Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/11/1996-Adjourned' June 11,1996 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 6:30 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, at 8:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Roy, Krajicek. Resolution 96-70 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Concerning the Implementation of the "Timberline Extension -Prospect to Summitview" Choices 95 Capital Streets Project, Adopted Option A. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "Financial Impact The conceptual budget for the project recommended by Staff and consultants in the Timberline Extension Final Report is $7.5 million. The latest projections of resources in the Choices 95 capital projects fund indicates that there will be sufficient funds to implement the project with this budget: Funds Available for Funding from 114 Cent Choices 95 and 114 Cent Necessary %,593,474 Timberline - Prospect to Summit View - 7. 500.000* Balance Available for Mitigation and Other Uses $1,093,474** * The project total includes approximately $200,000 for mitigation. ** An estimated $100,000 may be available following the completion of all remaining Choices 95 Projects. Executive Summary Following an extensive public participation process for the proposed Timberline Extension over the past six months, the Staff and consulting team has issued its final report. The Final Report recommends proceeding with the design and construction of Timberline along Alignment "C", which would extend Timberline north from Prospect, turn northeast to cross the Poudre River north 339 June 11. 1996 and west of Riverbend Ponds, turn north again to cross Mulberry, and northeast to tie into Summit View Drive near International Boulevard. Feedback from the public, gathered through a telephone "hot line" and a mail in response survey indicates a majority of citizens also support proceeding with design and construction of the recommended alternative. BACKGROUND: The extension of Timberline Road north from Prospect, crossing the Poudre River and tying into Summit View Drive north of Mulberry has been shown on the Master Street Plan for the City of Fort Collins since the mid 1980's. Funds for right-of-way acquisition for the Timberline Extension were approved by voters in 1984, and funds for design and construction were approved as part of the Choices 95 capital improvements program in 1989. Construction of the Choices 95 construction project was originally scheduled for 1996 and 1997. In recent years, the proposed Timberline Extension has become controversial. Over the past six months, the City conducted an extensive public participation process for this project. Public questions and concerns about the project were identified through a scientific survey and series of public meetings, and City staff and a team of consultants analyzed those questions and concerns. I Three alternatives were developed. Alternative "A" is the no build alternative. Alternative 'B" proposes an extension straight north from Prospect, ending at Mulberry at a "T" intersection. Alternative "C" extends Timberline north from Prospect, turning north east to cross the Poudre River north and west of Riverbend Ponds, proceeding north across Mulberry and connecting to Summit View Drive near International Boulevard. In May 1996, the City staff and consulting team issued a preliminary report and recommendation. The report recommended proceeding with the design and construction of Alternative "C"--the extension north and east across the Poudre and Mulberry to Summit View Drive. The conceptual cost estimate for the recommended alternative was $7.5 million. The report and recommendation were presented to six boards and commissions during May and June. The Storm Drainage Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Transportation Board, and Planning and Zoning Board endorsed the preliminary recommendation to proceed with the design and construction of the Timberline Extension Alternative C. With several four to four votes, the Natural Resources Board and the Air Quality Advisory Board were unable to develop majority recommendations either in support of or opposing the proposed roadway. The Natural Resources Board did develop a unanimous recommendation identifying the need for extensive and effective mitigation if the roadway does proceed to construction. 340 June 11, 1996 Approximately 500 copies of the preliminary report were also sent to groups and individuals interested in the project. To receive public input, a "hot line" was established, and a response survey was also attached to the report for citizens who wished to provide written comments. The scientific survey conducted last November concluded that a large majority of citizens who have formed an opinion about the proposed Timberline Extension favor proceeding with design and construction. Input received at public meetings over the past six months, and the feedback from the hot line and response survey support that conclusion. Based on input from boards and the public, a final report and recommendation have been completed. This report is substantially the same as the preliminary report, and the final recommendation is still to proceed with the design and construction of Alternative "C". However, the scope of the proposed construction has been expanded to include provisions for pedestrians -- curb, gutter and