Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-11/01/1988-RegularNovember 1, 1988 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, November 1, 1988, 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: Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy Citizen Participation A. Proclamation Naming November 22-30 as Miss Teen Days was accepted by Kirsten Brenkert, Miss Teen of America finalist. B. Proclamation Naming the Second Week in November 1988 as Youth ' Appreciation Week was accepted by Steve Vessey, representing the Fort Collins Breakfast Optimist Club. C. Proclamation Naming November 7-11 as Buddy Popov Days was accepted by John Rinne, representing the Veterans of Foreign Wars. D. Presentation of Trophy to Snow Rodeo Winners was accepted by Larry Schneider, Danny Robinette, and Keith Glauser. E. Presentation to Opal Dick, of Purchasing and Risk Management, who was named Buyer of the Year by the Rocky Mountain Governmental Purchasing Association. Pastor Abel Ramos, Jr., spokesperson for the Fort Housing Authority Tenants Association, spoke of the alleged mistreatment of Housing Authority tenants and requested assistance from Council in solving the problem. Jim Creeden, 4020 Goodell Lane N4, urged registered voters to vote against the sexual orientation ordinance. Yolonda C. Nicely, 1625 Crestmore Place, spoke of the encounters she experienced with vicious dogs while distributing campaign literature and asked Council to adopt legislation against vicious animals. Ken Bonetti, 316 Wood Street, volunteer for the Fort Collins Housing ' Authority Tenants' Association, requested a full investigation of Housing Authority policies and practices. -390- November 1, 1988 Lee Clark, Fort Collins resident, expressed his concern regarding parking problems in residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of Colorado State University. Beverly Swenson, representing Housing Authority tenants, noted her concerns involving a personal friend who was an alleged victim of Housing Authority abuse. Michelle Creeden, Blevins Jr. High student, stated her support of the Poudre R-1 mill levy increase and encouraged voters to vote no on Amendment #6. Sandy Geise, Blevins Jr. High student, spoke in favor of the Poudre R-1 mill levy increase. Vicki Conklin, 1200 Matuka Court #4, offered services provided by a tenant group to solve tenant problems. An unidentified former Housing Authority tenant, described the treatment she received as a Housing Authority tenant. Christina Lujan, 813 Martinez, offered her assistance to other Housing Authority residents. Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager Burkett announced that Governor Romer would be present later in the meeting to speak on Amendment #6. 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 Item #18, Pulled Consent Items. 5. Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of October 18 IV The City and Larimer County have entered into a cooperative agreement to build a sanitary waste transfer station. The facility is necessary in order to close the Larimer County Landfill to liquid wastes which may adversely impact groundwater. This Ordinance, which was -391- November 1, 1988 ' unanimously adopted on First Reading on the Wastewater Fund for transfer to October 18, the Capital 1) appropriates in Projects Fund an additional $46,000 received from the County to cover construction costs in excess of the engineer's estimate, and 2) appropriates $72,458 for expenditure in the Capital Projects Fund. The total amount of $72,458 includes $26,458 received from the County and appropriated in the Wastewater Fund in July. 7. EM This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, amends the affidavit of petition circulator page of the general form for petitions for initiative, referendum, or recall. Council approved the current general form of petition upon recommendation of the City Clerk on May 5, 1987. That ordinance also directed that a sufficient supply of printed petition forms be available in the City Clerk's department to be provided to petitioners. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that it is illegal to prohibit compensation to petition circulators. A Charter amendment has been proposed by staff to bring the Charter into line with this Supreme Court ruling. In the meantime, this Ordinance is presented to amend the form of petition to remove the statement in the affidavit of petition circulator "that the petition circulator has neither received nor entered into any contract whereby in the future he or she will receive any money or thing of value in consideration of or as an inducement to the circulation of such petition by him or her." Continuous coordination and interaction between the City and the County is required in the areas of stormwater management. Many of the drainage basins extend beyond municipal boundaries into the County, and in the past the County has funded portions of the City's drainage basin master plans and has formally adopted the same. For the past eight years, a County employee responsible for stormwater management at the County has been a member of the Storm Drainage Board. Due to the limit on consecutive terms of board and commission members, this individual was required to leave the board. Adoption of the Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, would create an ex officio non -voting position for the County to the Storm Drainage Board. The Larimer County Board of Commissioners, at its August 24, 1988 meeting, approved the concept by recommending Rex Burns, Larimer County Floodplain Administrator, to hold this position. -392- November 1, 1988 9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 1988, Setting Precinct I Boundaries for Municipal Elections. 