HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/01/1994-Regular' February 1, 1994
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held Tuesday,
February 1, 1994, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt,
Azari, Horak, Kneeland and McCluskey.
Councilmembers Absent
Staff Members Present:
Janett
Burkett, Krajicek, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Steve Burkett stated there were no changes to the Agenda as
published.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy
on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the
Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off
the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the
Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #21, Pulled
Consent Items.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 4, 1994, Authorizing the Mayor to Enter
Into a Parking Agreement for the Lease of City Property to Opera Galleria
I, L.L.C.
On November 2, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution 93-170 approving
an intergovernmental agreement related to the Opera House Project. This
Resolution approved an intergovernmental agreement between the City, the
Downtown Development Authority and all parties having a recorded interest
in the Opera House Project. The agreement addresses the real property tax
revenues from the project, project improvements and the provision of
adequate parking facilities for the project.
This Ordinance which was unanimously
18, authorizes the Mayor to enter
provide the Opera Galleria Project
needs.
1 76
adopted on First Reading on January
into a Parking Agreement that will
with adequate parking to meet its
F111
10.
February 1, 1994
The owner of the property, Jane C. Goodwin, initiated this request for
Local Landmark Designation for 314 East Mulberry Street known as the
Replogle/Bennett House. Ordinance No. 5, 1994, which was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on January 18, 1994 designates the property at
314 East Mulberry Street as a local landmark, for its historical and
architectural importance.
The owners of the property, German and Sondra Larrarte, are initiating
this request for Local Landmark Designation for 1315 Remington Street
known as the Hunter House and Garage. Ordinance No. 6, 1994, which was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 18, 1994 designates the
property at 1315 Remington Street as a local landmark, for its historical
and architectural importance.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 7, 1994, Amending Section 2-167(a) of the
City Code Relating to the Commission on the Status of Women.
By adoption of Resolution 86-65, the City Council created the Commission
on the Status of Women. That Resolution also encouraged Larimer County to
appoint a representative to serve as an ex officio nonvoting liaison to
the Commission. Although not officially recognized, Colorado State
University has also historically appointed a representative to work with
the Commission in a capacity similar to that of the Larimer County
liaison.
At its September 30, 1993 meeting, the Commission on the Status of Women
voted unanimously to request that the City Code be amended to formally
recognize the representative from Colorado State University. This
Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 18,
1994 amends Section 2-167(a) of the Code to provide that Larimer County
and Colorado State University may each appoint a representative to serve
as an ex officio nonvoting liaison to the Commission.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 9, 1994, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
Funds were appropriated in 1993 for specific purposes but not spent. The
unspent funds were added to reserves at the end of 1993. Appropriations
were typically not spent because there was not sufficient time to complete
bidding in 1993, and thus there was no known vendor or binding contract to
encumber the funds for expenditure in 1994. This ordinance reappropriates
77
r
12.
13.
February 1, 1994
the 1993 funds for the same uses as were originally approved by Council in
1993.
This ordinance will authorize the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease -
purchase agreement with Municipal Services Group, Inc., (MSG) at 5.88%
percent interest rate for the purchase of the required vehicles and
equipment. MSG is the only firm the City has found who is willing to sign
lease purchase documents acceptable to the City since the voters adopted
Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. This lease -purchase
is consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins.
The CSU use of
the Power Plant
was determined through a RFP process
and
was approved by
City Council Resolution 93-30, February 16, 1993. It
was
the conclusion
of the RFP interview
committee that the CSU use provides
the City with
opportunities
for input on the long term use of
the
'
property, is a beneficial use
backing, has identified means
of the property, has sufficient financial
to preserve the historical nature of the
building and is, therefore, in
the best interests of the City and of
the
citizens of the
Fort Collins.
14.
15.
The lease will allow the Mechanical Engineering Department of Colorado
State University (CSU) to use the Power Plant as an engines and energy
conversion laboratory for a period of up to twenty-five years.
The bridge on North College is defective and is scheduled for replacement
by the Colorado Department of Transportation (the State) during the summer
of 1994. To make these improvements, the State needs to purchase land
from all surrounding landowners, including the City.
