Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/14/1999-AdjournedDecember 14,1999 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 6:15 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City ofFort Collins was held on Tuesday, December 14, 1999, at 6:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing legal issues. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED ("Secretary's Note: The meeting adjourned into Executive Session at 6:15 p.m. and reconvened following the Executive Session at 6:35 p.m.) Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to direct the City Attorney to release his legal opinion regarding the use of Building Community Choices funds for automobiles in the Mason Street Corridor to enable the committee dealing with the issue to have more information with which to work. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 76 December 14, 1999 Emergency Ordinance No. 202,1999, Authorizing the Conveyance of 21 Square Feet of City Property to the Owner of the Northern Hotel Adopted The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary Northern Hotel Fort Collins, L.P., the Partnership that has been formed to complete the restoration and redevelopment oftheNorthern Hotel at 172North College Avenue, is in the course offinalizing financing arrangements for that Project and has learned that approximately 21 square feet of the northern end of the Northern Hotel building encroach into City right of way at the intersection of North College Avenue and Walnut Street. A portion of the survey showing the encroachment area is attached to this agenda item summary. According to the Partnership, the financing arrangements, which include the construction loan for the Project, cannot go forward until this encroachment issue is resolved. Because the construction loan interest rate and other terms will not be available to the Project unless the loan closes during this calendar year, the Partnership has requested that the City work with it to resolve the encroachment issue this month. The simplest and least disruptive means for resolving the issue is for the City to convey the encroachment area to the Partnership. Because the City has invested in the Northern Hotel Project $670, 000 of its own funds and $331, 000 granted for the Project by the DDA, and because of the important historic preservation, affordable housing and economic development objectives that the Project is intended to accomplish, staff is recommending that the Council proceed with the proposed emergency ordinance authorizing the conveyance of the encroachment area to the Partnership by quit claim deed. At $20 per square foot, the fair market value of the encroachment area would be approximately $420. However, because of the City's interest in this Project, and the public purposes the Project will serve, staff is recommending that no compensation be required in exchange for the conveyance. " Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 202, 1999 as an Emergency Ordinance. Councilmember Wanner noted that this is being done to correspond with a recent survey done on the property. 77 December 14, 1999 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Resolution 99-143 Authorizing the Acceptance of a Donation of 5 Acres of Land from Skvview Ltd.. for Natural Area Purposes Adopted The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "Financial Impact The value of the land to be donated has been appraised at $336,000. The expected annual maintenance cost of owning the property to be donated is approximately $500. Executive Summary Skyview Ltd. is the owner of 5 acres of land located near South College Avenue adjacent to the Redtail Grove Natural Area. In 1998 Skyview Ltd and the City discussed a proposal to donate the 5 acres for expansion of the Redtail Grove Natural Area purposes, but the Donor withdrew the proposal due to the uncertainty ofthe need for utility easements across the donated property. Since that time, it has been determined that no easements will be required across the donated property and the Donor is now agreeable to proceed with the donation. City staffand the Natural Resources Advisory board have reviewed the resource, natural heritage and open space values ofthis tract and have determined that it would provide a valuable opportunity to advance the Natural Area objectives of City Plan and enhance the integrity of the Redtail Grove Natural Area. Staff is bringing this donation to Council for acceptance in order for the Donor to obtain tax benefits for 1999. " Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Resolution 99-143. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED in December 14, 1999 Consideration of the Appeal of the October 12, 1999, Determination of the Administrative Hearing Officer to Approve the Oakridge Business Park, 28th Filing (Bank of Colorado) - Proiect Development Plan (continued from December 7 1999) Decision Upheld The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary On October 12, 1999, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved the Oakridge Business Park, 28thFiling (Bank ofColorado)- Project Development Planforatwo-story, 12,OOOsquarefootbank building with 4 drive-thru lanes and associated parking on a property that is approximately 1.2 acres in size. The property is zoned HC - Harmony Corridor (as of the effective date of March 28, 1997 for the new Land Use Code). The property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East Harmony Road and McMurry Drive. Oakridge Drive forms the south boundary of the property. On November 9, 1999, an Amended Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision ofthe Administrative Hearing Officer. In the Amended Notice ofAppeal from the Appellant Cimarron — Harmony Corner LLC, it is alleged that: The grounds for this appeal are pursuant to Sec. 2-48b1 of the City Code. The Administrative Hearing Officer failed to properly apply relevant provisions of the applicable Code being HC—Harmony Corridor Code Requirements. The following HC — Harmony Corridor Code Requirements were not followed nor properly implemented in the Project Development Plan. Land Use Code, Division 4.21, Harmony Corridor District Article 4.21 (E) (2) (a) HC — Harmony Corridor — Site Design "In the case of multiple parcel ownership, to the extent reasonably feasible, an applicant shall enter into cooperative agreements with adjacent property owners to create a comprehensive development plan that establishes an integrated pattern ofstreets, outdoor spaces, building styles and land uses. " 79 December 14, 1999 Land Use Code, Division 3.2. Site Planning and Design Standards Article 3.22(D) Circulation and Parking "All vehicular use areas in any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, busses, bicycles and emergency vehicles). " Article 3.22(E)(5) Points of Conflict "The lot layout shall specifically address the interrelation of pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle circulation in order to provide continuous, directpedestrian access with a minimum ofdriveway and drive aisle crossings. Remedial treatment such as raised pedestrian crossings, forecourts and landings, special paving, signs, lights and bollards shall be provided at significant points of conflict. " Article 3.22(H)(1)(3) Drive -In Facilities "The design and layout of drive-in facilities for restaurants, banks, or other uses shall provide adequate directional signage to ensure a free -flow through the facility. " StaffNote: It is assumed that the Appellant is referring to Article (Section) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking in the above 3 citations. " Mayor Martinez noted that this is a continuance of the appeal hearing and that the hearing is at the rebuttal stage. He established a time limit of 15 minutes for rebuttal for each side. Steve Olt, City Planner, presented slides to provide a visual orientation to the site. City Attorney Roy inquired if a slide showing the Bank of Colorado plan was presented to Mr. Blanchard at the administrative hearing. Olt replied that it was not. City Attorney Roy suggested that any objections regarding this exhibit or any other items of new evidence that might be offered by any party -in -interest should be heard, and Council should determine admissibility. He explained the appeal hearing procedures. Mayor Martinez inquired if either side objected to the presentation of the slide in question all December 14, 1999 David J. Faestel, President Cimarron -Harmony Corner L.L.C., stated that he has no objection to the use of this particular exhibit. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated that the slide in question is being presented in response to Council questions at the appeal hearing on December 7. Olt continued with the presentation of slides showing the site and noted that no slides were presented at the administrative hearing. David J. Faestel, President Cimarron -Harmony Corner L.L.C., appellant, thanked the Council for the continuation of the hearing and noted that he has obtained new information in response to the staff memorandum. Matt Rankin, Vaught -Frye Architects, representing the Bank of Colorado, expressed an objection to the introduction of new evidence. City Attorney Roy inquired what new evidence Mr. Faestel intended to introduce during the rebuttal. Mr. Faestel stated that he wished to present new evidence based on a research of his records regarding the existing width of the curve, the decision to construct a raised sidewalk, and a recorded reciprocal access easement agreement. Mr. Rankin stated that he has no direct objection to the first two issues and that he does object to the introduction of the easement agreement because the new information clouds the issue. Mayor Martinez asked if the City Attorney has reviewed the easement agreement. City Attorney Roy stated that the agreement was delivered to his office late in the afternoon and he had not had an opportunity to review it in detail. He inquired how the easement agreement is relevant to the issues raised in the notice of appeal. Mayor Martinez asked the appellant to address why the easement agreement should be submitted into evidence. Mr. Faestel stated that he wished to enter into evidence the easement agreement which was entered into by the predecessors of both property owners and stated that it has direct relevance to the access road that is being discussed. He stated that it is the opinion of his attorney that his property has complete free flow access. He stated that pursuant to the recorded legal document that he would not allow any encroachment or reduction of the