10. A regular municipal election is scheduled for March 7, 1989. Any changes in precinct boundaries must be completed at least 90 days before the election. This ordinance approves boundaries for 72 precincts as set out in the District- Precinct Map dated November 15, 1988, which is being sent to Council under separate cover. The map includes, but does not change, the Council District boundaries, which were established in August. Council will set polling places for these precincts at a later date. With the dissolution of the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) transportation and Air Quality Planning functions needed to be re-established. The participating cities have adopted the Articles of Association of the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council and the Governor has designated this Planning Council as the MPO. The City of Fort Collins has been designated, through the Articles of Association, as the administrative entity of the Front Range Council. Each year a Unified Planning Work Program is written that details each transportation task that is for PL ' planning eligible reimbursement. The Work Program is adopted by the Front Range Council, the State Highway Commission, and the Air Quality Control Commission. The time frame for this Work Program task completion is the Federal fiscal year. Adoption of this Ordinance will provide funding for the approved Work Program. The Front Range Council will fund an updated bikeway study, purchase traffic counters, and begin work on validating the long-range transportation computer model for the City of Fort Collins. Expenditures for the City of Greeley will consist of a US 85 Bypass Study and participation in the long-range regional transportation plan. This work will be conducted by local staffs between November 1, and December 31, 1988. The funding process is based on a reimbursement type program. As an approved project is worked on, the City bills the State. The State will then reimburse the City. This is similar to the process which is in place for Federal Aid Urban System Funds. The funds approved by this Ordinance will allow the MPO FY 1989 Work Program to begin in 1988. The 1989 operating budget of the MPO transportation planning function is included in the Transportation Division's adopted budget. -393- November 1, 1988 I 11. Resolution 88-176 Approving Revised Electric Construction Policies Practices and Procedures. The Electric Construction Policies, Practices and Procedures govern construction of electric systems for development and remodeling. This policy was last revised in 1977. The proposed revision reflects the current terminology and practices of the utility. No significant changes in policy are proposed. 12. Resolution 88-177 Approving Revised Electric Service Rules and Regulations The Electric Service Rules and Regulations provide the terms and conditions under which electric service is supplied to consumers by the City Light and Power Utility. This policy was last revised in 1981. The proposed revision reflects the current terminology and practices of the utility. No significant changes in policy are proposed. 13. The Resolution authorizes the Director of Purchasing and Risk ' Management to enter into a professional services agreement with J. M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers to develop wastewater treatment alternatives. The City will need additional wastewater treatment capacity to provide for future growth and to meet future state and federal treatment standards within the next five or six years. The professional services agreement provides for identification and evaluation of alternatives. Future phases will include site selection, design stages and construction management. 14. Resolution 88-179 Authorizina the Fxnenditurp of xan_nnn frnm the Fnrt Adoption of this Resolution will authorize additional expenditures of $40,000 for concrete work and crack repair on the taxiway at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. 15. On September 8, 1988, the City received a proposal from Group B-W Holdings, Inc., for the City to issue tax-exempt multifamily development revenue bonds for the purpose of acquiring a low-income housing project in Fort Collins known as Oakbrook II Apartments. The project, consisting of 100 housing units, all of which are currently ' occupied by tenants with Section 8 housing eligibility, is located at 3300 Stanford Road. -394- November 1, 1988 Passage of the Inducement Resolution would allow the City to issue ' $4,000,000 in development revenue bonds for the purpose of acquiring the project. The proposal is consistent with the City's adopted policies regarding issuance of multifamily revenue bonds. The project is consistent with the Council goal of increasing the quality and affordability of housing within the City and would insure that the project would continue to be occupied by low- and moderate -income tenants. When the Council reviewed the inducement resolution on October 18, 1988, several questions were posed regarding the current financing of the project, verification and documentation of the acquisition price, the contracts regarding federal housing subsidies, the identity of the exempt organization on behalf of which the bonds would be issued, and the financial strength of the proponents of the project and the ability of the project to generate sufficient proceeds to retire the proposed bonds. The Council also expressed concern regarding fire safety improvements and handicapped accessibility of the project. While some information and documentation regarding the Council's questions has been received, staff would prefer to have all answers in place prior to Council consideration of the inducement resolution. Therefore, staff recommends that this item be postponed until November 15, 1988. 16. Resolution 88-180 Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase Property , Located at 108 North Meldrum Street, also known as the Avery Carriage House. This Resolution will enable the City to purchase certain real property located at 108 North Meldrum. Community Development Block Grant funds will be used to purchase the property. The Poudre Landmarks Foundation will raise the funds for necessary restoration and to provide for handicapped accessibility. 