The property owner of Lot 1, Golden Meadows 3rd Filing (1600 Shenandoah
Circle) has requested the vacation of a portion of excess street right-of-
m
16
17.
February 1, 1994
way for McMurry Avenue adjacent to the lot. The portion of right-of-way
proposed for vacation is no longer necessary to retain for public street
purposes since McMurry Avenue is constructed at its ultimate width in this
location. However, there are existing utilities in the area proposed for
vacation and therefore the City is retaining the area as a utility and
drainage easement.
Items Relating to the Purchase of 25 Acres of Land and Water Rights for
Natural Area and Storm Drainage Purposes.
A. Resolution 94-20 Authorizing the Purchase of 25 Acres of Land and
the Purchase of Water Rights for Public Natural Areas and Storm
Drainage Purposes.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 14, 1994, Appropriating Storm
Drainage Fund Prior Year Reserves.
The Resolution would authorize acquisition of a 25-acre parcel of land
along the Poudre River and associated water rights for Storm Drainage and
Natural Area Purposes. This acquisition is consistent with the Old Town
Basin Master Drainage Plan, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the
Natural Areas Policy Plan, and Resolution 94-11 which established policy
direction for acquisition of natural areas in the core of the city.
The Ordinance appropriates $70,000 from the Storm Drainage Fund prior year '
reserves for acquisition and initial cleanup of the property. The Old
Town Basin has insufficient appropriations available to cover the
acquisition costs, therefore, a request for additional appropriation is
being made.
The applicant, Edward W. Lawler, on behalf of the property owners, Robert
H. & Marian F. Pike, Raymond E. & Frances Ray Ford, and Judith F. Gunn,
has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 0.5106 acres
located south of Country Club Road and east of Terry Lake Road (Colorado
State Highway No. 1). The property is the existing Spaulding Lane street
right-of-way. The applicant is requesting that the zoning for this
annexation be RP, Planned Residential. Staff is recommending that the
property within this annexation be placed in the RLP, Low Density Planned
Residential Zoning District. The surrounding properties are zoned C -
Commercial in the City and C - Commercial, M1 - Multi -Family, FA - Farming
in Larimer County.
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially
complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing
should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be ,
79
February 1, 1994
1 '
given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first
reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. Not less than thirty
days of prior notice is required by State law.
The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the
annexation and zoning request at its regular monthly meeting on February
28, 1994, and will make its recommendation at that time. The Board's
recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council in time for first
reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on March 15.
18. Resolution 94-22 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation
Proceedings for the Sherman -Lawler Second Annexation.
The applicant, Edward W. Lawler, on behalf of the property owners, Robert
H. & Marian F. Pike, Raymond E. & Frances Ray Ford, and Judith F. Gunn,
has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 15.4217 acres
located south of Country Club Road and east of Terry Lake Road (Colorado
State Highway No. 1). The property is a large acreage currently used for
residential purposes. There are several existing structures on the
property. The applicant is requesting that the zoning for this annexation
be RP, Planned Residential. Staff is recommending that the property
within this annexation be placed in the RLP, Low Density Planned
Residential Zoning District, with a planned unit development condition
attached. The surrounding properties are zoned C - Commercial in the City
and C - Commercial, M1 - Multi -Family, FA - Farming in Larimer County.
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially
complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing
should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be
given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first
reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. Not less than thirty
days of prior notice is required by State law.
The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the
annexation and zoning request at its regular monthly meeting on February
28, 1994, and will make its recommendation at that time. The Board's
recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council in time for first
reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on March 15.
19. Resolution 94-
The applicant, Edward W. Lawler, on behalf of the property owners, Robert
H. & Marian F. Pike, Raymond E. & Frances Ray Ford, and Judith F. Gunn,
has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 5.7249 acres
located south of Country Club Road and east of Terry Lake Road (Colorado
State Highway No. 1). The property is a large undeveloped acreage. The
' applicant is requesting that the zoning for this annexation be RP, Planned
80
February 1, 1994
Residential. Staff is recommending that the property within this
annexation be placed in the RLP, Low Density Planned Residential Zoning
District, with a planned unit development condition attached. The
surrounding properties are zoned C - Commercial in the City and C -
Commercial, M1 - Multi -Family, FA - Farming in Larimer County.
