HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/18/1986-Regular' March 18, 1986
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 on
Tuesday, March 18, 1986, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City
of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following
Councilmembers: April, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner.
Staff Members Present: Dallow, Huisjen, Krajicek, and other City staff
members.
Agenda Review: City Manager
Deputy City Manager Pete Dallow advised Council that there was a revised
version of Item #18, Resolution Accepting Report on Joint/Regional Water
Facilities, Supporting Continued Participation in Regional Planning and
Designating Representatives to the Regional Water Facilities Development
Committee, that adds Gerry Horak as a representative to the Regional Water
' Facilities Development Commission.
Councilmember Horak asked that Item #14, Items Relating to the
Establishment of the Mason Street Reconstruction Project, be removed from
the Consent Agenda.
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 be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Agenda Items #21 and #32, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled
by anyone in the audience or items that any member of the audience is
present to discuss that were pulled be staff or Council. These items will
be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
4. Consider Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 4.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 27'1 1986. Vacatina the Riaht-of-Wa%
' This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 4.
The amended Master plan for Cunningham Corner P.U.D. was approved by
d4*J1
March 18, 1986
Q
7.
Council on July 2, 1985. That Master plan required the vacation of ,
Windmill Drive in Woodwest 7th Filing to allow the construction of
townhomes in Cunningham Corners. The Planning and Zoning Board had
denied the amended Master plan because they agreed with staff that the
connection of Windmill to Horsetooth was needed to provide better
access to Woodwest for emergency vehicles and better circulation from
a traffic engineering and planning standpoint. Council overturned the
decision of Planning and Zoning Board and approved the plan deleting
the extension of Windmill. This is the request to vacate the
right-of-way for the stub of the street while still retaining utility
and access easements.
The applicant for the vacation of Windmill Drive is the developer of
Cunningham Corners P.U.D., Metcalf Ltd. with Mr. Tom Sibbald
representing the developer.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 30, 1986, Annexing Approximately
13.24 Acres Known as the Hahn Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 31, 1986, Zoning Approximately
13.24 Acres, Known as the Hahn Annexation, into the T-Transitional
Zone.
These ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 4. '
The applicant, John McGinn, c/o Engineering Professionals, Inc., on
behalf of property owner J. Robert Hahn, is requesting annexation of
an "L" shaped piece of property approximately 13.24 acres in size,
located approximately 3/4 of a mile south of Harmony Road and west of
Shields Street. The strange shape of this annexation is intended to
provide the necessary contiguity to 570 acres of property, known as
the Seven Springs/Hahn Annexation, which has also petitioned for
annexation. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The requested
zoning is T-Transitional.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 4.
The owners are requesting the vacation of the alley behind Lots 8, 9,
10, and 11 and Lots 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Frey Subdivision. This
alley is unused at this time and'overgrown with trees. There are no
utilities currently using this alley nor are any planned for the
future.
All property owners have indicated in writing their request for
vacation and their acceptance and maintenance of the property after
formal vacation by the City. All utilities have been. contacted and
have indicated no problems with the vacation. '
-258-
March 18, 1986
S. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 35, 1986 Amending Sections
112-69(8)(3) and (4) of the Code to Include Certain Winter Quarter
Based Non-residential Sewer Users in "Category U.
Q
' 1"
key
Sewer Service fees for non-residential customers are based on monthly
water consumption. Some customers who have high water consumption in
the summer due to lawn watering are charged correspondingly high sewer
service fees. This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading
on March 4 and would allow sewer service fees for those customers to
be based on their winter quarter water consumption.
The County Elections Division has made minor changes to some County
precinct boundaries in the City limits of Fort Collins as the result
of a ruling that precinct boundaries must follow visible lines such as
streets, irrigation ditches, or bicycle paths.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 4 and
approves 1986 precincts as established in the District -Precinct Map
dated March 18, 1986. The map does not change Council District
boundaries, which were established six months prior to the March 5,
1985 District election.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 4.
The improvements in the District were accepted at the January 21, 1986
meeting of the City Council. Notice of the assessment has been
published and mailed to affected property owners.
