HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 01-20-16~~~
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING
January 20, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Jay called the properly noticed Special City Council Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ROLL CALL
Monica Duran
George Pond
Janeece Hoppe
Tim Fitzgerald
Absent: Genevieve Wooden
Zachary Urban
Larry Mathews
Kristi Davis
Also present: City Clerk, Janelle Shaver; City Attorney, Gerald Dahl; City Manager,
Patrick Goff; Public Works Director, Scott Brink; Community
Development Director, Ken Johnstone, other staff, guests and interested citizens.
Motion by Councilmember Pond to suspend the rules and address the published
agenda item; seconded by Councilmember Urban; carried 7-0.
Mayor Jay gave some opening remarks reviewing the Cre8 Your 38 meeting process.
The three councilmembers who called the meeting outlined their concerns
Councilmember Mathews explained that last year, at a study session in May and a
Council meeting in July, two points of consensus were reached.
1) After the 2014 vote we should work on streetscapes that are compatible with
existing curb lines. That has nothing to do with the number of lanes.
2) We need to start with a clean slate.
He believes the flaws are not with the process, but how it has been executed.
• He noted plans began last Thursday to fix the flaw of lack of seating capacity.
• A major complaint he heard from people who left early last Thursday was that it
was just another set-up with a fixed outcome.
• The process was supposed to be unbiased.
The consultant was to meet with people on both sides, but met with groups who, for the
most part, shared one view point. Only one group had people from both viewpoints.
• A "clean slate" was lost in the shuffle.
o The presentation had a clear message that 4 lanes is bad/dangerous and
3 lanes is good/safe.
o Some parameters about cost or expectations about what was feasible
would have been sufficient guidelines.
Special City Council Minutes, January 20, 2016 Page 2
o Indicating the location of the existing curb would have given people a true
picture of what they had to work with .
• Overlooked the possibility of actual voting by people from outside the city
They didn't dream that people from outside the C1ty would be invited to come and vote
their agenda.
He believes Council needs to define and refine participants and voting procedures.
We still have much to accomplish and he urged people not to lose faith in the process.
Council will do its best to provide full disclosure, fix the flaws and regain the people's
trust.
Councilmember Urban is encouraged by the attendance and wants the process to
proceed and be successful. He agreed to co-sponsor calling this meeting to give
Council an opportunity to improve and verify the process being used to glean input from
the citizens -registered electors, and business and property owners along 38th.
His requests for logistical and data tracking changes include:
• Three areas are not being considered: cost, impact and implementation
o Cost of different design elements haven't been determined, allocated or
identified
o How will the plan for at least three lanes of eastbound traffic from Wadsworth
be channeled to one lane in less than a block?
o What are the possible traffic impacts from an apartments complex planned for
38th & Upham?
o What will be the construction impact on small businesses on the corridor?
• Asking each participant's name, address, phone number, and if they are citizens,
business or property owners
• Check out a clicker, and check it back in.
• Determine if types of stakeholders can be tracked to the clickers to analyze
aggregate demographic data
• Attendees from last week be allowed to attend this Thursday, but not vote.
• Participants from the first and second meetings be allowed to vote (online) on the
designs from the meeting they didn't attend.
• Full name and street address; each person only one vote.
Councilmember Duran was encouraged to see people come together last Thursday.
She feels Council has an opportunity as leaders to learn from mistakes and move
forward with accountability and transparency. People recognize the past, are part of the
present and embrace the future. We should listen to all the concerns. She expressed
the meeting tonight is not about calling foul game; it's about listening to all our citizens.
Her concerns are:
• Keeping the voting to WR residents, property and business owners
• How to safeguard against multiple voting with the online voting process
• Making the public aware of development at 381h & Upham and future plans by
COOT to increase the number of lanes on Wadsworth, and how those will affect
38th Avenue.
• When we get to the top 3 -5 designs, cost should be included.
Special City Council Minutes, January 20, 2016 Page 3
The consensus may not be perfect for everyone, but if we meet the needs of most it will
be a success.