sidewalk. Additional information has also been provided in the final report relating to mitigation measures based on the questions received during the review of the preliminary report. The final report is attached. Input from advisory boards and summaries of feedback from the public gathered through the hot line and response survey are included in the appendices to the Final Report. All design work on Alternatives "B" and "C" to this point has been conceptual. No detailed analyses of specific mitigation measures have been undertaken, because the mitigation measures are dependent on which of the proposed alignments, if any, is approved. If an alignment is approved, a more detailed evaluation of possible nmtngathon measures and costs will be part of the design process. For example, some of the mitigation measures which could be considered during design and possible costs include: Wetlands: Alternative "C" would disturb approximately 1.8 acres of existing wetlands, primarily north of Mulberry. To offset this loss, additional wetlands could be developed along the new alignment or in the Riverbend Ponds open space. Federal guidelines require the replacement of the lost wetlands at a one-to-one ratio, but the City could choose to mitigate at a higher ratio. The cost of mitigation, including land acquisition, is estimated to be approximately $10,000 to $20,000 per acre. At a one-to-one replacement, this would be $18,000 to $36,000. Wildlife/ Special care needs to be taken to ensure that wildlife is as protected as possible. This River Trail: holds true both for their habitat as well as any migratory patterns that may be interrupted. The River Trail Right -of -Way will need to be widened which the staff is working on with the adjacent property owners. The staff is also exploring alternative sources offending for mitigation and trail acquisition expenses. No costs have been developed yet for this measure. Some costs have already been included in the conceptual design for providing space for wildlife movement at the new bridge. 341 June 11. 1996 Road The staff is working with adjacent property owners to limit access to this roadway Access: as much as possible so that the road will be able to operate at its peak performance. No costs are attributed to this measure in the mitigation budget. Landscaping: The original project scope included only minimal landscaping. It was assumed that more extensive landscaping would be done with future phases of the project or as adjacent development occurs. Enhanced landscaping --starting to create more of a "boulevard" effect with extensive tree and shrub planting along the new roadway would cost from $100,000 to $250,000. Noise: Noise from the new roadway at Riverbend Ponds has been identified as a concern. Mitigation measures for noise can take many different forms, front shrubs planted atop a berm along the roadway to a tall, solid wall. The most effective noise barriers maybe undesirable from a visual and aesthetic perspective. Estimates for noise barriers far a 500feet stretch of roadway near Riverbend Ponds range from $50,000 to $200, 000. Visual/ The roadway could be screened from the existing bike trail and from Riverbend Lighting: Ponds by landscaping. The conceptual estimate for the cost of such screening is $30,000. In addition, lighting needs to be designed that does not serve as an ' intrusive addition both for the public and the wildlife in this area. There are specific measures that can be designed to take care of this concern and that will provide an environment that is both safe and conducive for wildlife movement. Pond Access: Access around the Riverbend Ponds could be improved with the development of additional parking and a trail in the area. The parking and trail could be paved or unpaved, with a range in costs of $25,000 to $250,000. This is not intended to be a complete list of mitigation measures or final estimates of costs. This is intended only as an example of the types of mitigation measures which could be explored during the design of improvements, and a rough indication of the costs of those measures. Final recommended mitigation measures and their costs will be a part of the package that the City Manager presents back to the Council later this year if this resolution is adopted. Three alternatives for City Council action have been identified. They are: Option "A" Directs staff to proceed with the design and construction of the proposed extension of Timberline Road from Prospect to Sumunit View Drive along the alignment identified as Alternative "C" in the final report. 342 1 June 11. 