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially
complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing
should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be
given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first
reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. Not less than thirty
days of prior notice is required by State law.
The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the
annexation and zoning request at its regular monthly meeting on February
28, 1994, and will make its recommendation at that time. The Board's
recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council in time for first
reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on March 15.
20. Routine Deeds and Easements.
Powerline Easement from Dolores L. Williams, Lot 14 in Block 294,
West Side Addition on Sycamore Street, needed to install pad mount
electric transformer to underground existing overhead electric
services. Monetary consideration: $10.
Items on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
7.
91
91
10.
Items on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Wanda Krajicek.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 9, 1994, Aaaropriatina Prior Year Reserves.
m
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
1
February 1, 1994
Equipment.
Drainage Easement Purposes.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 14, 1994, Appropriating Storm Drainage Fund
Prior Year Reserves.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Steve Burkett spoke of the open space purchase approved on the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Apt reported on a recent meeting with the Growth Management
Subcommittee.
Appeal of the December 16, 1993
Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board
Approving with Conditions, a Development Project
Known as Fossil Creek Estates, Preliminary P.U.D., Upheld
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 16, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-1 to approve the Fossil
Creek Estates PUD, Preliminary, with conditions regarding zoning, natural
M-
February 1, 1994
areas/wetlands, existing trees, off -site drainage easements, off -site right-of-
way dedication, and street standards.
The Fossil Creek Estates PUD is a low density residential development for 130
single family lots on 42.63 acres located on the west side of Shields Street
approximately one mile south of Harmony Road. The eastern portion of the
property is zoned RLP, Low Density Planned Residential, with a PUD condition.
The western 31.12 acres are in the T, Transition, District.
On December 30, 1993 an appeal of the Board's decision was filed by James and
Sandra Robbins, adjacent property owners. On January 10, 1994 an amended appeal
was filed by the same individuals. 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 in that the
Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction.
2) The Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion in that its decision
was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record.
The attached documents include the appeal, Planning Department response to the
appeal, and the information packet that was received by the Planning and Zoning
Board for the December 16, 1993 hearing. The procedures for deciding the appeal
are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code." '
City Attorney Steve Roy gave a brief overview of the appeal process and spoke of
the allegations of the appeal. He asked the attorney representing the appellants
if the allegations applied only to Phases 2 and 3, since Phase 1 was previously
rezoned.
Jim Martell, attorney representing the appellants, stated he believed the
Planning and Zoning Board exceeded its jurisdiction on the entire PUD plan.
Lucia Liley, Attorney for Fossil Creek Partners, stated she believed the appeal
was limited to Phases 2 and 3. She stated it is supported by the facts in
evidence showing that Phase 1 was fully zoned and separate within the preliminary
plan.
City Attorney Steve Roy suggested Council address the sufficiency of grounds as
alleged in the Notice of Appeal. He stated after presentations are completed
Council would decide if the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in any or all of the
Phases.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, that there were
sufficient grounds to hear the appeal. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak,
Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED. '
83
1 February 1, 1994
City Planner Kirsten Whetstone briefly outlined the history of the item and spoke
of the PUD conditions attached to the zoning. She presented a site plan that
profiled the various phases.
City Attorney Steve Roy gave a brief definition of party -in -interest and stated
only the appellant and those who are parties - in- interest would be allowed to
speak to the appeal.
Appellants:
Jim Martell, attorney representing the appellants, spoke of the grounds for the
appeal. He stated all phases of the project were being appealed and did not
believe Council could consider the phases separately. He spoke of wildlife and
wetland issues and the impact the density of the development would have on
wildlife in the area. He stressed that the developer should conduct a wildlife
study and then take appropriate steps to mitigate the impact. He stated it was
the appellants' belief that the Planning and Zoning Board exceeded its
jurisdiction and stated there was not adequate information regarding density
compatibility as it relates to wildlife. He requested the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board be reversed.