Citizen comment
Carol Mathews 0/VR) questioned the impartiality of the consultant noting she met
with a bicycle club -not the businesses. Last Thursday we were told 3 lanes was the
only safe option. We weren't told how wide the lanes were, anything about cost, that a
10 ft sidewalk might take 5 ft from a business's property, that the 5 ft sidewalks in
several places can't be expanded, or that 200 apartments are planned at 38th & Upham.
Chris McCune (WR) supports the process. Helpful parameters could guide the
process a little better. The focus on lanes probably got too specific and knowing the
cost would be helpful. He doesn't support having attendees distinguish whether they
are residents or business owners, but he does think it's a good idea to make sure the
people who participate actually live here. He doesn't want to see residents pitted
against businesses.
Chad Harr (WR) is appalled this meeting was called; he believes it was based on
hearsay and rumors. He's excited about non-residents participating; he believes they
should have a say. Not everyone agreed, but everyone got heard. He thought it was
the most open and transparent meeting he's ever been to in the City. The voting was
honest and couldn't be spun by made up facts or half-truth robe-calls. He understands
less than 5% of the attendees were non-residents -not enough to sway any vote. He
thinks the councilors who called this special meeting should be ashamed for wasting
everyone's time and continuing to grow the rumor mill that keeps diving the City.
Diane Robb (WR) was amazed at the attendance and the enthusiasm, and was happy
to see so many new participants. She feels the meeting was well-run and encouraged
discussion at the table level. Everyone had the opportunity to speak. She understands
the voting wasn't exact, but feels it didn't need to be. It was only to get general
consensus and give clear direction about what the majority of the participants want.
Gretchen Cerveny (WR) was excited to see all the people at the meeting last week -
especially so many young people participating. She thinks including addresses when
signing in would be an improvement, but the process was wonderful and the clicker
voting is good. We want people to participate. The perception is that people didn't vote
right, so we have to fix the process. It's just to see what people thought -nothing final.
Lloyd Rogers (business on 38th) is concerned how the meeting was conducted , not
the results. He felt Y2 hour of instructions was unnecessary and the directions were
unclear. He felt the outburst at the beginning was controlled poorly. He's concerned
that having a consensus of the people is contradictory to one person one vote.
Rich Dougherty (WR) was excited to see younger people at the meeting. He thinks
Wheat Ridge is an unknown gem and the turnout last week shows that.
Kelsey Robb (WR) loved the meeting. She met one of her neighbors for the first time
and saw new people who never contributed before. She explained how it went at her
Special City Council Minutes, January 20, 2016 Page 4
table. She believes that people who came should be heard whether they live here or
not. She doesn't think asking for the existing curb to be identified is a "clean slate".
Michael lllo (WR) said his concern with the process is the curb line. 28 was voted
down; it doesn't matter if people want to move the curb 1ft or 10ft. Some of the plans
that were created and voted on moved the curb line. It feels like we're being coerced to
go against the previous vote on the curb lines. Council should embrace the culture of
the City-which you can't do if you present a process that contradicts what people
voted for. If Council knows the will of the people regarding the curbs, who/what is
behind this process that encourages people to widen the cu rbs?
Charlotte Kettering (WR) was overwhelmed by the attendance and the number of
people turned away. She hopes they exclude the people who attended last week. She's
very concerned about how the traffic from a double left turn coming off of Wadsworth
will be handled, as well as the plans for 200 apartments at 381h & Upham. Will that
require a light? These things are important and should be part of the discussion
because the state will require it.
Davis Reinhart (WR) said it isn't a perfect process, but he thought it was good. It's
hard for him not to conclude that people are uncomfortable with the outcome -not the
process. He believes the process is being attacked because people are concerned with
the outcome. It's Council's job to sort the wheat from the chafe [sic]. He doesn't think
the process was flawed in any meaningful way.