access, infringement by a detention pond or alteration in any way. Mayor Martinez ruled that the Council would hear the three issues outlined by Mr. Faestel. [IV December 14, 1999 Mr. Faestel disagreed with the statement by the Bank of Colorado that these issues are insignificant. He stated that his position is that issues are significant to the appellant because they relate to a disregard for safety of pedestrians and vehicles for the Cimarron and adjoining properties. He spoke regarding the shared access easement as shown on the handout he submitted. He stated that Cimarron improved 90% of the access easement with the wide 32 foot radius turn and that Cimarron intends to retain the unimproved triangle parcel without any type of infringement. He described the access reduction to 24 feet proposed by the Bank of Colorado. He stated that the 32 foot width is the access required for safety standards. He stated that this is a traffic control issue because the existing entrance will remain by legal right and that Cimarron is requesting installation of a stop sign. He spoke regarding the pedestrian connection to the north lot. He stated that the issues are important to Cimarron and that no encroachment will be allowed on the easement area. He asked that Council refer the matter back to Planning so that the issues can be resolved. City Attorney Roy stated that the new exhibit pertaining to the easement agreement should be identified as Appellant's Exhibit A. He inquired if Mr. Faestel had any other evidence he wished to enter into the record during the balance of the time available for the appellant's rebuttal. Mr. Faestel stated that he had no further evidence to submit. Mr. Rankin noted that he had objected to the introduction of the easement agreement into evidence and asked Council to respond to the issues that were specifically contested i.e. the width of the drive aisle. He stated that during the administrative review Mr. Faestel addressed two issues: the lack of the physical vehicular access between the dead end parking north of his retail center and the one-way exit lane. He spoke regarding the development plan for Cimarron which was presented during the administrative hearing and stated that the plan does not indicate any connection to the adjacent property. He stated that the plan shows a five-foot pedestrian sidewalk connecting the sidewalk along Harmony Road to the main entry of Mr. Faestel's property. He pointed out that under the new Land Use Code the pedestrian connection would be a requirement of development. He stated that the conclusions of the administrative hearing and the staff response indicate that the Article III of the Land Use Code does not reveal any requirements for connections between adjoining commercial properties except when shared parking is required for uses with staggered peak periods of parking demands. He stated that the staff response indicates that the five-foot pedestrian connection effectively precludes any vehicular cross access between the properties. He stated that it is the bank's position that the proposed connection poses a substantial safety concern. He stated that a concern voiced by Mr. Faestel relates to the a portion of the curb and gutter which comprises the southern end of the bank's detention pond. He stated that the bank has modified that plan on the new proposal. He stated that the 24 foot curb radius was based on City standards and that this is a secondary access and egress to Mr. Faestel's property. He expressed concerns regarding traffic safety if access passage is not restricted and spoke regarding existing traffic conditions. He stated that there are several pedestrian connections throughout the site with stop signs, enhanced crosswalks and textured paving patterns. He stated that the bank is willing to install a two-way traffic sign or December 14, 1999 yield sign on the back of the "do not enter" sign even though this is not a blind corner. He stated that the Bank of Colorado, the hearing officer and City staff all believe that the vehicular connection between the two properties is not warranted and should not be provided to the north of the adjacent retail space, that the current radius shown making up the southern edge of the detention pond is in compliance with City standards and consistent with curb cuts and drives throughout the City. He stated that there is no evidence to suggest that there is a safety concern with parking backing into oncoming traffic as this condition already exists on site and that sufficient signage has been provided to protect the pedestrian and vehicular traffic, although the bank is willing to provide an additional yield or two-way traffic sign. He asked that Council separate the easement agreement issue from the other issues to be decided and allow the parties to resolve the easement matter between themselves. Mark Kross, Bank of Colorado, spoke regarding the Bank of Colorado facility development and possible safety issues. He stated that the bank would be willing to install a stop sign and that the bank would need time for legal review of the easement agreement. Mayor Martinez asked if the easement agreement submitted by Mr. Faestel is pertinent to Council's decision. City Attorney Roy stated that the task for Council is to determine if the development proposal meets the