Bob Kulovaney, 1317 Hepplewhite Court and President of
the Ridge Homeowner's
Association, commented that Phases 2 and
3 of the project
could not be completed
due to fire access issues. He stated
provisions have
not been made for the
natural wildlife habitat on the site, and
commented physical
elements of the site
plan do not adapt well with the physical
characteristics
of the location.
Developer:
Lucia Liley, attorney representing Fossil Creek Partners, stated she believed the
fair hearing allegation was only limited to Phase 1 of the PUD and did not apply
to Phases 2 and 3, noting Phases 2 and 3 of the property were not zoned T-
Transition at the time of preliminary plan approval. She spoke of LDGS
provisions which state the Planning and Zoning Board may attach whatever
conditions appropriate for a preliminary plan. She stated the Board did not
exceed its jurisdiction in approving the PUD preliminary plan for Phases 2 and
3 since it has been the City's policy, and has been applied consistently, to
allow concurrent review and approval of annexation, zoning and preliminary PUD
plans. She asked if there was competent evidence in the record to support the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board concerning density allegations. She
reported surrounding land -uses consist mostly of single-family developments mixed
with some agricultural development. She stated projects are considered
compatible when there are differing types of low density projects. She clarified
the issue of environmental influences was discussed at a meeting of the Planning
and Zoning Board, and stated wildlife concerns have been previously addressed by
staff.
Uj
February 1, 1994
Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, clarified the review was a preliminary review and
stated there is currently no criterion available from the' City regarding density
next to natural areas. He gave a slide presentation of the area terrain, and
spoke of efforts to ensure that the area not be mistreated.
Appellant Rebuttal:
Jim Martell, attorney for the appellants, stated there was not adequate evidence
in the record to identify the effect density would have on area wildlife.
Bob Kulovaney, 1317 Hepplewhite Court, expressed concerns regarding buffering and
wildlife issues.
Frank Oldham, 1109 Hepplewhite Court, spoke of the lack of competent evidence in
the record.
Sandra Robbins, 5801 South Shields, reported she received a letter from Wildlife
Biologist Jerry Craig who emphasized the value of the property as a raptor
habitat.
Developer Rebuttal:
Lucia Liley, Attorney for the applicant, urged Council to deny the appeal and
uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, emphasizing this was
preliminary plan approval and several concerns will be addressed before final
approval. ,
Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, stated impact on the natural area would be minimal.
City Planner Kirsten Whetstone clarified engineering required the proposed Drive
line up with the center lines of Fossil Creek Drive and responded to questions
regarding existing trees. She explained the process involved with preliminary
PUD approval and clarified the density and general layout of the project is
complete when presented for preliminary approval.
Environmental Planner Rob Wilkinson responded to Council questions and spoke of
different buffering methods that could be considered in an attempt to protect the
areas wildlife.
Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, that
the Planning and Zoning Board held a fair hearing on all three phases and did not
exceed its jurisdiction.
Councilmember McCluskey stated the approval was preliminary, noting changes could
be made before final approval.
The vote on Councilmember McCluskey's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None.
85
a
February 1, 1994
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Environmental Planner Rob Wilkinson stated a lower density site plan has been
discussed. He stated the developer is willing to review lower density along the
boundaries of the Cathy Fromme Prairie. He clarified staff is requiring
additional information from the developer before final approval on hydrologic
impacts on the wetlands and if the buffering is adequate.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to
uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board based on competent evidence
in the record.
Councilmember Kneeland stated the Board relied on information received from staff
when it voted and the evidence presented appeared competent. She stated there
would be an opportunity before final approval to discuss conditions.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified Council's decision is be based on the grounds
of the appeal. He stated if Council believed certain issues merit closer
attention on review of the final plan, they should identify those issues.
Councilmember Horak spoke in support of the motion and of the standards for
deciding an appeal.
' Councilmember McCluskey commended staff for its efforts, noting there were
several issues to be addressed before final approval is granted.
Councilmember Apt concurred with Councilmember McCluskey and spoke of the need
to consider additional buffering before final approval in an attempt to preserve
the wildlife habitat. He spoke of the need for higher density in the Urban
Growth Area.
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Horak, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None.
THE.MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Apt requested that the developer and Natural Resources staff work
together to examine additional buffering options to help mitigate and preserve
the presence of the wildlife.