17. Routine Deeds and Easements. a. Powerline easement from Wesley Eugene Robb, 512 W. Magnolia, needed to underground existing overhead electric services. Consideration: $10. b. Powerline easement from Eric C. Spanier and Margaret Ann Spanier, 3300 S. College Avenue, needed to provide the underground electric system for the Foothills Mall expansion. Consideration: $2736 (547.2 square feet @ $5/sq.ft.) These costs will be reimbursed to the City by the developer. c. Powerline easement from Joel S. Bedford and Judith A. Bedford, 1501 Peterson, needed to underground existing overhead electric services. Consideration: $10. -395- November 1, 1988 I Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #6. of a Sanitary Waste Transfer Station. Item #7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 1988, Amending the General Form for Petitions for Initiative, Referendum, or Recall. Item #8. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #9. Item #10. ' Planning Program as Part of the Metropolitan Planning Function. Councilmember Mabry withdrew from the vote on the Consent Calendar due to a perceived conflict of interest on one of the Consent Calendar items. F Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 88-179 Authorizing the Expenditure of $40,000 from the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Account for Emergency Capital Repairs, Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT The City of Fort Collins' share of this allotment would be $20,000, and the City of Loveland's share would be the same. -396- November 1, 1988 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I Adoption of this Resolution will authorize additional expenditures of $40,000 for concrete work and crack repair on the taxiway at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. BACKGROUND The City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland have operated the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport under a joint operating agreement since 1963. In 1981, the two cities reached a new agreement, whereby the cities agreed to equally divide the bond debt service schedule, the revenue derived from the operation of the airport, and airport expenditures. Presently, a balance of approximately $300,000 exists in an airport reserve account from prior year allocated reserves and interest earnings, dating from the time the airport was jointly operated by the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. Earlier this year, approximately $7,000 was provided to the Airport Authority to make needed taxiway repairs. The problem has intensified, and the FAA has now mandated that the repairs be made immediately to meet the agreements entered into with the FAA and the various grants to the cities. New estimates show that the extent of the necessary repairs is much greater than anticipated. Two bids were received, one for $52,000 and one for $47,000. The Airport Authority still has the $7,000 previously authorized for this use. An additional $40,000 needs to be authorized for use from this fund, of which each city would pay $20,000 in costs." Councilmember Maxey withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a ' perceived conflict of interest. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, asked if the City of Loveland would be contributing to the Airport taxiway repairs. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to adopt Resolution 88-179. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Maxey withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Winokur noted that he represented Fort Collins at the kick-off of the Better Air Campaign in Denver where he participated with the City Manager and several staff members, Governor Romer, Senators Wirth and Armstrong, and several Mayors from the front range. Councilmember Kirkpatrick commented on Item #8, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 1988, Amending Chapter 2 of the Code to Establish an Ex Officio Position on the Storm Drainage Board, and asked Councilmember Estrada to , investigate the intent of the COSW to establish ex officio positions. -397- November 1, 1988 ' Resolution 88-175 Expressing Opposition to Proposed Constitutional Amendment 6, and Encouraging Citizens to Vote Against the Amendment at the General Election of November 8. 1988, Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Adoption of Amendment 6 will have very significant negative impacts on the City of Fort Collins, on City Council's decision making authority, and on the rights of Fort Collins' citizens to decide how they wish to be governed. Adoption of the attached Resolution would express Council opposition to the Amendment, encourage citizens to become more informed about the amendment and its potential impacts, and encourages citizens to vote against Amendment 6. BACKGROUND Preliminary analysis of Amendment 6 indicates that it would have far reaching effects throughout Colorado. ■ It will place severe financial strains on governmental entities at every level throughout Colorado. ' ■ It will weaken representative government and local control through state -mandated referendum on revenue raising issues. ■ It will force citizens to become knowledgeable about a vote on an excessively long list of ballot measures from various governmental entities at every election. ■ It will lock into the state constitution very rigid tax and spending limitations. ■ It will redistribute the property tax burden between classes of properties. ■ It will force extensive and expensive litigation to clear up the many ambiguities and contradictions in the proposed amendment language. Although each of these impacts are cause for concern, the most compelling arguments against the proposed amendment lie in its direct impact on local government services