This Ordinance amends certain definitions within Section 118-11 of the
City Code. The first recommended change concerns the definition of
"one -family dwelling". This proposed change is a housekeeping item
intended to remove an existing ambiguity in the definition, which is
now stated in terms of intended rather than actual use. The second and
third change would enable the City to apply the restrictions contained
in the definition of "family" to mobile homes. Presently, these
restrictions apply only to:_convent ional housing. In order to broaden
their application it is necessary to,'slightly modify the definition of
"family", and to add a definition of"mobile home".
-259-
March 18, 1986
12. Hearing and
First Reading of
Ordinance No. 39, 1986,
Amending the City
'
Code Relating
to the Salary of the City Manager.
This ordinance
would set the
salary for City Manager
Steven Burkett at
$66,000
per
year. as set out
in the employment agreement
approved at
the special
meeting on March
3. The effective date
of the employment
agreement is
April 7.
13.
The developer of Cimarron Plaza P.U.D., Arrowstone Development
Corporation, is requesting the vacation of easements and rights -of -way
located in the original Plat of Cimarron Plaza P.U.D. The Planning
and Zoning Board approved a revised site plan on November 18, 1985 and
the developer has replatted this area, rededicating easements in the
revised locations. All utilities have been contacted and have
indicated no problems with the vacation if only the__easements are
vacated.
Because the rights -of -way for Shields, Drake, and Raintree Streets
were not replatted with the new plat, staff is recommending that only
the easements on the original plat be vacated, although the developer
has requested the vacation of both easements and rights -of -way.
14. Items Relating to the Establishment of the Mason Street Reconstruction I
Project.
A. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract
with the State of Colorado for the Administration of Federal Aid
Urban System Funds Which are Proposed to Partially Fund the Mason
Street Reconstruction Project.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 41, 1986, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenues from the Federal Aid Urban Systems (FAUS)
Fund, and the City's Funds Required to Match the FAUS Funds and
Pay the Expenses which will not be Shared, to Form the Mason
Street Reconstruction Project.
The Mason Street Reconstruction Project will be to reconstruct the
pavement and sections of the. curb and gutter on Mason Street from
Laurel Street to Mountain Avenue:, The estimated cost of $440,000 will
be split $103,664 City, $336336 Federal Aid Urban System (FAUS)
Funds. The City's share will be funded by portions of the 1986 and
1987 Street Rehabilitation Programs. The Resolution will authorize a
contract with the State, who administers the funds and provides the
project review for the Federal Government.
March 18, 1986
15. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Professional
Services Agreement for $86,614 with Engineering Professionals Inc
for Drainage Planning and Design Services in the Spring Creek Basin
The purpose of this project is to update the current master plan for
Spring Creek and develop a final design of improvements for Spring
Creek from College Avenue west to the Burlington Northern Railroad.
The improvements will be designed to a level of protection as is
reasonable to maximize benefits for the dollars spent. The current
master plan provided a conceptualized improvement plan for the area,
and this project will provide necessary information to finalize and
develop the improvements. Monies are now available in the basin
account to address the issue from revenues received.
The contract is to be completed in September, 1986.
16.
The Golf Board unanimously recommends that the non-resident green fee
charge of $1.00 for each nine holes of golf be eliminated as it is no
longer necessary in 1986, and is contrary to our desire to attract
golfers to City Park Nine and Collindale Golf Courses. This charge,
which was originally implemented by Council action in 1980 because of
' high demand for our two courses, has now become somewhat of a
deterrent as SouthRidge Golf Course has eased the crowded conditions
and out -of -city players are no longer dominating tee times as they
were perceived to have been in 1979/1980. The Golf Board recommends
that one flat rate for all golfers be charged for 9-hole and 18-hole
green fees.
17.
In order to minimize bus repair down time, a spare engine assembly is
needed. Section 2-59 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins requires
Council approval of all sole source purchases over $20,000. This
purchase is $29,630.