1996 Option "B " Directs staff to present an Ordinance calling a special election on November 5, 1996. The ballot would ask voters to consider the following questions: (1) Should the Timberline Extension be built; and (2) If so, should Timberline be extended from Prospect to Summit View (Alternative "C") or from Prospect to Mulberry (Alternative 'B"). Option "C" Terminates the Timberline Extension project. Resolutions for each of the three options outlined above are attached for Council's consideration. The recommendation of the Staff is to approve Option "A" and proceed with the design and construction of the Timberline Extension. If approved by Council, design on Timberline would proceed immediately. Construction of the bridge over the Poudre River could possibly begin late this fall to take advantage of low flows in the river during the winter. Construction of the roadway could be completed during the summer and fall of 1997, in accordance with the original Choices 95 schedule. If additional time is needed for the design of mitigation measures, the roadway could still be constructed during the summer and fall of 1997, but construction of the bridge over the Poudre would probably not be completed until the spring of 1998. " ' Engineering Manager Marc Engemoen gave a slide presentation and spoke of the public participation process and outreach that was done. He reported a hotline number was installed for citizens to call and express their support/ nonsupport of the project. He spoke of the differences between conceptual design vs. final designs, stating conceptual designs are not as detailed. He clarified the ratio of people in favor of the project was substantially higher than the number of people opposed, and briefly described Alternatives A-C. He spoke of the amount of funding as well as funding available for mitigation. He outlined the history of Timberline issue and spoke of the possibility of a petition effort to place the issue on the November ballot. Transportation Operations Group Leader Gary Diede reported Latimer County is currently working on its own capital improvement projects and do not have funding available. He spoke of the possibility of requesting funding assistance by the State. He responded to Council questions regarding timelines for development and commented that if action is not taken, the design and construction would be significantly delayed. Traffic Engineer Eric Bracke spoke of estimated preliminary design and acquisition costs. He responded to Council questions regarding growth scenarios. David Roy, 1039 W. Mountain Avenue, spoke in opposition to the extension. ' Paul Valentine, Transportation Boardmember, supported the project. 343 June 11, 1996 1 Dick Dunn, member of the original Choices 95 Committee, reported the Timberline project was not a priority on the original list of projects. Kate Caldwell-Forgetch, opposed the road extension. Tim Johnson, member of the Transportation Board, stated there were more important projects to be looked at before Timberline Road. Les Galvan, a Fort Collins resident, stated he had circulated a petition amongst the 32 residents in his neighborhood. He reported the project was supported unanimously. Ralph Waldo, 1406 Twin Oak Court, supported Option A. David Neenan, 1606 Brentford Lane, spoke in support of Option A and thanked staff for its efforts. Lucinda Smith, speaking on behalf of the Poudre Canyon Sierra Club, stated the Sierra Club opposed the project. Eric Levine, member of the Air Quality Advisory Board, opposed the extension and stated building ' new roads would not improve air quality or make substantial reductions in trip generations. Brad Edwards, a Fort Collins resident, opposed the project. C.J. Streit, 3430 Surrey Lane, spoke of the impact the project would have on the area and stated if the money is not used for Timberline Road then it should be returned to the taxpayers. Gordon Wolfly, a Larimer County resident, supported the Timberline extension. Jan Behunek, member of the Natural Resources Advisory Board, requested the issue be placed on the ballot. Eric Fischer, representing Choice City Citizens, spoke in support of the process and expressed the Choice City Citizens support of the extension. Joe Zimlich, 3617 Terryridge Road, spoke in support of Option A and did not believe the extension would have a negative environmental impact. John Ferric, 115 S. Summitview, concurred with comments made by Mr. Zimlich. 344 June 11, 1996 David Lauer, 1404 Robertson Street, opposed the project and supported leaving the decision up to the voters. Ed Stoner, 2236 Apache Court, supported the Timberline Road extension and stated that spending the money on another election would be foolish. Fred Shalawn, a northeast area resident, supported the extension and concurred with previous statement by Mr. Stoner. Claire McMillian, 1614 Adriel Circle, spoke of the need for the extension stating it was crucial in moving traffic. Jonathan Zeif, 942 Shire Court, urged Council to support Option C, terminating the project. John Gascoyne, 718 W. Mountain, supported allowing the citizens to vote on the issue again and opposed staff's recommendation. Mike Budaris, a Fort Collins resident, supported completing the Timberline extension. I Ramon Ajero, 3712 Soderburg Drive, stated that although he originally supported the issue he would like for the issue to be sent back to the voters. Tom Skillman, 818 E. Elizabeth and former Choices 95 member, spoke in support of Option A stating it is needed more today than when it was originally voted on. Susan Kirkpatrick, 2312 Tanglewood Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and urged that it be referred to the voters. David Bye, 1305 Buttonwood Drive, opposed the extension. Ken Bonetti, 528 West Mountain, opposed the extension. Don Horak, 745 S. Summitview Drive, recommended adoption of Option A. Paul Thompson, 705 Cherokee Drive, supported Option A. John Truesdell, 4255 Westshore Way, urged adoption of Option A, stating it would greatly improve the quality of traffic flow. ' Dave Cantrell, 1 148 Laporte, urged Council to refer the issue to the voters. 