to Fort Collins through having Councilmember Kirkpatrick's representation in the Colorado Municipal League. Mayor Winokur commented on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's high qualifications to serve on the CML Executive Board. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Resolution 89-111 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. I THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 89-112 Stating the Support of the Council for the Annual Conference of the Colorado Municipal League to be Held in the City of Fort Collins in 1992 Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT Two elements of the conference will require some financial support from the City and/or the CVB: (1) To facilitate a smooth schedule of events and special transportation arrangements in the form of shuttle service; and (2) To sponsor some events during the conference such as a welcome reception, spouse programs, etc. Based on the City of Greeley's 1988 experience, upwards to 2 months of concentrated staff time and public contributions between $8,000 and $15,000 can be expected. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado Municipal League is a non-profit, -non-partisan organization ' that represents and serves cities and towns in Colorado. More than 240 -309- May 30, 1989 ' Colorado communities are members of the league and benefit from its informational and advocacy services. The City of Fort Collins is a long standing member of the Colorado Municipal League. Each year in June, the Colorado Municipal League hosts its annual conference in a member community. Fort Collins was selected as the host community for the 1992 conference. (refer to attached letter dated October 27, 1987 from Ken Bueche of CML) The CVB has been working closely with the Colorado Municipal League to evaluate the varied conference requirements. However, CML is reevaluating the 1992 location in light of the Greeley Conference and low attendance. The opportunity for the City to host the conference is a valuable one. If selected, the City will gain exposure from having representatives from other Colorado communities visit our city. It will be an excellent opportunity for the City to benefit from "word of mouth" advertising within the state. An event such as this conference would provide an opportunity to increase out of state visitor revenue by attracting in -state visitors to Fort Collins. Colorado State University will be able to introduce its campus and facility to guests who might be considering attending Colorado State in the future. The CVB has reviewed the requirements of the Colorado Municipal League. A response is attached that reviews the needs of the conference and facilities available in Fort Collins. The CV8 believes that Fort Collins ' can accommodate the estimated 700 guests, and provide the conference sufficient support to make it successful. While there are enough convention facilities in Fort Collins to accommodate the guests, there may not be a single facility large enough handle the entire conference. For example, either the University Park Holiday Inn or Marriott can accommodate up to 15 concurrent meetings. However, if CML needs 23 concurrent sessions, a combination of facilities and attendant shuttle service would be required. The Convention and Visitors Bureau is investigating various options in terms of housing guests. Timely and convenient transportation of guests is also important and the CVB recommends that a private carrier be retained for shuttling guests back and forth from activities. A commitment from City staff, the Convention and Visitors Bureau and community volunteers will be necessary to ensure the success of this event. The Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau is confident that Fort Collins has both the facilities and community support to accommodate this conference in 1992. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution authorizing Council support for hosting the 1992 Colorado Municipal League Conference in Fort Collins." Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt Resolution 89-112. Councilmember Mabry noted the importance of Fort Collins hosting the 1992 ' CML Conference and stated he would support the Resolution. -310- May 30, 1989 Councilmember Azari commented on Fort Collins hosting the CML Conference and the dynamic opportunity it was for the community. Councilmember Kirkpatrick commented on the positive affect that hosting the Conference will have on Fort Collins. Mayor Winokur expressed his appreciation and support to the Convention and Visitors' Bureau for its involvement in the opportunity to host the conference. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Resolution 89-112 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Horak questioned what would be done about the vandalized trees at Rolland -Moore Park. City Manager Burkett stated that steps would be taken to demonstrate the seriousness of vandalism that occurred. Mayor Winokur suggested that information regarding the vandalism done to the trees at the park should be put in the newsletter that accompanies the City utility bill. Adjournment At the conclusion of the Adjourned Meeting, Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. City Clerk 0 Mayor 1 -311-