criteria set out in the Code and whether the administrative hearing officer properly interpreted and applied the relevant criteria that are cited in the notice of appeal. He stated that the Code requires that applicants for development approval obtain all necessary easements and rights -of -way and that an attorney certify that all interest holders have signed the plat. He stated that if the Council finds that all criteria have been met that the approval should be conditional as follows: that if there is an encroachment that the plan be modified so as to remove any encroachment from the easement of the adjoining property owner or that evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney and the City Manager is to be presented to the City showing a legal right to leave the plan as proposed. Mr. Faestel stated that the recorded easement agreement gives Cimarron the right to improve the entire easement area. He stated that the detention and access areas proposed by the bank would destroy the improvements installed by Cimarron two years ago. City Attorney Roy asked who owns the property in question. Mr. Faestel stated that the improvements installed by Cimarron are on 12 feet owned by Cimarron and 12 feet owned by the bank. City Attorney Roy asked about the purpose of the easement agreement. Mr. Faestel stated that the easement is for the egress from the Cimarron property and joint access for both parties. FE December 14, 1999 City Attorney Roy asked about the purpose and nature of the improvements constructed by Cimarron. Mr. Faestel stated that the improvements are for the purpose of ingress and egress for both properties and described the improvements that have been constructed. City Attorney Roy asked how the proposal would interfere with or destroy the improvements or Cimarron's rights under the easement. Mr. Faestel stated that the proposal would encroach upon an easement that is retained only for paved driveway ingress and egress. City Attorney Roy asked if the proposal would interfere with ingress or egress to either property. Mr. Faestel stated that it would reduce the existing paved width within the easement area. City Attorney suggested that if the other criteria have been met that the Council condition approval upon modification of the plan so as to respect the property rights of the adjoining property owner or that evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Manager be produced to demonstrate that there is a legal right to leave the detention facility and any other proposed improvements where presently shown on the plan. Councilmember Byrne made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to find based on the evidence presented that the administrative hearing officer applied and interpreted the Code correctly and to uphold the decision of the administrative hearing officer with the condition that all issues be resolved to respect the property rights of the appellant or that the project development plan be modified to protect easement rights. Councilmember Kastein asked if a cooperative agreement was entered into between the property owners to create a comprehensive development plan. Olt stated that there are interconnected street patterns among three sites at the location and that the Code suggests rather than requires the multiple parcel property owners to work cooperatively. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, spoke regarding street layout for overall development plans and individual developments. Councilmember Weitkunat requested clarification of the appeal citations. Mr. Faestel confirmed the Code citations in question. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the criteria for circulation and parking and noted that a stop sign would be appropriate. She stated that she believes that the administrative hearing officer did interpret the provisions regarding driveway crossings and vehicular/pedestrian interface correctly. She stated that based on the record and the evidence submitted that the administrative hearing officer did interpret the relevant Code provisions correctly. Councilmember Bertschy suggested a friendly amendment to include stop sign. The maker and second of the original motion accepted the friendly amendment. M., December 14, 1999 The vote on the motion to find based on the evidence presented that the administrative hearing officer applied and interpreted the Code correctly and to uphold the decision of the administrative hearing officer with the conditions that all issues be resolved to respect the property rights of the appellant or that the project development plan be modified to protect easement rights, and that a stop sign be included, was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Byrne, Kastein, Martinez, Mason, Wanner and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED City Attorney Roy stated that a Resolution would be prepared for the next Council meeting to formalize and finalize Council's decision on the appeal. Other Business Mayor Martinez noted that Larimer County publicizes a weekly meeting calendar and asked about the possibility of issuance of a weekly calendar of City meetings for publication in the Coloradoan and on the City's website. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. ATTEST: 1 , —I , r► .! ; , I. Adjournment 85 . , -