Rachel Hultin (WR) was overwhelmed by the sense of community in the room. People
at her table felt it reflected their values. To her the highest quality outcome from last
Thursday is that they connected and learned about shared values. She feels our main
street needs to be a place for everybody. She took some probable responsibility for
some of the concern about outreach to people outside Wheat Ridge. Just as Denver is
soliciting input about their Broadway corridor from anyone who drives there, she feels
that people from outside our city should have their wishes included about 381h Ave so
they will come and shop here. She believes they are stakeholders too.
Tim Tindle (WR) felt it was a very constructive, civic process. He feels a handful of
people have concerns due to social media. He related his table's experience. He
believes any changes to the process compromises the results. He suggested the
moderator could be more neutral. The developer for 381h/Upham was at his table; he
has a real interest in our City. Mr. Tindle feels we should welcome interested outsiders.
Kim Tenure (WR) said democracy is ugly. She's from New York and has lived in WR
two years. She was disappointed in some of the process. She'd like to see more
opportunities to be involved for people who work nights. She suggested having smaller
local meetings. Her table didn't have time to find out where they agreed. She liked the
outside facilitator, but felt some opportunities weren't given the same weight. She
would have appreciated having more background information.
lhor Fig Ius (WR) thought it was a fun exercise, but really just a game. They weren't
presented with the reality of things like costs, traffic flow, what businesses want, or even
the concept of the whole Wadsworth to Sheridan corridor. He noted the meeting was
run by a facilitator who stood before Council and poo-pooed the vote of the people,
Special City Council Minutes, January 20, 2016 Page 5
saying "they didn't really mean it". A Council vote of 5-4 is just as legitimate as a vote of
7-1. The citizens voted a certain way. Council should direct the City administration to
create a process that is within the parameters of what the people already voted on.
Having 300 people create designs and then voting on wh ich drawing they like best
doesn't stand when the whole city goes out and votes on election day.
Mary Drobnick (WR) is unpolitical. She thought the meeting and the consultants were
fabulous. She didn't note any favoritism. She left feeling positive, feels positive about
what's going to happen on 381h Ave, and thinks the Broncos will win Sunday.
Ann Brinkman (WR) was heartened by the meeting last Thursday. She thinks getting
people's addresses would be good, but also that citizens have just as much right as 38th
Ave business/property owners. Her table didn't have consensus because they didn't
have enough time. Council has a fiduciary responsibility to make sure the plan is in
place before going to the citizens. Council knows what works and what doesn't; they
should use our money wisely. She's offended that she has to be at this meeting tonight.
She believes Council should figure it out.
Scott Christopher (WR) asked Council to support the process as it is outlined . He felt
it was productive, informative and reasonably collaborative. His table was diverse and
achieved no consensus, but was respectful at disagreement. He welcomes the input of
people who don't own property in Wheat Ridge and doesn't think any stakeholder's
opinion should be more important that another's.
Caroline Mallory (WR) feels the process wasn't well described. Missing were an
explanation of the difference between main street and corridor, long term traffic plans
that will impact flow, and other possible plans for development that will have impact. At
her table consensus-building took so long they didn't have time to plan. She thinks only
WR residents and business owners should be counted. We couldn't go to other cities
and be counted. Non-residents who shop or work here may have valuable input to
consider, but we're paying for it. She believes business owners are very important and
should be included. She feels tonight's meeting helps make the process more effective.
Karen Berry (WR) said it appears to her that the councilmembers who called this
meeting believe some opinions have value and some do not. She supports including
people who live, vote, own businesses, work or shop here. Our City will only be
successful if residents and non-residents shop here. Why not include everyone? She
thinks a meeting like this divides the community, and asked that it stop now. This is a
collaborative process. Council should let it run its course, listen to all stakeholders and
then make a decision.
Vivan Vos (WR) thought the process was to be about design, but the voting got it off
track. She heard the consultant tell the Council that her company would refine 3-5
designs that represented what was submitted and bring those to the February meeting.
The voting and who gets to vote have become an issue, so she suggest not having any
voting now--wait until the designs are refined and then have online voting. She favors
asking for addresses to ensure that people who live in WR are making the decision.