R�
The Regional Water Facilities Development Committee issued a report in
December 1985, giving a preliminary evaluation of opportunities for
cooperation in providing water treatment and transmission. This
Resolution would accept that report, authorize continued participation
by the City in further planning for regional cooperation and would
' appoint Director of Water Utilities Mike Smith, and Water Board
President Norman Evans as representatives to the Committee.
-261-
0
March 18, 1986
19. Resolution Making Appointment to the Storm Drainage Board. '
A vacancy currently exists on the Storm Drainage Board due to the
resignation of Constantine Papadakis. The Council liaison has
considered the applications of the two alternate members and the
applications on file.
In keeping with CounciI's policy, recommendations for these
appointments were announced on March 4. The appointments were tabled
to March 18 to allow additional time for public input. Prospective
appointees are as follows:
Storm Drainage Board - Wallace Foster, regular
Brian Richter, alternate
20. Routine Deeds and Easements.
a. Power line easement - Hoffman.
b. Easement Dedications for Harmony. Trunk Sewer Line
1. Stromberger
2. Dusbabek
3. H. H. Investment
4. Ruff
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City I
Clerk.
Item #5.
Item #6. A.
I
Item #7.
Item #8.
Item #9.
Item #10.
-262-
March 18, 1986
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #11.
Item #12.
Item #13.
Item #14. B.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Establishment of
the Mason street Reconstruction Project,
Tabled to Later in the Meeting
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 86-49.
Deputy City Manager Pete Dallow asked that this item be considered later in
the meeting since appropriate staff members were not present.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
table Resolution 86-49 to later in the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers
April, Estrada, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Horak
and Knezovich.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution'*Making An!Appointment
to Expand the Landmark
Preservation Commission Tabled to April 1
I
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
-263-
March 18, 1986
"On February 18, 1986, City Council passed Ordinance No. 20, which expanded '
the Landmark Preservation Commission from five members and one alternate to
seven members. It is intended that one appointment be made at this time
and the seventh member be appointed in June, at the same time the annual
boards and commissions appointment process occurs. The Council liaison has
reviewed the application of the alternate member and the applications on
file. The recommended applicant has served on the commission as an
alternate member and is listed below.
Landmark Preservation Commission - Sally Johnson Ketcham
In keeping with Council's policy, this Resolution will be tabled until
April 1 for public input."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to
adopt Resolution 86-54 inserting the name of Sally Johnson Ketcham.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
table Resolution 86-54 to April 1. Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Making Appointments to
the Ouality of Life Commission, Tabled to April 1 ,
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item"
"Three vacancies currently exist on the Quality of Life Commission due to
the resignations of William Erich Krengel, V. Paul Morrissey, and Michelle
Aldrich. The Council liaison reviewed the applications on file, as well as
those submitted after advertising the positions: The following are being
recommended as prospective appointees:
Quality of Life Commission - Karen Wagner
Mark Keiper
Richard Fisher
In keeping with Council's policy, this Resolution will be tabled until
April 1 for public input."
Councilmember Estrada,made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolut1on;`86-55; inserting the names of Karen Wagner, Mark Keiper,
and Richard Fisher.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
table Resolution 86-55 to April 1. Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED. I
-264-
March 18, 1986
Resolution Designating a Representative
of the City to Serve on the Board of
Directors of the Platte River Power
Authority In Lieu of the Mayor. Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"The Mayor of Fort Collins serves on the Board of Directors of the Platte
River Power Authority or may designate a representative to serve in his or
her place.
Barbara Rutstein served on the PRPA Board during her term as Mayor. Mayor
Kelly Ohlson has elected not to serve on the Board, and a representative
needs to be appointed to serve in lieu of the Mayor. With the insertion of
the name of one of the Councilmembers, the attached Resolution would make
this appointment."
Councilmember Ohlson suggested a straw vote be taken to determine which
Councilmember's name would be inserted in the Resolution. He then asked
which Councilmembers had an interest in serving on the PRPA Board.
Councilmembers Rutstein and Knezovich expressed interest in the
appointment.
' Councilmembers Knezovich and Rutstein each made statements detailing their
reasons and qualifications for serving on the Board.
