Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/30/1985-AdjournedApril 30, 1985 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 7:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 30, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Staff Members Present: Arnold, Huisjen, Krajicek, Shannon Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager Arnold noted Council had requested an Executive Session to discuss legal matters at the end of the meeting. IProclamations A. Proclamation Naming May 12-18 as Preservation Week was accepted by Alyce Milton of the Cultural Resources Board and Dick Beardmore, Chairman of the Landmark Preservation Commission. B. Proclamation condemning the current violence and continuing system of apartheid directed against the Blacks of South Africa was accepted y Randy Ross of the Human Relations Commission and Joe Stern, 1221 LaPorte Avenue. Items Relating to Appropriating Funds for Additional 1985 Capital Projects, and Previously Approved Projects Which Require Additional Fundinq Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 47, 1985, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Capital Projects Fund and Transferring Appropriations from the Appropriated Contingency and other Capital projects for Additional 1985 General City Capital Projects. 1 -217- April 30, 1985 ' B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 48, 1985, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Water Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund for the Northside Transmission Water Line. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 49, 1985, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Parkland Fund for Beattie Park Restrooms. At the Council worksession on April 9, 1985, a presentation was made on the City's revised 1985 and proposed 1986-1990 Capital Improvement Program. While no projects recommended by RECAP were deleted from the 1985-1989 Capital Improvement Program, as shown in the Adopted 1985 Budget, some project schedules were changed and several additional projects were recom- mended for funding in 1985. Projects recommended for funding in 1985 are as follows: A. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND GENERAL CITY - "ESSENTIAL" Timberline Bikeway - Prospect to Harmony $43,000 This project is in the current 1985-1989 Five -Year Plan and was , scheduled for 1987. Since the Timberline reconstruction project has been approved, this project needs to be done in 1985. Mason/Howes One Way Couplet $257,200 This project, which was originally budgeted at $1,994,000, needs additional money. They $257,200 will allow us to cover the in- creases in the cost of material from the conceptual cost estimate in 1982 to the present, and to provide enhancements to the pro- ject; such as pedestrian bulbs, landscaping, medians on Howes, and better drainage. Asbestos Removal - Phase II $100,000 We are planning to remove asbestos from 17 City buildings. Currently we have funds identified to remove it from three buildings in -Phase I: the Old Power Plant (Light and Power Fund), the Police Annex (General Services 0 & M), and Building B (see below). The next 14 buildings will be taken care of in Phase II, which is planned for this fall. Prior to Council action on this item, a final estimate will be developed. -218- , ' April 30, 1985 Service Center Building B $63, 500 At present, $80,000 has been appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to improve the heating and ventilation system in Building B. This is insufficient to do what needs to be done. We need to upgrade the electrical system, remodel the office area for effi- ciency, and remove asbestos, for a total project cost of $216,500. Project costs are as follows: removing asbestos-$24,500; im- proving HVAC and electrical-$151,000; and remodeling the office area-$41,000. The project will be funded as follows: $80,000 already appropriated, $63,500 additional from Capital Projects Fund, and $73,000 approved on first reading April 16, 1985 from the Transportation Fund. City Hall West Wing Walls $20,000 The north and south walls are deteriorating rapidly. This project consists of repairing these walls and capping them. Avery House Renovation $30,000 The Avery House is in need of painting, roof repair, regrouting of the masonry walls, sidewalk stabilization, gutter caulking and repair, window repair and more items. Some of these adjustments, gazebo renovation, and many items have been put off for a few years, ' and they are worsening rapidly. The $30,000 is a conceptual projected cost to begin repair, and it will be defined more carefully as further investigation is completed. Outdoor Pool Repainting $40,000 An epoxy paint was applied to the outdoor pool in City Park six years ago, and has been patch painted every spring. However, the life of this paint has been expended. Total sand blasting is necessary to assure proper paint adherence and guarantee the life expectancy of the process. Repainting will not only protect this pool from weather and chemicals, but it will also greatly improve its appearance. The Parks and Recreation Board voted unanimously to endorse this project at