AR
February 1, 1994
Appeal of the December 16, 1993,
Decision of the Planning and
Zoning Board Approving, with Conditions,
a Development Project Known
As Spring Creek Village, Preliminary P.U.D.,
Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Overturned
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 16, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Board approved, with conditions,
Spring Creek Village Preliminary P.U.D. This project represented an amended
P.U.D. that was remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Board by the City
Council at its regular meeting of November 2, 1993. The request consists of 218
multi -family apartments on 23.55 acres located on the east side of Shields
Street, south of Prospect Road. The P.U.D. includes a request to increase the
number of unrelated persons who may reside in 66 of the four bedroom units from
three to a maximum of four persons.
On December 30, 1993,
an appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding
the decision of the
Planning
and Zoning Board. In the statement of appeal, it
is alleged that:
Regarding the
decision
of the Preliminary P.U.D., the Planning and
'
Zoning Board
failed
to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of
the Code
and Charter.
Regarding the decision to allow up to four persons per unit in 66 of
the units, the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly
interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
The attached documents include the appeal, Planning Department response to the
appeal, and the information packet that was received by the Planning and Zoning
Board for the December 16,-1993 hearing. The procedures for deciding the appeal
are described in Chapter 2, Article II., Division 3 of the City Code."
City Attorney Steve Roy outlined the appeal process and clarified Council was
required to make a motion regarding increasing the number of unrelated persons
occupying the proposed dwelling units and decide if the development proposal is
acceptable under the Land Development Guidance System.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, that there
was sufficient evidence to hear the appeal. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Horak, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
�7r7
February 1, 1994
1 .
Senior Planner Ted Shepard briefly outlined the background of the appeal. He
reported there were slides available for both the appellant and the developer and
stated he was available for Council questions.
Councilmember Apt asked if additional information was available regarding the
height and mass of the buildings.
Shepard noted the size of the buildings along the southside of the PUD, bordering
the Hillpond area, have been reduced to sixplex units. He spoke of how the
developer has reduced the height, mass and width of the project.
Councilmember Apt stated he would like to see a visual of the buildings
architectural design to see how it compares to Ram's Village.
City Attorney Steve Roy noted the grounds chosen by the appellants include
allegations that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and
apply the applicable provisions of the Code. He stated due to those allegations,
the scope of review is broader than in appeals where abuse of discretion is
alleged.
Appellants:
John Roehrig, 1800 Wallenberg Drive, Vice -President of the Prospect/Shields
Street Neighborhood Association, stated he believed the Planning and Zoning Board
continually misinterpreted. aspects of the Land -Use Policy Plan and the Land
Development Guidance System. He stated the Planning staff provided inconsistent
advice to the members of the Board. He stated the criteria for approval had not
changed, and believed reversal of the opinion was illogical. He suggested
members of the Planning and Zoning Board had difficulty in interpreting City
policies. He stated a neighborhood survey was conducted at Ram's Village and
over 80% of the residents believed Ram's Village was an obtrusive and disruptive
neighbor. He emphasized the development would be even more disruptive than Ram's
Village due to the entire CSU student population having to commute through a
residential neighborhood.
Emily Smith, President of the Prospect/Shields Street Neighborhood Association,
spoke of negative effects the project would have on the neighborhood, and gave
a slide presentation showing area density. She requested Council overturn the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the approval of the
preliminary plan for Spring Creek Village, and overturn the approval of the
developer's request for 66, 4 bedroom units.
Arthur Johnson, 2007 Weathertop Lane, spoke of the increase in the population in
area and stated he did not believe families would locate in the area due to the
student population. He asked Council be fair to the existing property owners in
the area.
m
February 1, 1994
Developer:
Lucia Liley, attorney representing Topanga Enterprises, responded to Mr.
Roehrig's statement regarding the survey and stated it was not performed by an
independent party and was not a valid study, but was conducted by a neighborhood
resident. She stated the project meets all location criteria for higher density
uses. She opposed the appellants' suggestion that given multi -family use in that
density, the project could not be made compatible by design. She stated the
project was not a multi -family project being constructed among solely single-
family dwellings but would be a project located in a mixed -use neighborhood. She
spoke of traffic and air quality issues and noted the project was designed to
reduce noise problems.