Kim Calomino (WR) thought the meeting was filled with enthusiasm, excitement, and
investment in our community. She didn't sense any bias from the consultant. Her table
Special City Council Minutes, January 20, 2016 Page 6
discussed their values. She's disappointed that some thought this meeting tonight was
necessary. We all value accountability and transparency; she wants to know who is
accountable and transparent for making the accusation that citizens who participated
last Thursday were illegitimate or dishonest. She believes that calling this meeting
shows distrust of citizens and that the votes of last Thursday should count because they
were heartfelt. She urged Council not to disappoint the citizens, but to see this process
through and move forward in a collaborative way without a "Yea, but. .. ".
John Clark 0NR) appreciates this meeting tonight and noted that everyone who came
last Thursday probably drove a car. He related the democratic process at his table:
They took an immediate vote for 3 lanes and didn't discuss trees, bicycles, walkability or
safety. He hopes some line can be drawn for who can vote. He's curious where the
number of 5% non-residents came from. He believes WR residents and
business/property owners have more stake than those from elsewhere.
Mike Stites 0JVR) thought the intent last Thursday was good in that it brought people
together. The first flaw he sees in the process is back when the trial period for the road
diet ended. Originally to be 18 months, it was extended to 24 months and has never
had a real critique. It's just been forced on people and goes on and on. Also, at no time
have they ever had a proper meeting with the business and property owners on 38th -
who all want 38th to succeed because it's their livelihood. They have some great ideas,
but they've never been allowed to be heard. He's not offended to be here tonight. If it
takes meeting like this to get it right, we need to keep doing it.
Letters
Councilmember Duran read a letter from Gil McCormick of WR Cyclery praising the
Cre8 Your 38 process and encouraging Council to continue with it. She also read a
letter from an anonymous, concerned 38th Avenue business owner outlining his
concerns: 1) Citizens and business owners should have the greatest influence, 2) Need
and cost to redo the sidewalks, curbs and storm drains on 38th needs more attention, 3)
Construction time and impact to traffic and businesses was not discussed, 4) It's the
same rlan to narrow the street that voters rejected I and 5) For business redevelopment
on 38t & Wadsworth to be successful a convenient, low-congestion, east-west street
for automobile traffic needs to exist.
Councilmember Hoppe read letters from Kevin Keady (WR) and Lloyd Levy (WR),
both of which were supportive of last Thursday's meeting, the facilitator, and the
process.
Discussion followed.
Patrick Goff, city manager, indicated the issue of cost was intended to be brought
forward later in the process.
Council remarks
Councilmember Fitzgerald reviewed the purpose of the project:
• Improve property values on 38th Ave and its surrounding neighborhoods
• Removing blight and under-used properties from 381h Ave
Special City Council Minutes, January 20, 2016 Page 7
• Move into the 21 51 century. This is no longer the age of the automobile; it's the
age of people walking, biking and interacting. Old people will die and young
people will move here so we should build for the future.
• Provide an identifying focal point, a lively bustling symbol, a gathering place-not
a quiet blighted street that just moves traffic. To build a better place for our
children; that's what government is and all citizens should be about.
Regarding the process:
• It was designed to turn the entire design process over to the citizens because
Council has been criticized in the past on its design attempts.
• The first meeting is just to get a consensus-to see what people want.
• There's been a huge amount of publicity so no one can say they didn't know
about it.
• Everyone was given the opportunity to express their opinion.
• The process is not about changing the road width, but only to make things fit into
the space that's there.
• Consideration of things like cost, the West End project [apartments at 381h &
Upham] and Wadsworth will come later.
• He believes it was almost a perfect exercise in democracy.
• We can't allow the preventers of progress to poison this process.
• There were only 2 people from out of town that he could identify.
Councilmember Davis
• Apologized for the problems (lack of parking, people being turned away, not
enough clickers), which she senses were a result of the large volume of people.
• Thinks checking out clickers is a good idea.
• Thinks people felt safe, had fun and enjoyed the process.