their meeting on April 23, 1985, and recommends approval by City Council. Sub -total General City - "Essential" GENERAL CITY - "NECESSARY" $553,700 City Park Roads and Parking $104,000 The repair of City Park Roads and Parking Lot Improvements ' received an appropriation of $119,000 in the 1985 Budget. The -219- April 30, 1985 $119,000 estimate was prepared in early 1983 and was based upon ' minimal surface treatments. Subsequently, examination has shown that several sections will need complete rebuilding, including the removal of existing failed sections and the establishment of new grades and construction of a new pavement structure. In addition, the drives and parking areas servicing the maintenance shop, golf course, maintenance building/fire station, cemetery entrance and City Park ballfields are rapidly deteriorating and are also in need of repair. The total cost to repair all of the City Park paved areas is $223,000 or an increase of $104,000. Construction is scheduled to begin immediately after Labor Day. The Parks and Recreation Board, at their meeting of April 23, 1985, voted unanimously to endorse this project and recommends City Council approval. TOTAL GENERAL CITY CAPITAL $657,700 Included on the attached financial statement is a project to renovate the Canyon West and Columbine rooms, which is not presented for appropriation now. This item will be brought to Council for appropriation when private sector funds have been identified. Two projects dealing with the renovation of the Northside Aztlan Center have been pulled from the appropriation Ordinance to allow more time for review with the Parks and Recreation Board. ' FOOTNOTE: Attachments A, B & C are financial statements and notes relating to this fund. B. WATER FUND Northside Transmission Water Line $550,000 The Northside Transmission Water Line project consists of over - sizing the proposed water line which will serve the Anheuser-Busch brewery. The oversizing will provide additional water transmission capacity needed to serve presently undeveloped areas, not the brewery, on the north and east side of town. The $550,000 in oversizing costs was not appropriated in the 1985 Budget because of the uncertainty of the project. FOOTNOTE: Attachment D is a financial statement relating to this fund. PARKLAND FUND Beattie Park Restroom $60,000 We are requesting $60,000 from 1985 funds to begin.late fall ' construction of a restroom facility for Beattie Park. Because of -220- the increased usage of Beattie Soccer programs, Youth Baseball local neighborhood activities, we a restroom to accommodate all April 30, 1985 Park for spring and fall Youth and/or Ponytail Softball, and have received many requests for of the people using the park. It is not uncommon that up to four youth baseball teams (52 youngsters) plus two soccer teams (30 youngsters) can be using the separate fields at the same time, plus all the parents and spec- tators. This park, located on Swallow Road and Meadowlark Avenue, is one of the busiest in the park system, and a restroom facility is needed. The Parks and Recreation Board, at their meeting of April 23, 1985, voted unanimously to endorse this project and recommends that City Council adopt the Ordinance. FOOTNOTE: Attachment E is a financial statement relating to this fund. The attached ordinances appropriate funds for the above listed projects. Sufficient resources to fund these appropriations are available in the related funds' prior year reserves, the Capital Project Fund's appropri- ated contingency, and the Indoor Pool/Ice Rink project's repayment of a $500,000 loan. (In November 1984, $500,000 was loaned to the Indoor Pool/Ice Rink project from General City Capital "Essential" resources. Now, with the adopted 1985 Budget being in effect, and the collection of the Indoor Pool/Ice Rink 1/4¢ Sales and Use Tax, this loan can be repaid by transferring these funds -to other capital projects.)" Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adopt Ordinance No. 47, 1985 on#First Reading. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, questioned the removal of asbestos at the Old Power Plant. He felt the leaseholder would be responsible during their renovation project. Additionally, he felt the removal of asbestos from any facility could be more dangerous than leaving it in place. City Manager Arnold noted the Power Plant was a City -owned property and therefore still the City's responsibility. The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 47, 1985 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Horak. THE MOTION CARRIED. -221- April 30, 1985 I Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to adopt Ordinance No. 48, 1985 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adopt Ordinance No. 49, 1985 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Providing for the Granting of Administrative Variances of the Flat Rate for Unmetered Water Use, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "An unusual situation has come to staff's attention which results in an I "overlap" of fee structures. Present Ordinance requires each water service to be either flat rate or metered. A customer who