in Fort Collins. November 1, 1988 The requirement that any new debt must be approved by a two-thirds majority of voters would: -- Limit the city's ability to take ' advantage of temporary reductions in interest rates and achieve savings through refunding bonds. The large refunding issue in 1986 saved the City approximately $1 million. -- Increase the interest costs on municipal bonds, and therefore add to the cost of city construction projects, including streets construction and projects like EPIC, City Hall West, the Downtown Parking Garage and other. - Allow 34 percent of the voters to override the favorable vote of up to 66 percent of the voters who wish to have new services and facilities provided through debt financing. Take decision making authority away from the City Council and place it in the hands of a minority of the voters. The repeal of any new tax or tax rate increase first effective in 1988 without voter approval, coupled with the requirement that every new or increased license, permit or fee in excess of the Denver/Boulder CPI be adopted only by a public vote, would place in question much of the adopted 1988 and 1989 budgets. The reductions in state income tax and limitations on state spending would jeopardize many state programs that benefit the Fort Collins area, including DUI enforcement grants, library , grants, matching funds for many road and bridge construction projects, and others. The potential negative effects of Amendment 6 on City finances and on the City's ability to provide services and respond to emergencies are considerable. In the past, Council has adopted resolutions expressing support for or opposition to some state legislative measures and state ballot initiatives. Since Amendment 6 is confusing and contradictory, and since it would unnecessarily restrict local government, staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution expressing strong opposition to Amendment 6. Further, the resolution encourages citizens to become more informed about the impacts of Amendment 6 and to vote against it on November 8." Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adopt Resolution 88-175. City Manager Steve Burkett gave a brief presentation to Council and introduced Governor Roy Romer to address the issue. Governor Roy Romer presented information and facts regarding Amendment #6 and responded to questions from Council. He also urged City Council and members of the voting community to vote no on Amendment #6 and to , personally take a stand against the Amendment. 399- November 1, 1988 IThe following people spoke on Amendment #6: 1. Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, spoke in favor of the Amendment. 2. Yolonda Nicely, 1625 Crestmore Place, spoke against Amendment #6. 3. Earl Wilkinson, 926 Valley View Road, addressed how Amendment #6 would affect the transportation needs of Fort Collins. 4. Sandy Lemberg, Poudre Canyon resident, spoke in support of Amendment #6. 5. Michelle Dykstra, 3501 South Stover, CSU student, spoke against the Amendment. 6. Larry Kendall, 807 Warren Landing, spoke against Amendment #6. 7. Helen Logioco, 1424 Front Nine Drive, spoke in favor of the Amendment. 8. Mike Hauser, 725 West Shore Court, representing the Chamber ' of Commerce, spoke against Amendment #6. 9. Mary Margaret Glennie, 1317 Lakewood Drive, spoke in favor of the Amendment. 10. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, spoke in favor of the Amendment. 11. Jim Creeden, 4020 Goodell Lane, spoke against Amendment #6. Councilmember Kirkpatrick noted her opposition to Amendment #6 and spoke of the direction that staff was given regarding phasing out Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT). She also spoke of Council concern regarding taxpayer understanding of the collection of certain taxes. She noted the referendum process was available to all citizens on any ordinance issuing bonds. Councilmember Horak commented on Governor Romer's reasons for speaking at the Council meeting and spoke of the effects of the referendum process and the consequences of the proposed tax cuts in Amendment #6. Councilmember Maxey noted his opposition for Amendment #6. Councilmember Winokur agreed with Councilmembers Kirkpatrick and Horak and stated he did not favor Amendment #6. ' Councilmember Mabry stated he would not be supporting the Amendment. He noted the Amendment would make it difficult to provide the quality -400- November 1, 1988 Councilmember Mabry stated he would not be supporting the Amendment. He noted the Amendment would make it difficult to provide the quality infrastructure that will be needed for Colorado to remain economically competitive in the 1990's. Councilmember Estrada commented on the negative effect Amendment #6 would have on education and stated he would be supporting the Resolution. Mayor Stoner stated he would be supporting the Resolution and noted that Amendment #6 is inflexible, impractical, and extreme. The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Resolution 88-175 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 88-172 Making Appointments to the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area Review Board, Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Intergovernmental Agreement between the Larimer County Commissioners and the Fort Collins City Council established a Fort Collins Urban Growth Area Review Board to act as the single recommending body to the Larimer County Commissioners concerning development applications for properties located within the unincorporated portion of the UGA and ineligible for voluntary annexation into the City. The Board will consist of two members appointed by the City Council, two members appointed by the County Commissioners, and three members appointed by mutual agreement of the Council and Commissioners. Advertisements were placed, and interviews were conducted by Councilmembers Kirkpatrick and Maxey, along with a Larimer County representative. The attached Resolution provides for the appointment of two positions by the City Council and sets out two of the three positions mutually agreed upon by the Council and the County Commissioners. The Resolution also names three individuals for the County Commissioners to consider for the third mutual appointment. In keeping with Council's policy, the Resolution will be postponed until November 1 to allow time for public input." Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt Resolution 88-172. Jim Creeden, 4020 Goodell Lane #4, expressed his support for Ed Stoner for the Urban Growth Area Review Board representative. -401- November 1, 1988 ' Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to amend the Resolution by inserting the name of Kelly Ohlson in place of Sanford Kern and then inserting the name of Sanford Kern in place of Ed Stoner. Jim Creeden, 4020 Goodell Lane #4, spoke against the amendment. Councilmember Estrada commented on the alleged evasion of the appointment process and stated he would be supporting the Resolution. Councilmember Winokur stated he would not be supporting the Resolution and commented on the selection process. Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she would be supporting the Resolution and commented that Mayor Stoner had not submitted an application for the position. She spoke of the potential conflict of interest that existed among the applicants and noted that the two remaining candidates were realtors and indicated the board would be unbalanced. Councilmember Horak expressed concern about the advertising process to obtain applicants for the board. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to amend Resolution 88-172 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, and Kirkpatrick. Nays: ' Councilmembers Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. THE MOTION FAILED. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to adopt Resolution 88-172 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada and Horak. THE MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of the Final Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on August 22, 1988, Denying the Park South PUD Master Plan, Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Upheld Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On August 22, 1988 the Planning and Zoning Board denied the Park South PUD Master Plan, finding that it would create traffic demands that would exceed the capacity of existing and proposed transportation networks. On September 6, 1988, an appeal of that final decision was made by Middel Enterprises, Inc. and Park South Venture by Greg R. Remmenga of Sorensen and Konkel, Attorneys for the`Appellantsi -402- November 1, 1988 On October 18, 1988, the appeal was tabled to this date at the request of , the appellant. Description of Project The Park South PUD Master Plan consists of a mixed -use development of residential, office, retail and commercial uses on 31 acres, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Horsetooth Road and Manhattan Avenue. The site is zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. In April of 1978, Larimer County approved the original Park South PUD on this site, which consisted of 143 single family zero lot line units. The site was annexed to the City in July of 1978 and the County -approved plan was accepted as part of the annexation. This approved plan is still considered a valid plan and could be used today to obtain building permits for the property. The proposed Master Plan consists of residential phases for 44 single family lots and 14 zero lot line units (based on the approved plan). The remainder of the Master Plan consists of four phases of non-residential uses (office, commercial and retail uses) for a total of 233,000 square feet. Access to the site is from Horsetooth Road, an arterial street and Manhattan Avenue, a collector street. The proposed Master Plan was evaluated against the Land Use Policies Plan. Based on this evaluation, staff found the proposed residential uses to be ' supported by the Land Use Policies Plan and compatible with the surrounding land uses. The non-residential land uses were evaluated against the policies addressing Regional/Community Shopping Centers because of the type of uses proposed, as well as the magnitude or intensity of these uses. Policy #70 of the Land Use Policies Plan states that "Regional/Community Shopping Centers should locate near transportation facilities that offer the required access to the center but will not be allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network of the City." The staff evaluation of the applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis concluded that the proposed land uses and magnitude of those uses would generate a traffic impact that far exceeds the residential collector street capacity and would create a negative impact on the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed Park South PUD Master Plan was deemed incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding neighborhood and staff recommended denial of the proposed Master Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board denied the Park South PUD Master Plan unanimously at the August 22, 1988 Board meeting, finding that it would create traffic demands that would exceed the capacity of existing and proposed transportation networks. ' -403- November 1, 1988 IThe Appeal The appellant has filed the appeal on the grounds that the Planning and Zoning Board: (a) abused its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence on the record; (b) failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code, including the Land Development Guidance System, and the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Policies Plan; and (c) failed to conduct a fair hearing in that: (1) The Board considered evidence irrelevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading; (2) The Board improperly failed to receive and consider all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants. These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code. Specific points of discussion are outlined in the Notice of Appeal and staff has responded point -by -point in the attached memorandum to Council. Scope of Council Consideration of Appealed Master Plan The issues that the Council must resolve in this appeal are three -fold: 1. Did the Board abuse its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence on the record? 2. Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code, including the Land Development Guidance System and the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Policies Plan? 3. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered evidence irrelevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading, or failed to receive and consider all relevant evidence offered by the Appellant? The appellants have provided a list of specific allegations that they believe support this appeal. In making a determination on these issues, the City Council must first consider whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and without the support ,of�competent evidence on the record, as alleged by the appellant. Secondly, the Council must consider the app_7icab7e Code provisions, including:the Land Development Guidance System, Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Policies Plan to determine whether the project meets or addresses the specific standards, criteria and policies. Finally, the Council must review and decide whether the Board conducted an improper hearing as alleged by the appellant. -404- November 1, 1988 The allegations listed by the appellant in the Notice of Appeal are as follows: (a) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in apparently applying all development criteria of the Land development Guidance System in contravention of Section 118-83(f)(2)(b), which provides that the Master Plan will not be reviewed on the basis of the specific design standards and criteria outlined in this section, but rather on the basis of conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. (b) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in denying the Master Plan based upon an alleged failure to comply with Land Use Policy #70, which provides: "Regional/Community shopping centers should locate near transportation facilities that offer the required access to the center, but will not be allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transportation network of the city." (c) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in evaluating the project as a regional/community shopping center rather than as a neighborhood/community center, as was warranted by the evidence. (d) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in establishing maximum vehicle trip per day criteria of 4,000 vehicle trips per day on Manhattan Street south of Dennison, and 7,000 vehicle trips per day on Manhattan Street south of Horsetooth, and north of Dennison, in contravention of the evidence presented and generally accepted standards and criteria. Specifically, the Planning and Zoning Board ignored the evidence presented by the traffic engineers for the Applicants, and apparently based its decision upon maximum criteria suggested by Rick Ensdorff, Traffic Engineer, which is without any basis in evidence or theory. (e) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in defining Manhattan as a collector street, in contravention of the evidence. (f) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in ignoring the undisputed evidence produced by Applicants' traffic engineers with respect to the current and future vehicle trips per day, all as more specifically set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. (g) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in developing a "community view" of collector street capacity, and ignoring textbook definition and expert opinions. (h) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in effectively condemning Applicants' property by adopting traffic criteria that cannot be met by a developer with any use. The Planning and Zoning Board erred in simply denying rather than proposing reasonable limitations or restrictions or conditions to mitigate adverse traffic impacts. -405- November 1, 1988 ' (i) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in refusing to approve any developer proposal to mitigate adverse traffic impacts. (j) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in finding that the project had significant adverse traffic impacts, in contravention of the evidence, when in fact, there are no significant traffic impacts in excess of those impacts which will exist in the event the project is developed as currently platted. (k) The Planning and Zoning Board erred in determining that the proposed Master Plan will create traffic demands which will exceed the capacity of existing and future transportation network of the City, in contravention of the evidence presented. Summary Chronology May 4, 1988: Neighborhood meeting held on proposed master plan. June 21, 1988: Staff met with applicant to inform of concerns regarding traffic generated by the proposed master plan. June 24, 1988: Applicant requested that item be continued from the June 27 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, to the July 25, 1988 meeting due to traffic concerns. ' July 14, 1988: Applicant requested that item be continued from the July 25, 1988 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, to the August 22, 1988 meeting to resolve outstanding issues and meet with neighborhood. July 21, 1988: Staff met with applicant to discuss reductions in master plan to address concerns regarding traffic. August 10, 1988: Neighborhood meeting held on revised master plan. August 22, 1988: Planning and Zoning Board denied the master plan. September 6, 1988: Appeal of final decision of Planning and Zoning Board is filed." Councilmember Mabry withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. City Attorney Steve Roy presented background information on the appeal process. He stated the hearing should be conducted on the grounds stated in the appeal, and that no new evidence should be submitted at this hearing. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to hear the appeal on the basis that the grounds presented conform to the requirements of the Code. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. -406- November 1, 1988 THE MOTION CARRIED. I William Strickfaden, appellant, described the impact of the traffic count of 4000 versus 6000 vehicles per day on Manhattan Avenue. Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to acknowledge that the Planning and Zoning Board properly received and considered all of the evidence that was offered. City Attorney Roy clarified the issue to be addressed was whether the Planning and Zoning Board improperly received some relevant evidence. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to acknowledge that the Planning and Zoning Board properly received and considered all the evidence that was offered was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Senior City Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a brief presentation and elaborated on the proposed project. William Strickfaden, appellant, spoke of the circumstances leading to the request for the Master Plan. He explained the efforts behind the purchase of the property and the replat design process. He presented the details of ' the right-of-way traffic study and described the development and market analysis of the property and its development potential, including a study of the retail commercial market. He noted the determination that the Traffic Department had made regarding the project's inability to accommodate the traffic on Manhattan Avenue south of Dennison Avenue. He requested Council reconsider the Master Plan since it meets all the requirements of the Planning and Zoning process. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, explained the logical transition of uses, the more intensive retail uses, the planning of single family residences, an office park, and the overall development concept. Bob Lee, transportation planner for the appellant, gave a slide presentation of the Meadowlark collector street system. He spoke of the August Planning and Zoning Board hearing. which showed the traffic impacts that exist in the area. Roderick Graham, 3725 Benthaven," spoke against the Master Plan. Clarence Palmer, 701 Arbor, representing 300 petition• signers, spoke against the Plan. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the Park South PUD Master Plan. I -407- November 1, 1988 ' Senior City Planner Sherry Albertson -Clark responded to questions from Council, presented a short slide presentation, and provided a chronology of events of the land uses and traffic impact in the Master Plan. Traffic Engineer Rick Ensdorff presented maximum traffic capacity information and responded to questions from Council. Councilmember Maxey stated he would be supporting the motion although there could be many interpretations from the motions and suggested some amendment work should be done on the Land Use Guidance System to alleviate misunderstanding. He expressed concern about an exclusive license being issued to property on the basis of the Master Plan. Councilmember Kirkpatrick expressed her support for the motion and noted the problems associated with the Land Development Guidance System and infill project. She noted the importance of timing with these types of projects and the purchase of property. She commented on the importance of proper future planning for projects which includes looking to the past to minimize mistakes. Mayor Stoner commented on the evidence that had been submitted indicating that the Planning and Zoning Board did not err in its final decision with respect to the Master Plan. The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to uphold the decision of the ' Planning and Zoning Board was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Stoner asked staff to draft a resolution for the November 15 meeting making findings on the Council decision to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on the Park South PUD Master Plan. Other Business Councilmember Horak encouraged Council to investigate the residential parking problem in the neighborhoods near Colorado State University. Councilmember Maxey noted his support in attempting to alleviate the parking problem. Mayor Stoner commented on the 2 hour parking time limit in the Mantz Edition and referred to his conversation with Parking/Bikeway Manager Rita Davis who indicated she would be researching the problem., Councilmember Winokur encouraged the new division, in the City's Transportation Services Department to explore the transportation/planning ' needs in the residential areas near Colorado State University. ffiln November 1, 1988 Councilmember Estrada noted the parking problem in the residential areas is due to large numbers of residents living in multi -family units that were once single family units, which leads to a compacting of a larger population into an area that was not designed to easily accommodate such large numbers. City Manager Steve Burkett noted that staff would explore the issue and return with some options and ideas. Adjournment Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to adjourn the meeting to November 15, 1988 at 4:30 p.m. to allow Council to consider adjourning into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters relating to the performance appraisal of the City Manager. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Horak. (Councilmember Mabry out of the room) THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m Ica jT&I Sim Mayo -409-