After a straw poll, Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by
Councilmember Stoner, to adopt Resolution 86-56, inserting the name of
Barbara Rutstein as the PRPA representative.
Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, and Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony
Road, supported Councilmember Knezovich for the PRPA appointment.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Resolution 86-56 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays:
Councilmembers Stoner, Knezovich, and April.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Assigning Councilmembers as
Liaison Representatives to Various Boards
and Commissions and APpointing,;Councilmembers
to Various Committee'Assianments. Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on -this item:
' "At the March 11 Worksession Council informally discussed the assignment of
Councilmembers as liaison representatives to the City's various Boards and
BYZ*ie
March 18, 1986
Commissions and the appointment of Councilmembers to various Committee I
assignments.
This Resolution would formally make these assignments until such time as
the Council makes new assignments."
Mayor Ohlson read the list of the proposed assignments with the exception
of those that had not yet been filled in. Straw polls were conducted to
determine the appointment when more than one person expressed interest in a
Board or Commission liaison appointment.
At the conclusion of the process, Councilmember Estrada made a motion,
seconded by Councilmember Knezovich to adopt Resolution 86-57 inserting the
names suggested. Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich,
Ohlson, Rutstein and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Endorsing Inclusion of
Chapters 1 and 2 of the East Side
Neighborhood Plan as an Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of the
City of Fort Collins. Adopted
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: '
"Executive Summary
The East Side Neighborhood Plan will be the newest element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and the first neighborhood plan for the older core area
of the community. The Plan if adopted, will be part of the City's overall
planning efforts. The ESN Plan will refine other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan to reflect the particular concerns of this Neighborhood,
including the Land Use Policies Plan, Open Space Plan, and Master Street
Plan. The Plan is a statement of what the community wants for this
neighborhood in terms of future land uses, transportation, private
maintenance, historic conservation, open space and public facilities and
infrastructure. The Plan is intended to help create stability and provide
predictability for all the varying points of view of the existing
neighborhood - homeowners, renters, landlords, investors, students and
businesses.
Background '
The Plan was presented to the City Council at their January-28, 1986 work
session (a.copy of the Staff report is attached and includes a general
overview of the document). At that meeting, the Council reviewed the
document and recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board and directed
Staff to prepare a final draft of the Plan and requisite adopting
resolution. The Plan is being sent under separate cover. '
-266-
March 18, 1986
' One of the conditions of the Planning and Zoning Board that the City
Council discussed dealt specifically with future transportation options for
the Mulberry Corridor. The Planning and Zoning Board felt there were a
number of possible alternative transportation options in terms of the
balance between providing for the future traffic needs in the Mulberry
Street corridor and preserving the residential neighborhood north of
Mulberry Street and at their November 25, 1985 meeting recommended that the
Plan be adopted without making a specific decision on this issue. The
Board encouraged the Staff and Steering Committee to meet with the
Neighborhood to discuss the options and return to the February 24, 1986
meeting with a recommendation.
The Steering Committee and City Staff held a public information meeting to
discuss this issue as well as met several times to discuss this issue and
jointly prepared a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board.
Briefly, the recommendation is that no decision be made in the ESN Plan on
a specific option for the Mulberry Corridor at this time, and that no
options be eliminated. Rather, it was the opinion of the Board, Staff and
Steering Committee that the issue of the Mulberry Corridor can only be
resolved to everyone's satisfaction through a larger transportation
planning effort. This effort must include a better understanding of what
the transportation planning needs are and to define a wider variety of
options of where the community should be in regard to transportation
planning in the next 20 years. This planning effort should involve
residents, renters, and business persons of the Neighborhood and community.
' This recommendation received support from members of the Neighborhood as
expressed at the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing on February 24,
1986.
The Planning and Zoning Board strongly supported the two-part policy
revision and recommended to the City Council that the changes be adopted as
part of the East Side Neighborhood Plan. The recommended Policy Statements
have been included in the final draft under the Transportation policies
section of the Plan (Page 27, "2.1 Mulberry Street." and page 40, "2.7 City
Wide Policy Concerns").