believes the flat rate to be unfair in his/her particular case has only one option; install a water meter at his/her expense. Water meters are presently not required on single family dwellings inside the City limits. These flat rate accounts pay a "base fee" designed to cover domestic or inside usage and a "water lot fee" designed to cover irrigation or outside usage. The lot fee is based on the size of the platted lot. Thus a customer with a large lot pays a higher flat rate to cover the additional water used for irrigation. The irrigation of any commonly owned areas, as found in many PUDs, is not covered in the individual lot owners flat rate fees. These areas are typically irrigated, through a commonly owned metered sprinkler tap. The monthly charges for metered water through such a common tap are usually paid by a homeowners association. In this case, the homeowners are presently billed as flat rate accounts. As such, their monthly water bills are based on their platted lot areas. The commonly owned area is irrigated from a commonly owned metered irriga- tion tap. ' -222- I April 30, 1985 The unusual factors in this case are; 1) there are no barriers such as fences or hedges on the lot lines, and 2) the metered irrigation tap normally used to sprinkle common areas was designed to also irrigate almost all of the owners individual lots. Thus the homeowners in effect pay for the irrigation of their lots twice; once through the flat rate "lot fee", and a second time through the metered irrigation tap. The present ordinance allows only one option; the customers may elect to install meters on each service. If each residence were metered, each customer would pay only for the amount of water they use and the fee "overlap" would be eliminated. Staff has estimated, in this case, the cost of this option to be $7,500, which under current ordinance would be paid for by the homeowners. Due to the high initial cost of installing meters in this case, the in- justice in requiring a group of homeowners to pay for a solution to a problem which caused them to be overcharged for their water service, and the uncertainty concerning the future of universal metering and how such a program would be financed, staff sought a better solution, the recommended ordinance change. Because situations of this nature are so few, staff believes this problem ' is best addressed by an administrative variance procedure. The proposed ordinance gives staff that authority." Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance No. 50, 1985 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Kn_ezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance Vacating Easements on Elliott -Miller Foothills West Subdivision, Sixteenth Filing, Adopted on First Reading Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "The Planning and Zoning Board on June 25, 1984, approved on Consent Agenda the Prospect -Overland P.U.D. which is a replat of The Elliott -Miller Foothills West Subdivision, Sixteenth Filing. The Prospect -Overland P.U.D. was recorded on January 29, 1985 thus making the easements shown on The Elliott -Miller Foothills West Subdivision, Sixteenth Filing of no use. The Utilities have all indicated no problems wth the request." Ii -223- April 30, 1985 Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Ordinance No. 51, 1985 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to an Agreement with the Colorado Department of Highways Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "A. Resolution Authorizing the City to Enter into an Agreement with the Colorado Department of Highways. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 1985, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Fund. The City of Fort Collins has received notification of a grant award for a rail planning study. This grant, coordinated through the Colorado Depart- ment of Highways, will update the State of Colorado Rail Plan in the Fort Collins area. This study is expected to cost $26,000. The federal participation will be $18,200. The local match share (30% or $7,800) will be appropriated from prior year reserves in the Transportation Fund. This resolution authorizes the City to enter into an agreement with the Colorado Department of Highways for the study. The first reading of the ordinance appropriates grant revenue ($18,200) and prior year reserves ($7,800) in the Transportation Fund." Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Resolution 85-70. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE.MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Ordinance No. 52, 1985 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -224- ' April 30, 1985 Resolution Making an Appointment to the Housing Authority, Adopted Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "A vacancy currently exists on the Housing Authority due to the resignation of Larry Estrada. The board liaison has conducted interviews for the vacancy. The recommendation for this vacancy will be forwarded under separate cover." Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Resolution 85-71 inserting the name of Bill West in the Resolution. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relatinq to Referendum Petition Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: A. Acceptance of Certification of Referendum Petition Relating to Ordi- nance No. 11, 1985, Regarding the Issuance of Downtown Development Authority Tax Increment Subordinate Note, Series 1985A (Oak Park Project). B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 53, 1985, Calling a Special Election and Placing Referred Ordinance No. 27, 1985 on the Ballot. C. Resolution Establishing a Final Date for the Receipt of Petitions for Initiating Ordinances or Resolutions for the June 18, 1985 Special Election. The City Clerk's Office has certified a sufficient number of signatures on a referendum petition received on April 17, 1985 to determine the petition to be valid. Under the City Charter, at least 733 signatures of qualified electors (10% of the number of ballots cast at the last General City Election on March 5, 1985) are required to place a referendum before Council for action. Since the petition is legally sufficient, Council has the following options under the Charter provisions concerning the referendum: o Repeal Ordinance No. 27, 1985. o Place the issue on a Special City Election called by the City ' Council as a Council Referred Ordinance, as early as June 18. -225- April 30, 1985 ' Place the issue on a Special City Election ballot after November 6, 1985 or the March, 1987 General City Election ballot as a Citizen Referred Ordinance. The referendum could be placed on a Special Election ballot as early as June 18, 1985. The cost of a special election is approximately $20,000. Staff could meet all practical and legal deadlines for an election as early as June 18 only if the Ordinance calling the Election is adopted on First Reading on April 30 and on Second Reading on May 21. If Council prefers, though, an Election could be called on any Tuesday in between June 18 and July 23. Staff recommends that, if Council prefers to call a Special Election instead of repealing Ordinance No. 27, 1985, that the election be called on June 18 for the following reasons: The County Elections office is in the process of redrawing precinct boundaries and has agreed to delay completing the process until after the City Election. If the County's reprecincting process is completed before the City Election, the City would have to adopt new precinct boundaries based on the new County boundaries at least 90 days before any special election could be called. That would ' obviously delay the project. Holding the City election as soon as possible will minimize the delay for the County in finishing their necessary reprecincting and avoid the need to adopt a new City precinct map. Scheduling the Special Election for June 18 would allow sufficient time to publicize the voter registration deadline of May 17 and to meet all legal and practical deadlines. The developer, Mr. Ron Cappello, would like the election as soon as possible so that, presuming a favorable result, he can proceed. The Resolution would set 4:30 p.m. on May 13, 1985 as the final date for the receipt of petitions for initiating ordinances or resolutions for the June 18 Special Election. The City Clerk must have sufficient time to review and determine the validity of any petition and to certify to Council the sufficiency of that petition. The last regular Council meeting at which ballot measures may be considered for placement on the June 18 ballot is May 21. The May 13 final receipt date would allow approximately 8 days for the City Clerk's certification process." Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to accept the certification of the referendum petition relating to Ordi- nance No. 27, 1985. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezo- vich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. ' -226- April 30, 1985 THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to repeal Ordinance No. 27, 1985. Mari Jo Hoagland, CSU student, stated she had circulated a petition but had stopped after obtaining four signatures. She felt she was not knowledge- able about the issue and had not been given the facts and implications of the issue when asked to circulate the petition. She noted she regretted her involvement in the petitioning effort. Joe Stern, 1221 LaPorte Avenue, questioned if it was proper for Council - members to ask persons to withdraw their names from the petition. Nancy Gray, 110 Fishback, spoke in favor of residential development in the downtown and urged Council not to repeal the Ordinance. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, related his experiences while circulating petitions. Karl Carson,.1119 Parkwood Drive, encouraged the citizens of Fort Collins ' to obtain a better understanding of the tax increment concept. Chuck Mabry, 1413 Stonehenge, E.E. Mitchell & Company, emphasized the importance of having people live downtown. Ardene McCord, Fort Town President, stressed the value of housing in the downtown and introduced other Fort Town members who support the Oak Park project. Ray Dixon, 2304 Brookwood, spoke of the reasons for the establishment of the DDA and noted the willingness of those within the boundaries to pay the additional assessment. Walt Brown, 3210 South Centennial, noted the importance of people to the downtown area and supported the use of tax increment funds for the Oak Park project. Loren Maxey, 1101 Clark, member of the Long Range Planning Committee of First Presbyterian Church, spoke of the church's commitment to the downtown and encouraged the development of all types of residential development in the downtown. Councilmember Clarke gave the history of the development of the tax incre- ment financing concept. He felt the people who circulated the petitions used a complex financing mechanism to abuse the democratic process and to ' go against what is best for the City of Fort Collins. -227- April 30, 1985 ' Councilmember Estrada stressed the importance of the downtown area and for mixed and balanced housing for the area. The vote on Councilmember Knezovich's motion to repeal Ordinance No. 27, 1985 was as follows: Yeas: None. Nays: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Clarke made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Ordinance No. 53, 1985 on First Reading. Mary Margaret, 1317 Lakewood Drive, petition circulator, felt it was important that everyone fully understand tax increment financing and urged the issue be placed on the ballot. Ray Dixon noted he felt there were irregularities in the petition form and process and suggested hearings on that issue. Carol Gyger,.425 North Whitcomb, petition circulator, urged a vote on the issue. ' The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 53, 1985 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adopt Resolution 85-72. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of the Preliminary Approval of CSU Bull Farm PUD, Planning & Zoning Board'Decision Upheld Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "The Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed two applications for prelimi- nary approval of the CSU Bull Farm PUD. The first review by the Board on January 28, 1985, resulted in a denial of the preliminary plan. The second submittal received approval from the Board on March 25, 1985. 11 -228- April 30, 1985 First Submittal The Bull Farm Master Plan is divided into four areas: a single family area (Area A); two multi -family areas (Area B and Area C); and a commercial area (Area D). The Bull, Farm PUD that was submitted for preliminary approval does not include Area D. Area A, located on the northwestern part of the site, was proposed for 58 single family lots. The 10.98 parcel is bordered by West Elizabeth Street and Skyline Drive. The proposed density was 5.3 du/ac. Lot sizes ranged from 4,133 to 8,459 square feet, with the average being 5,100 square feet. Area B, located in the center portion of the site, was proposed for 250 apartment units. The 13.59 acre parcel is bordered by West Elizabeth Street, the New Mercer Ditch, and Constitution Avenue (extended). The proposed density of Area B was 18.4 du/ac. Area C, located between Constitution Avenue/Plum Street and Larimer Canal Number 2, is a 13.81 acre parcel proposed for 342 apartment units. Proposed density was 24.8 du/ac. At the January 28, 1985 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the CSU Bull Farm PUD Preliminary for the following reasons: 1. The site was too tight, i.e., building to building, and building to street. 2. There was very little variety in the buildings. 3. The parking lots were considered unsafe, given the distances from amenities and buildings. 4. There was a need for better pedestrian pathways. 5. The overall landscape site plan was missing. Second Submittal On March 25, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Board considered a revised preliminary plan for the Bull Farm PUD. The redesign of the Bull Farm addressed the concerns that had been discussed at the January Board meet- ing. Positive design changes included: - Opening up the site with more open space; -229- April 30, 1985 ' - Greater separation between buildings; - Utilization of the ditches as amenities for the project; - Simplified and direct parking lots; - Greater variety of building types and architectural details; and - Use of landscaping as a buffer between land uses. Changes in building and unit types allowed for the reduction of 17 parking spaces in Area B. There was also a significant reduction of 30 units in Area C, dhopping the density for that individual parcel from 24.8 du/ac to 22.6 du/ac. Overall project density is therefore, 16.1 units/acre. With these changes, the Planning and Zoning Board voted preliminary ap- proval by a unanimous vote of 6 to 0. Two neighborhood meetings were held on this project. The first, on Novem- ber 26, 1984, dealt with the initial proposal. The second meeting on March 7, 1985, dealt with the revised plan that has received approval. A summary of each meeting is included in the attached materials. A traffic study for this project was completed in December, 1984. The ' study showed that the existing street system could handle the additional traffic generated by the project if the following improvements were made: 1. West Elizabeth Street should be restriped to accommodate two through travel lanes in each direction, a center left -turn lane, and two bike lanes. The developer of the Bull Farm site would be responsible for removing the existing lane striping from Skyline Drive to City Park Avenue when development is started for either Area B or Area C. 2. The Constitution/Plum Street connection should be prioritized as a bicycle lane to the campus. This will necessitate the prohibition of parking on the public streets within the Bull Farm site, and the removal of existing on -street parking in key locations. 