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, stated the project goes beyond the typical
buffering for its land -use and spoke of landscaping and open space surrounding
the project. He stated based on the evidence of record, the project complies
with the City's existing land -use regulations. He urged Council to deny the
appeal and allow the development to proceed.
Appellant Rebuttal:
Alan Lamborne, member of the Prospect/Shields Street Neighborhood Association,
stated that noise levels between the proposed development and Ram's Village could '
not be compared since Spring Creek Village would be located in a drainage basin.
He spoke of the need to protect existing neighborhoods against intrusive and
disruptive land -uses and developments. He denied allegations that residents
opposed development in the area and urged complimentary development. He believed
the project would overwhelm the neighborhood and make it impossible to integrate
students into the neighborhoods. He stated if Council were to overturn the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, it would reaffirm and strengthen the
value of citizen involvement.
Carolyn Peterson, owner of Tap Marketing and resident of Sheeley Drive, spoke of
her extensive education and background in marketing. She stated that she is 95%
confident the survey information provided to Council was correct and if the
survey was to be performed again the residents would again state the impact would
be intrusive and/or disruptive.
Developer Rebuttal:
Lucia Liley, spoke of the need for using the Ram's Village slides during the
applicants presentation. She noted the slides were used to show comparisons and
changes. She stated she did not believe the survey conducted was relevant
because it involved a differently designed project in a different neighborhood.
She stated density is based on a recent study regarding overall density's within
the Prospect/Shields neighborhood. She reported on the density level, noting it
is currently at 6.5 dwelling units per acre, and the proposed project would
increase the level to 6.8. She spoke of the criteria for 4 bedroom units and ,
urged Council to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
LK
February 1, 1994
'
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, reported
staff
and the Planning and Zoning
Board has recommended approval of the project
twice
and commented Council would
undermine the credibility of the Planning and
Zoning
Board if it rules that the
Board misinterpreted its responsibilities. He
spoke
of the effect it would have
on the manner which developments are considered.
Senior Planner Ted Shepard clarified a geographical study of the neighborhood has
not been completed, reporting that 66 units were reserved for 4 bedroom units and
believed the project provided the additional open space needed to meet the
criteria.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated the Federal Fair Housing Act was amended in 1988
prohibiting discrimination against families.
Mayor Azari spoke of density concerns.
Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Greg Byrne spoke of a
recently performed gross density analysis and spoke of the density comparisons
in various neighborhoods within the City.
Alan Lamborne, 1929 Sheeley Drive, stated the population in the area would
increase by 60% if the development was approved.
Frank Vaught outlined the area that would be affected by the development stating
it was a much larger area than represented by the Prospect/Shields Street
neighborhood. He stated the Landmark Apartment complex is 15 units to the acre
and the proposed development is at 9.25/acre.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, that the appeal
be upheld, and the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board raising the number
of unrelated persons living in one household from 3 to 4, be overturned.
Councilmember Horak stated he did not feel the record showed there was sufficient
buffering for the criteria specified in the ordinance.
Councilmember Kneeland supported the motion, noting that she did not believe her
vote would undermine the credibility of the Planning and Zoning Board.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Azari, Horak, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to
overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Horak stated hb did not believe the development met the appropriate
' criteria and expressed concerns regarding buffering and traffic impacts.
90
February 1, 1994
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified if the motion failed and the decision of the '
development proposal was upheld then preliminary approval would be granted.
Councilmember Kneeland stated she did not believe the project met the
neighborhood compatibility criteria.
Councilmember Apt commented that more could be done in an attempt to integrate
mixed land -use.
Councilmember McCluskey spoke of the positive aspects of the project and of the
need for additional student housing in the City.
Mayor Azari spoke of the project and of the diverse population of the area. She
expressed various traffic concerns and stated additional work on the proposed
project needs to be completed before further consideration.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Apt, Azari, Horak and Kneeland. Nays: Councilmember McCluskey.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ;
(� (� Mayor
uml , �xR ;mac o Y�
City Clerk
91 1