345 June 11, 1996 1 Mike Hauser, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke of the Chambers support for the extension. Dan Eckles, 1408 West Mountain, supported Option A. Mark Lotto, 2212 Vermont Drive D204, stated the extension of Timberline would be inevitable and believed it would be better to do it now. while Council still has control over it. Loren Maxey, 1104 Clark Street, supported Option A and thanked everyone for their efforts. Byrne responded to Council concerns regarding the creation of urban sprawl. Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adopt Resolution 96-70, Option A. Councilmember Smith offered an amendment to the previous motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, amending Sections 1 and 2 to read as follows: Section 1 That City staff is hereby directed to proceed with the preliminary design of and ri ht of way acquisttion for, work ' -- g Section 2. That upon completion of the preliminary jdesign of the Timberline Project and prior to undertaking any final design or construction work on the Project.... Councilmember Smith stated he was willing to spend the money for preliminary design work, taking into consideration that a citizen initiative would be placed on the November ballot and would pass, terminating the project. He clarified right-of-way acquisition would not be affected. Engemoen estimated that preliminary design could be presented to Council within 6 months, depending on how much time is spent in the public process on mitigation. He spoke of the preliminary schedule set for construction. Councilmember Kneeland opposed the motion stating it contradicts her original motion. Councilmember McCluskey stated he would not support the motion, noting this item had already been voted on once and until another vote takes place, the project should move ahead. Councilmember Smith expressed the need for the road to built the correct way and stated it was his intent to coordinate the effort in a smooth manner. 346 June 11, 1996 Engemoen stated it would be easier to design the bridge and the roadway together. If the bridge were taken out of the preliminary design work, the schedule for construction would be set back by 6 months. Diede stated it was imperative that the design of the bridge and the road be done together and stated it would be very difficult to remove a section of the design pertaining to the bridge. Mayor Azari opposed the motion and stated the need to proceed with the project. The vote on Councilmember Smith's amendment was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt and Smith. Nays: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Wanner. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Kneeland emphasized the need to make a decision. She stated the project is consistent with what the voters voted on for Choices 95, and is also consistent with the City Structure Plan. ' Councilmember Apt stated he did not believe the majority of the public has received clear information regarding the benefits of the road extension. He believed the extension would encourage citizens living in the northeast part of the City to drive south to employment and shopping. Councilmember Janett stated the past process relating to this item was not a good process, and expressed concerns regarding costs involved. She spoke of the various roads, in her opinion, that rank higher on the priority list. She spoke of traffic congestion issues and of the need to spend more money to alleviate congestion problems. She stated the road would provide access and stated there is a strong need for that. She spoke in support of the motion and the need to move forward, but stated that it would benefit the citizens, who are in opposition, to continue their campaign opposing the project. Councilmember Smith concurred with comments from Councilmember Janett. He stated a number of county residents would benefit from the extension and spoke in support of the annexation. He stated he would like to see the citizens in the northeast area annexed and noted he would be working with staff to make some of the annexations occur. He spoke of the need for rational boundaries. He spoke of the impact this project has had on the community and supported Option A. Councilmember McCluskey stated since this issue was ultimately voted on and approved it, it is the Council and staff responsibility to implement and make any improvements needed for the project. He thanked staff for the time and effort put into this issue and supported the motion. 347 June 11, 1996 Councilmember Wanner stated that he would support a vote by the public. Councilmember Apt clarified that he did respect the citizens who originally voted on this issue, but supported the using the ballot process. Mayor Azari stated she supported Choices 95 and the projects associated with it. She thanked Councilmember Smith for efforts he made in an attempt to make something out of this project that would benefit all concerned parties. The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's original motion to adopt Resolution 96-70, Option A, was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and Smith. Nays: Councilmembers Apt and Wanner. THE MOTION CARRIED. OTHER BUSINESS Councilmember Kneeland spoke of a meeting held with Traffic Engineer Eric Brake regarding traffic calming measures on Stuart Street, and reported that staff is currently working on it. The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. ADJOURNMENT ME] Mayor