3. Traffic signal modifications would be made to accommodate the projected increase in traffic. Appeal On April 8, 1985, a petition appealing the Planning and Zoning Board preliminary approval of the Bull Farm PUD was submitted to the City Clerk. The petition was signed by 20 residents living in the vicinity of the proposed project. A copy of the appeal is attached." , -230- April 30, 1985 Councilmember Estrada asked the record to show he did not vote or partici- pate in the discussion on this issue. Councilmember Knezovich noted he would participate in the discussion and vote on the issue after discussion of his situation with members of the Ethics Committee. Planning Director Sam Mutch gave a brief summary of the issues involved with this PUD and the subsequent appeal. Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Clarke, to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. CSU President Dr. Phillip Austin, spoke on behalf of the proposal and noted its importance to the university. He felt the current use was a danger to area residents and urged Council to support the project. Steve Reid, 1344 Fairview Drive, appellant, noted he was representing the neighborhood adjoining the project. He expressed concern over elements of quality in the project and density of the project. Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, questioned the dates of the traffic counts used and gave her suggestions to improve the density. ' Scott Hudson, manager at Chesterfield, Bottomsley and Potts, urged support for the project. Dr. Louis Belshner, 725 Skyline Drive, opposed the project and suggested the property be kept by CSU for later expansion. Keith Easterling, owner of The Bench, supported the project because of the aid it would bring to the Campus West commercial area. Bob Osterhout, 1204 Constitution, spoke of traffic bottlenecks at City Park Avenue and Elizabeth. Lou Brown, 1200 Constitution, opposed the density of the project and spoke of traffic problems it would cause. He asked for the dedication of right- of-way for bike lanes and sidewalks and suggested curb cuts and other modifications be made to relieve congestion. Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, questioned which schools would be serving the site and asked why there was a traffic counter at the end of City Park Avenue. Councilmember Clarke reminded that CSU had already made the decision that the Bull Farm was not the proper use for this piece of property. Council 's role was to determine if this development proposal would fit in to the neighborhood. He felt the project needed to be approved. -231- April 30, 1985 Councilmember Stoner felt the Planning & Zoning Board had thoroughly reviewed the project and that the Land Development Guidance System process had been followed. He felt CSU and the project planner had done an excel- lent job of mitigating the problems and urged support for the project. Councilmember Ohlson noted he was for the project but against this pro- posal. He added he did not feel the LDGS process had been implemented properly in this proposal or in the majority of proposals going before the Planning and Zoning Board. He felt too many units were being placed in too small spaces at the expense of aesthetics, traffic, safety, and existing neighborhood residents. Councilmember Horak felt a comprehensive plan was needed to review CSU student housing needs and their impact on neighborhoods. He noted he could not support this current proposal but would support one that moderated his concerns on density, traffic and other factors which impact the adjoining neighborhoods. Mayor Rutstein felt infill development helped prevent urban sprawl. She expressed concern about the traffic and the bike lanes, but noted this was a preliminary plan. She felt the final approval will address issues and concerns brought out and noted she would support approval of the project. The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to uphold the decision of the ' Planning and Zoning Board to approve the preliminary plan for the CSU Bull Farm, PUD, was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Knezovich, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Ohlson. (Council - member Estrada withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss legal matters. Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Knezovich, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment At the conclusion of the Executive Session, Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. ' -232- 1 The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ATTEST: C i ty. C/ / �lJ ?9�� 4� -233- April 30, 1985