• Believes we can learn; there are things we can fine tune in the process.
Councilmember Hoppe
• Observed new citizens were in the process sharing and being engaged.
• Believes it was stated up-front that going outside the 60ft ROW was getting onto
private property.
• Likes the real time voting process; it was just to find some consensus.
• Felt it was a creative team-building process.
• Is comfortable with checking out clickers, cross checking addresses to avoid
duplicate voting, and having someone being the heavy at the beginning to lay
down the law so people feel safe.
Councilmember Pond wasn't at the meeting, but is happy to learn there were new
people involved and that people worked together. He would celebrate two things:
• The outreach worked so well we had problems with too many people
• We got people to sit down and talk about hard things.
He supports small modifications to the process.
• Supports taking addresses, but not with trying to ID stakeholders
• Supports limiting comments at 1 B to people who were turned away last week
• Doesn't support I Ding a person with a clicker
Special City Council Minutes, January 20, 2016 Page 8
He believes the voting was just consensus-building and doesn't think it was a serious
issue to include people from outside the community.
Councilmember Urban clarified that he does think residents' wishes should have more
weight than that of a business owner who doesn't live here. After that he would look to
business and property owners. He accepts stakeholders who don't live in WR and
thinks they should offer input; he absolutely doesn't want to exclude them. He just
wants to be able to know what the residents want. His point about the clickers was not
to identify individual people-just to possibly identify what type of stakeholder a vote
came from . He agrees it was a good process; he'd just like to make it better.
Councilmember Duran doesn't want to change the process -just tweak it. She thinks
it's a good process. She supports keeping it to WR residents and business and property
owners; they have a higher stake in this. She believes there are thousands out in the
community who want to be involved and heard, and she doesn't want them to turn away
because they feel they aren't being listened to .
Councilmember Mathews repeated that he wants to preserve the process.
• He doesn't think people understood about the three sections of 381h.
• He doesn't want people to walk away with expectations about what we can and
can't deliver.
• He's not in favor of people who don't live here having a say. Input yes, but not
voting.
Staff comments
Mr. Goff reported.
• Staff already considered the possibility of a large crowd and the need for a
second meeting.
• The February meeting is advertised for the Rec Center. The gym could be a
possibility to provide more space, but the acoustics aren't good.
• They'll work on shuttle service from across the street as parking is a concern,
and there will be a crossing guard.
• Tomorrow's meeting is in the same ball room. The process will be the same, but
they will ask for residents' addresses.
Mark Westberg, City engineer, announced the van at the Active Adult Center will leave
at 5:00pm. He'd really like people who came to the first meeting to stay home tomorrow
so there is room for the people who got turned away last week. He wants to keep the
process as close to the same as the first meeting as possible. They are working on
things for the February meeting -which will also be collaborative.
Maurine Harper, City public information officer, reported they are conducting an online
survey for people who couldn't attend the first or second meeting. Folks will have to
give their name and address and read through some information, then they'll be able to
vote on the designs from the two Thursday meetings. The survey will run from Friday
through close of business on Monday. This survey will take the place of a Saturday
meeting. This survey will be announced on all social media channels.
Special City Council Minutes, January 20 , 2016 Page 9
There was some Council discussion about participation from non-residents.
Motion by Councilmember Davis to move forward with a similar process as last
Thursday with fine-tuning for parking and transportation, encouraging folks who already
participated to make room for new participants, asking participants to provide their
home address, and further that items of concern such as cost, proposed development
and the PEL study will be addressed as we move forward; seconded by Councilmember
Mathews.
It was clarified that the online survey will be available to everyone. Staff has agreed to
have more clickers.
The motion carried 7-0.
AD JOURNMENT
The Meeting adjourned at 9:26pm.
ON FEBRUARY 8, 2016
The preceding Minutes were prepared according to §47 of Robert's Rules of Order, i.e. they
contain a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members.
Recordings and DVD's of the meetings are available for listening or viewing in the City Clerk's
Office, as well as copies of Ordinances and Resolutions.