Some other minor changes have been made to the Plan and approved by the
Staff and East Side Neighborhood Steering Committee. The Policies
contained within the ESN Plan are consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan and general goals for the development and preservation of the
community. The Plan will provide a valuable contribution to the overall
long range planning efforts of the City.
Councilmember Stoner asked the record to show he did not participate in the
discussion or vote on this item.
Joe Frank, Senior Planner, gave'ra brief presentation outlining the major
elements of the Plan:
I Lyndel Hesterberg, 415 E. Laurel, spokesman for the Eastside Steering
Committee, thanked Council for their support throughout the process and
urged the acceptance of the Plan.
-267-
March 18, 1986
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, ,
to adopt Resolution 86-58. Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None (Councilmember Stoner
withdrawn).
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Horak suggested the Ethics .Committee meet to discuss how
Councilmembers disclose conflicts of interest and how Councilmembers
conduct themselves at meetings.
Councilmember Stoner suggested these topics might be discussed in the
upcoming retreat.
Councilmember Ohlson suggested the committee get together and discuss the
items before presenting them at a retreat or worksession.
Citizen Participation
A. Proclamation Naming April 5. 1986. as 9 Health Fair Day was accepted by
Jeff Jensen and Chuck Fox, representing the Lions Clubs of Fort I
Collins.
B. Presentation of Plaque to Retiring Parks and Recreation Employee, John
Brooks.
Tim Buchanan, City Forester, described Mr. Brooks' accomplishments
during his years of employment.
Mayor Ohlson then presented a plaque to Mr. Brooks recognizing those
accomplishments.
Wally Bujack, 512 Cook, read a statement signed by representatives of seven
veterans' organizations requesting the cannon remain in City Park at its
present location.;
John DeLand, 400 South Grant, member of the Coalition of Safe Hazardous
Material Transportation, inquired about the status of the draft hazardous
materials ordinance.
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, asked what plans' there were for Charter
amendments dealing with the direct election of the Mayor and asked for
citizen participation in any Charter review process.
-268-
March 18, 1986
' Appeal of the Planning and Zoning
Board Decision to Approve the
Proposed Sycamore Four-Plex
Multi -Family Request in the R-M Zone,
Planning and Zoning Board Reversed
Following is the staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
On February 3, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Board approved the request of
Philip Millard for an R-M Site Plan of a four-plex located at 817 Sycamore
Street. The site is zoned R-M, Medium Density Residential. The 5-1
approval was based on the Board's finding that the proposal complied with
the administrative guidelines for Multi -Family Use Requests in the R-M
Zone.
Staff recommended approval of the request. Neighboring residents Amilia
Aragon, Calvin Bly, Jerry Gavaldon, Isabelle Gavaldon,- and William F.
Schmidt Jr. requested that the decision be appealed to the City Council.
Background
The proposal is to create
building a two unit lower
and constructing a 13' 8"
units have two bedrooms.
four unit garage and fo
requirement of one parking
a four -unit structure at 817 Sycamore Street by
level, moving an existing house onto this level,
addition to the rear of both levels. All four
Access to the site is off the existing alley. A
it parking spaces are provided fulfilling the
space per bedroom.
Multiple family use requests in the R-H and R-M zoning districts are
reviewed using the following guidelines:
1. Multiple -family use proposals shall be evaluated against the
officially adopted goals, policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and any appropriate area plans.
2. Impacts of the proposed density increase on adjacent land
uses and the neighborhood area is an important consideration.
The introduction of increased density is only a part of the
process of conversion of the neighborhood environment.
Elements of the proposal which mitigate or lessen the impact
upon the neighborhood will be evaluated. In addition, the
compatibility of the proposal with the existing neighborhood
in terms of land use(s), size, scale, intensity, and
potential use of existing structures will be considered.
3. Proposed site plans and buildings should be compatible and
sympathetic with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of,
but not limited to, scale, bulk, materials, orientation,
' disposition of buildings on the lot, parking and circulation,
height, landscaping, and architectural character.
