Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-07/24/2012-AdjournedJuly 24, 2012 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLL~S, COLORADO. Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting- 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, July 24, 2012, at 6:00p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Troxell and Weikunat. (Secretary's note: Councilmember Poppaw arrived at 6:10p.m.) Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Harris, Roy. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry introduced Claire Thomas and Rick Richter with the Mason Minute regarding the Mason Street Corridor project. Rick Richter, Engineering and Capital Projects Manager, stated full funding has been acquired for the project and contracts have been issued for various aspects of the project. Three projects are underway this month, including the BNSF railroad track replacement from Cherry to Laurel and the Troutman underpass project. He announced a complimentary shuttle available during the downtown portion of construction. Claire Thomas, Publicity Marketing Specialist, discussed the public outreach efforts regarding the Mason Street closures. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson commended the public outreach efforts and asked about the advertisement of the free shuttles. Thomas replied the digital readouts on the bus fronts advertise the shuttle, staff members are physically located along the corridor to announce the shuttle presence, and businesses along College and Mason have posters and postcards available. The shuttle service seems to be quite successful, particularly during the middle of the day. Councilmember Manvel asked if bids have been in line with estimates. Richter replied expenses are on target, with most bids being under estimates. City Manager Atteberry introduced Larry Schneider and Mark Jackson with an update regarding the October 2011 storm clean up and mulching efforts. 506 July 24, 2012 Mark Jackson, Planning, Development, and Transportation Services Budget, Policy, and Communication Manger, stated the City staff and Council made a commitment to aid in cleaning up the storm branch debris throughout the City. Larry Schneider, Streets Superintendent, stated a contractor was hired to mulch the collected branches, at a cost of $47,520. The mulch was then distributed to citizens at no cost and was gone in about four weeks. Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director, recognized Larry Schneider for his involvement as co-founder of the Colorado Association for Roadway Maintenance·. City Manager Atteberry introduced Kevin Gertig, Mike Gavin, and Lisa Voytko, to discuss water quality and other impacts of the High Park fire. Kevin Gertig, Water Resources/Treatment Operations Manager, discussed the statistics of the fire and noted the visual impact of ash and debris. Mike Gavin, Office of Emergency Management Manager, stated ditch flooding and water quality will be major concerns over the next months. Lisa Voytko, Water Production Manager, stated very high levels of iron, manganese, and aluminum have been found in the Poudre River and stated the water is not being used for consumption at this point. Gertig stated several entities are collaborating to aid in clean-up efforts and a water quality plan is in place. The current cost estimate for emergency stabilization treatment is $24 million. City Manager Atteberry noted the costs of the treatment for both the immediate and long-term future. Resolution 2012-063 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the 2012 Grant Agreements with the Federal Aviation Administration for Improvements and Equipment Acquisitions at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Adopted The following is staffs memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute two grant agreements with 'the Federal Aviation Administration. The first grant is in the amount of$339,964 and the second grant is in the amount of$248, 000**. The first grant will be used to pay the costs of design services for a capital construction project in 2013 to rehabilitate the general aviation apron aircraft parking area. The second grant will be used to acquire FAA mandated snow removal equipment. **Note: The $248,000 is an estimate at time of agenda printing; the finalized cost will be provided to Council in its Read-Before packet prior to the July 24 meeting. 507 July 24, 2012 BACKGROUND I DISCUSSION The Airport's primary capital project for 2013 is the rehabilitation of the general aviation apron. This apron is in poor condition and has experienced recent failures requiring numerous repairs. The total cost for design services, repair costs, surveying and geotechnical services are estimated to be $1. 7 million. Bids for this work will be opened in May 2013. The construction work on the apron will be done August 2013. The first FAA grant in the amount of$339,964 will be used for the phase one engineering design of the apron project. The second FAA grant in the estimated amount of$248,000 will be used to pay for the acquisition of a snow removal equipment. FINANCIAL I ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Airport's approved 2012 budget includes the expenditure of up to $1 Million in FAA Entitlement Grant funds and the Airport's matching share. The Airport's matching share is a 10% match and is covered by the State of Colorado 2012 Aviation Grant and PFC collections. Maintaining this asset in a safe, usefid condition is critical if the Airport is to continue performing its transportation mission and support of economic growth to the area as an employment center, generating revenues to the City, and provision of regional transportation services. · The snow removal equipment grant will provide the Airport with important piece of equipment to maintain the Airport's safe winter operations. This equipment addition is a regulatory requirement based upon the total square footage of Airport paved areas. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This apron project will not increase the size of the current apron length and width. The level of aircraft activity and/or future growth potential will remain the same after the project is complete, so impacts to the environment should be no different than before. BOARD I COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Airport Steering Committee has been advised of the need for this project and of the FAA Entitlement funding that will be made available for this project. The Airport Steering Committee has expressed its support of this project and the expenditure of the capita/funds; and recommends approval of the FAA Grants. PUBLIC OUTREACH The Airport staff has held several meetings with airport tenants, pilot organizations, airport businesses, local businesses and the FAA to discuss the need for this project and the costs. These meetings have consisted of public Airport Steering Committee meetings, Pilot Association meetings, FAA Joint Planning Conferences and individual meetings with our airport businesses and air carrier. All of the airport's stakeholders understand the importance of the apron and snow removal equipment support these projects. " 508 July 24, 2012 Jason Licon, Fort Collins-Loveland Airport Director, stated the airport's upcoming projects, as part of the 2012 budget, are the engineering and design work for phase one of an aircraft parking apron, and acquisition of snow removal equipment. All grant money is applied to projects that are within the airport's approved master plan. The adoption of this item is somewhat rushed due to fiscal year constraints of the FAA. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution 2012-063. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. R:esolution 2012-064 Making Findings of Fact Regarding Two Appeals of the Hearing Officer's June 5, 2012 Decision to Approve the Aspen Heights Project Development Plan (PDP #110018), Remanded to Hearing Officer The following is staffs memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUJ.l!MARY In December 2011, Breckenridge Land Acquisition, LLP, submitted a Project Development Plan (PDP# 1100 18) for a combination of single family detached, two-family and multi-family dwellings in the CCN, Community Commercial North College zone district. As proposed, the project consists of 221 dwellings on 31 acres, located south of Conifer Street, west of Redwood Street and north of Old Town North subdivision. On May 21, 2012, the Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing in consideration of Aspen Heights PDP. On June 5, 2012, after testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, the Hearing Officer issued a written decision approving the PDP, with one condition ensuring proper submittal of a landscape plan for the clubhouse. On June 19, 2012, Mr. Eric Sutherland filed a Notice of Appeal, which was superseded by an Amended Notice of Appeal, filed July 10. On June 19, 2012, Tom Lawton and Lori Nitzel filed a Notice of Appeal, which was superseded by an Amended Notice of Appeal, filed July 10. Both appeals seek redress of the Hearing Officer's decision. The two appeals allege that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing and that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. Among several other claims, the Sutherland appeal as amended alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to follow established procedures because there was no recording made of the administrative hearing from which a verbatim transcript could be produced. Among other claims, the Lawton/Nitzel appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to follow established procedures based on questions raised as to whether signs required to be posted at the site were in place for the entire period specified in the Land Use Code. 509 July 24, 2012 The appeals have been consolidated, and the threshold question of whether the matter should be remanded for a new hearing has been scheduled for Council consideration pursuant to the Mayor's authority under City Code Section 2-56(e). BACKGROUND I DISCUSSION The Aspen Heights PDP# 110018 proposes 221 dwellings on 31 acres results in a density of7. 13 dwelling units per acre. The dwellings, and the number of bedrooms, would be divided in the following manner: 81 Single Family Detached- Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (4-5 bedrooms); 62 Two Family (duplexes) (2-3 bedrooms); 78 Multi-Family (row-houses, 3- 6 units per building) (2-3 bedrooms), There would be a total of 712 bedrooms each of which would be leased individually. All dwellings would be two-story. There would be 786 off-street parking spaces. The project includes a clubhouse, pool, outdoor sport court and leasing office. Blue Spruce Drive and Lupine Drive are two public streets that would be extended to servl! the site. Redwood Street would be extended south to connect with the existing Redwood Street so there would be a complete roadway between existing East Vine Drive and Conifer Street. A segment of the new, realigned Vine Drive would be constructed along the project's southern property line but will not extend to North College Avenue. Blue Spruce would terminate at New Vine Drive and not connect into Old Town North until the intervening vacant land develops. This project represents a new form of student housing that widely distributes the dwelling units across three housing types versus typical apartment buildings. The PDP complies with the North College Corridor Subarea Plan. The three residential housing types are permitted in the CCN zone district, subject to Administrative Review. The site is served by jive public streets: Conifer Street, Redwood Street, Blue Spruce Drive, Lupine Drive and New Vine Drive. All dwellings adjoining these streets face the streets and feature direct connecting walkways. All others face either a connecting walkway or a major walkway spine. All off-street parking spaces are located to the side or rear of the structures. Prairie dogs will be captured live for one week followed by eradication by a humane method. The loss of the habitat will be mitigated. The project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint and bicycle and pedestrian facilities are provided. One condition of approval is recommended regarding the inclusion of a landscape plan and architectural elevations for the clubhouse at the time of submittal for Final Plan. ACTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER At the public hearing,. the Hearing Officer considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff. The Administrative Review process allows the Hearing · Officer ten working days to render a written decision. On June 5, 2012, the Hearing Officer provided a decision approving the PDP, with one condition, that a landscape plan be provided for the clubhouse, as recommended by staff. 510 July 24, 2012 MAY 21, 2012 PUBLIC HEARING -AUDIO MALFUNCTION At the public hearing of May 21, 2012, the audio equipment failed to record the hearing. Therefore, there is no verbatim transcript of the hearing. THE QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER: 1. Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing due to the lack of an audio transcript, so that the Council should remand the matter to the hearing officer for a new hearing? 2. If so, does the remand for a new hearing in the Sutherland appeal make the Lawton/Nitzel appeal moot? ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL On July 10, 2012, Eric Sutherland filed an Amended Notice of Appeal, alleging that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing based on each ofthe four pernissible "fair hearing" grounds, including the allegation that the Hearing Officer substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure by failing to record the hearing and provide a verbatim transcript. Further, his appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. On July 10, 2012, Torn Lawton and Lori Nitzel filed an Amended Notice of Appeal, alleging that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing by substantially ignoring previously established rules of procedure. This is because the sign posted on the property was not upright for some portion of the required time for posting of a notice sign. Further, their appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply the standards relating to prairie dog colonies over 50 acres in size and replacement of the lost resource. NEXT STEPS If the City Council determines that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing due to the lackofaudio transcript, staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution 2012-064, which finds that the Hearing Officer failed to follow previously established procedures and remands the matter back to the Hearing Officer for a new hearing. The Resolution also finds that because oft he remand, the Lawton/Nitzel appeal is moot and the appeal fee paid in connection with that appeal should be refunded. If the City Council determines that the lack of recording in this instance does not constitute a failure to conduct a fair hearing, staff recommends that the Council adopt a motion that the appeal hearing on the two Amended Notices of Appeal go forward on August 21, 2012. If the matter is remanded, the new hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, August 7, 2012. The hearing will be held at 6:00p.m. in Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Letters to affected property owners will be mailed 14 days prior to the hearing. " City Attorney Roy briefly described the City's appeal process. He noted two appeals were filed on the approval of this project, Aspen Heights PDP, and stated the audio equipment malfunctioned at 511 July 24, 2012 the hearing; therefore a verbatim transcript will be unavailable. The Resolution that has been prepared for Council's consideration makes a finding that the matter should be remanded, given the lack of a transcript. Tom Lawton, appellant, stated his appeal was filed on the grounds that adequate signage was not displayed. He stated the City should be liable for the lack of recording of the hearing and questioned the order of the appeals. Eric Sutherland, appellant, expressed concern regarding the order of appeals and questioned the procedure should the matter not be remanded. City Attorney Roy replied the matter is scheduled for hearing on the merits of both appeals on August 21, 2012. If the Council does not adopt the Resolution, thereby not remanding the item for the absence of a transcript, then the merits of both appeals will be heard on August 21, 2012, as scheduled. Councilmember Manvel asked about the question of the lack of signage and liability for the recording. City Attorney Roy replied Council must first decide if it needs the record of the proceedings before the Hearing Officer. If there is a finding on the part of the Council that the hearing was not fair·for any reason, the only remedy is to remand the project to the Hearing Officer. Mayor Weitkunat suggested proceeding as recommended by staff. Councilmember Horak clarified that remanding would mean an entire new hearing will occur before the Hearing Officer. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, gave a brief description of the project location and site· plan. The project includes 221 dwelling units on 31 acres with a mix of single-family detached, duplex, and multi-family units. · Eric Sutherland, 3520 Gplden Currant, stated this appeal was filed due to concerns regarding the City's land development review process .arl:d appeal process. He stated the basis of his appeal is that the Hearing Officer was not duly authorized nor competent to hear the item. He stated the Hearing Officer's credentials were never available. Jim Martell, attorney representing the developer, stated he and his client would like to see the item remanded for a new hearing. · Tom Lawton, appellant, supported the remand, but noted the basis of his appeal was improper signage, which occurred prior to the hearing. He stated his appeal will immediately reappear as it was filed, in part, to test and improve the Land Use Code. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution 2012-064. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson requested information about the audio failure. Deputy City Clerk Harris replied the settings on the system had been changed, preventing the recording. 512 July 24, 2012 Councilmember Horak asked if the Hearing Officer should be made aware of the signage issue. City Attorney Roy replied the Hearing Officer should consider any information presented at the re- hearing on that topic. Councilmember Horak asked how the Hearing Officer is assigned. Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, replied the Hearing Officer is appointed by her office, often in conjunction with a review by the planner. Potentially controversial items are heard by an external Hearing Officer, with simpler items being heard by an internal employee. Councilmember Horak asked if the City has alternative external Hearing Officers. Kadrich replied there are none at this time; however, a request for proposal is scheduled to go out soon. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked who is responsible for development proposal signage. Kadrich replied her department is responsible for placing signs, which are replaced if they are discovered to be down. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Horak announced an open house for Platte River Power Authority's candidates for its General Man~ger. · Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:15p.m. ATTEST: I 513