-269-
March 18, 1986
Staff recommended approval based on the following: ,
- Compliance with the Land Use Policies Plan, which encourages
maximum utilization of land within the City and directs
residential uses to locate near parks, schools, and other
activity centers.
- Placement of the structure adjacent to an existing garage. The
garage screens the building from the existing house. The east
side of the site is fenced.
- Off-street parking is sufficient to minimize parking along the
street. The applicant has agreed to participate in a future
alley improvement district.
- The size of the structure is larger than the surrounding single
family homes, but the scale is lessened by the area of the
site. The building height, 20' 6", is not considered
obtrusive.
-.Proposed materials include 8" lap siding, new asphalt shingles,
cedar fencing and wood decks. A smaller lap siding would have
been more compatible if the structure were to be built from
scratch. However, staff considers these materials to be
compatible. '
- The landscape plan is considered acceptable by staff.
- Two duplex units would be allowed on the site because of the
lot size of 12,400 square feet. Therefore staff did not
consider the density to be a major issue.
The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-1 to approve the request. Major
points of discussion were alley improvements, alley traffic, neighborhood
integrity, adequacy of space for turning in the alley, building scale and
character. The Board felt the four-plex was compatible and a desirable
alternative to the maximum use -by -right which would be two duplexes.
One point of clarification should be made with regard to the letter of
appeal. This project does not violate the zoning requirements in the R-M
zone. Multiple family requests are allowed upon approval through the R-M
Site Plan Review process.
City Attorney Huisjen
noted this was the first..appeal to be considered
since the adoption of
the new process: He noted Council first
needed to
determine whether the
grounds for the' appeal were adequate to
have the
appeal considered. If
that determination is made, the hearing
continues
and Council finally makes a determination on whether to sustain,
modify or
reverse the Planning and Zoning Board decision.
'
W1#11E
March 18, 1986
City Attorney Huisjen continued, noting his office had concluded the appeal
grounds appear to fall within the guidelines for the grounds for appeals,
particularly grounds 1 through 4. Items 5 and 6 do not appear to be
grounds for appeal.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, tc
consider the appeal based on written grounds 1-4 and using those grounds as
a basis for the appeal discussion. Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada,
Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Steve Ryder, City Planner assigned to the project, briefed Council on the
issue and answered Council questions. He noted two duplexes could be built
on the lot without P&Z review and through the building permit process. He
noted a proposed height request over 40 feet would have to be reviewed
under the planning and development regulations. Two duplexes would have to
meet all requirements of the R-M zone as far as setbacks, lot area, and
street frontage. He added the developer had agreed to participate in an
alley improvement district but that staff had determined a four-plex would
not place a substantial burden on the alley.
Traffic Engineer Rick Ensdorff addressed Council's questions relating to
traffic impact and noted the trips generated (estimated 25-28 daily) would
' impact the alley minimally. He added staff felt paving this section of the
alley would not overcome any possible increases in air pollution but would
create a section of alley that would be difficult to maintain. Developers
generally have not been required to pave an alley unless estimated trip
generation figures warrant it.
Bill Rogers, co-owner of the property at 817 Sycamore, stated four units
were necessary to make the project viable and that they had decided to go
through the planning process rather than build the two duplexes allowed by
right. They felt the four-plex would be more compatible with the
neighborhood and would allow more landscaping and open space. He addressed
the alley issue and stated they would participate in an alley improvement
district with the rest of the neighborhood. He offered to set the garage
30 feet off the east property line rather than the 20 feet proposed. He
felt this would provide better access and would prevent the alley from
being used as a turn around point.
Jerry Gavaldon, 3737 Landings Drive, representing the appellants and his
mother Isabelle Gavaldon of 413 South Grant Street, felt the four-plex was
not compatible to the existing single family homes ands°would lower._ property
values. He spoke of the increase in noise and air pollution and traffic
and objected to having to participate in an alley improvement district. He
stated one duplex would be adequate for the lot.
' Calvin Bly, 416 North Grant, suggested the zoning be reviewed to determine
if it is appropriate.
-271-
March 18, 1986 1
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, asked if the development of the lot included
'
curbing on the alley.
John Gascoyne, 519 North Grant, opposed the four-plex on the site and asked
those persons in the audience who were also opposed to stand.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion to sustain the Planning and Zoning
Board decision with the provision the developer pave the alley along the
east side of the property.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Knezovich, to
sustain the Planning and Zoning Board decision with the provision the
developer move the garage from 20 feet to 30 feet from the east boundary.
City Planner Joe Frank suggested 25 feet rather than 30 feet to allow a
back yard that might be usable as a play area.
Councilmembers Stoner and Knezovich noted they would incorporate Mr.
Frank's suggestion as a friendly amendment to their motion.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion to require the developer to pave the
whole alley on the block.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
'
Councilmember Knezovich stated that since the existing zoning provides for
units greater than single family, the P&Z decision should be upheld.
Councilmember Estrada opposed the motion and stated he felt the
neighborhood should keep their integrity. He felt the developer had acted
in good faith but that the project would have a mitigating impact on the
neighborhood. He expressed concern about the height in terms of privacy
and about the traffic flow in the alley.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to sustain the Planning and
Zoning Board decision was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Knezovich and
Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers April, Horak, Estrada, Ohlson, and Rutstein.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
overturn the Planning and Zoning Board decision.'
Councilmember Knezovich asked Council to consider the fact the developer
has followed all the City's rules. He stated rejection of the P&Z decision
means Council believes the zoning for the area is improper.
Councilmember April stated he felt the compatibility issue was the critical
one and noted he supported Councilmember Horak's motion.
'
-272-
March 18, 1986
Councilmember Stoner felt the neighborhood would be much better off with
the proposed four-plex rather than the two duplexes allowed by right.
Councilmember Horak felt where the developer was in the process was not
germaine to this decision and should not be considered.. He felt the
project was not compatible with the neighborhood and that Council should
not be negotiating deals or alterations to the plans during the meeting.
He suggested the developer work with the neighborhood and come back with a
solution.
Mayor Ohlson noted the decision was difficult and agreed that Mr. Rogers
had attempted to bring what he felt was a compatible and economically
viable project to the neighborhood. He felt the project was not compatible
and noted he would be supporting the motion.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to reverse the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board and deny the project was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays:
Councilmembers Knezovich and Stoner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Establishment of
the Mason Street Reconstruction Project,
' (Tabled from Earlier in the Meeting)
Following is the.staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with
the State of Colorado for the Administration of Federal Aid Urban
System Funds Which are Proposed to Partially Fund the Mason Street
Reconstruction Project.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 41, 1986, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenues from the Federal Aid Urban Systems (FAUS) Fund,
and the City's Funds Required to Match the FAUS Funds and Pay the
Expenses which will not be Shared,. to Form the Mason Street
Reconstruction Project.
The Mason Street Reconstruction Project will be to reconstruct the pavement
and sections of the curb and gutter on Mason Street from Laurel Street to
Mountain Avenue. The estimated cost of $ 40,000 will be split $103,664
City, $336,336 Federal Aid Urban. System (FAUS) Funds. The City's share will
be funded by portions of the 1986 and 1987?Street Rehabilitation Programs.
The Resolution will authorize'' a) contract.'with the State, who administers
the funds and provides the project review for the Federal Government.
-273-
March 18, 1986
Background '
The pavement on Mason Street, from Laurel Street to Mountain Avenue, is in
very rough condition due to several problems. The old pavement has failed,
it has been cut by utility trenches, overlayed along the railroad tracks
when the tracks were raised, and patched for various reasons. The overall
condition requires that the pavement be reconstructed or overlayed. The
reconstruction process would involve removing the pavement which has failed
(primarily the driving lanes and the area between the railroad tracks),
patching those areas with full depth pavement, followed by an overlay over
the entire street width.
FAUS funds are available through the Highway Department to help fund this
project. The City annually receives approximately $300,000 in FAUS funds.
Although the Gramm-Rudman Act will probably affect the FAUS funding in the
future, State officials do not expect it to affect the funds for this
project. In the past the City used the FAUS funds for traffic control
projects. Since the pavement condition of Mason Street affects the use of
the Mason/Howes One -Way Couplet, staff is proposing the use of these funds
to improve Mason Street. Using the FAUS Funds on this project will not
delay any of the traffic control projects.
The Federal review process for FAUS projects requires the State to review
each step of the project. This process is too long to allow for
construction in 1986, therefore, the project will be constructed in 1987.
Since business in this area depends upon the CSU student's trade, and '
business owners in this area have complained in the past about projects not
completed prior to the start of school. Construction will be started after
the end of CSU's spring semester in 1987, and completed prior to the start
of CSU's fall semester.
The following is a breakdown of the project costs.
Design E 22,000
Construction Management & Testing 61,500
Construction 347,700
Total Participating Costs $431,200
Non -Participating Costs
(State Indirect Costs) 8,800
Conceptual Project Estimate $440,000
Federal Participation
(78% of $431,200) $336;336
City Participation
(22% of 431,200) $94,864
Plus Non -Participating Costs $ 8,800
103 664 ,
-274-
March 18, 1986
Project Total $440,000
This project has been in the planning stages for over a year, waiting for
the State's approval of the project. We are recommending that this single
project be approved without being placed in the 5 Year Program for two
reasons. The first is that the FAUS funds may not be available in 1987, if
we wait for approval. According to the State Highway Department staff, as
long as the funds are tied up now, they will not be taken away. The second
reason is that, if we wait until 1987 to start the project, the State's
review will delay the project until 1988. The Capital Projects Team now
reviewing all proposed capital projects for 1987 has rated this project as
Essential. If this project is placed in the 5 Year Program, both
Transportation and Engineering would recommend that this project be
constructed in 1987.
Of the City's share of $103,664, $50,000 will come from the 1986 Street
Rehabilitation Fund. The remaining $53,664 will come from the 1987 Street
Rehabilitation Fund."
City Attorney Huisjen noted that Resolution 86-49 (motion on page 263) was
now back on the floor and could be considered.
Councilmember Horak asked how the cost of this project grew from $250,000
in 1981 to $2.4 million today. He felt the project should have been
presented in a more unified manner rather than piecemeal.
Deputy City Manager Dallow explained the approximate $2.5 million was used
for relocation of the railroad switchyard and other projects in the Mason
Street area that were not specifically of benefit to the Mason/Howes
one-way couplet. This $400,000 to reconstruct Mason Street is not
necessarily a part of the couplet but would need to be done regardless of
the traffic orientation.
City Engineer Gary Diede explained the use of FAUS funding for the project.
He noted the project had been through the 5-year capital projects priority
system and had rated as high as any other project in the City in the
essential category.
Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, expressed concern about the height of
the railroad crown on Mason and suggested other streets such as Myrtle and
Laporte also needed repair at a higher priority.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, asked about an overlay on Mason
rather than the reconstruction. He questioned the use of federal funds for
a street rehabilitation project.
Councilmember Stoner stated he had confidence staff had done the detailed
analysis of the process and .project and that he would support the
Resolution.
'
-275-
March 18, 1986
Councilmember Horak felt Council should have been informed earlier of the
'
plans for use of the FAUS funds. He stated Council needs to be more
involved in the street program to be able to decide where they think the
benefits will best occur. He felt the money could be used in other places
and objected to obligating 1987 funds before looking at the 1987 budget.
Mayor Ohlson agreed with Councilmember Horak's concerns about the
incremental project. He noted not all of the $2.5 million was City money
and explained some funds had come from the Burlington Northern railroad,
the DDA, and other federal monies. He felt the Mason Street project was
not as high a priority and stated he would oppose it.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Resolution 86-49 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers April, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, and Ohlson.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Other Business
Councilmember Horak asked for information on how much the PRPA Annual
Report had cost this year.
Councilmember Rutstein replied she would get that information from PRPA '
staff since the Board was not involved in the preparing of the report.
Ad.iournment
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
City. Clerk
-276-