HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/30/1995-Adjourned' May 30, 1995
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, May 30,
1995, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey and
Smith.
Councilmember Absent: Wanner
Staff Members Present: Davis, Jones, Roy.
Consideration of the Appeal of the
April 24, 1995 Decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board Approving,
with Conditions, a Proposed Residential
Development Project Known As The Ponds
' at Overland Trail - Cluster Development Plan
and Preliminary Plat - Reconsideration For
Compliance with Section 29-116 (6), #9-94B,
Decision of Planning and Zoning Board Upheld w/Conditions
J
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
On April 24, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board approved, with conditions, The Ponds at
Overland Trail, R-F Cluster Development Plan and Preliminary Plat in a Reconsideration For
Compliance with Section 29-116 (6) of the Zoning Code. The project consists of a Cluster
Development Plan for 284 single family lots on 284.23 acres. -(This is not a P. U.D. reviewed
by the Land Development Guidance B st m.)
On May 8, 1995, Councilmember Apt appealed the Board's decision. The appeal states:
"1 want the Ft. Collins City Council to consider whether or not the cluster plan meets
criterion #6."
116
May 30, 1995
"Issues I am concerned about are the overall density of the cluster development, the placement '
of cluster E, and their impact on the views, aesthetics and foothills policies embodied in
criterion #6. "
The attached documents include the Notice of Appeal, the Planning Department response to the
appeal, and the information packet that was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board for the
April 24, 1995 meeting. In addition, verbatim minutes of the April 24th meeting are included. The
procedures for considering and deciding the Appeal are described in Chapter 2, Article II, Division
3 of the City Code.
BACKGROUND:
January 23, 1995:
P & Z approves, with conditions, The Ponds at Overland Trail R-F Cluster Development Plan
and Preliminary Plat.
2. February 6, 1995:
Notice of Appeal fled by parties -in -interest.
3. March 7, 1995: ,
City Council upholds and modifies the P & Z decision and sends the project back to P & Zfor
reconsideration for compliance with Section 29-116 (6) (criterion pertaining views). See
Resolution 95-44, attached.
4. April 10, 1995:
Neighborhood meeting is held to further discuss project with affected property owners.
5. April24, 1995:
Upon reconsideration, P & Z approves, with conditions, and finds that Section 29-116 (6) was
satisfied.
6. May 8, 1995:
Councilmember Apt files appeal."
City Attorney Steve Roy gave a brief presentation on this item, noting the decision of the Planning
and Zoning by was appealed by Councilmember Apt. He explained why the issue could not be '
117
May 30, 1995
remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board clarifying Council's options were to uphold, overtum
or modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Councilmember Apt stated when the item was remanded, Council requested that the Planning and
Zoning Board look at certain issues which he did not believe were addressed. He stated he did not
believed criterion #6 addressing the foothills, had been met. He stated there were major concerns
expressed by citizens regarding the foothills with respect to this project.
City Planner Ted Shepard gave a presentation on this item and showed slides that were presented
at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. He described the location of the proposed development
and stated he and Environmental Planner Rob Wilkinson were available for Council questions.
Robert Davidson, 1203 Cascade Court, protested the time limits for discussion of the appeal.
Mayor Azari outlined the time allotments and stated Council sets its own precedent when an appeal
is initiated by a Councilmember.
Support of the Appeal
Dennis Stenson, 2820 West Elizabeth, expressed concerns regarding aesthetics and the impact the
development would have on traffic, air pollution and wildlife.
Leon Heatherington, 4017 Spruce Drive, spoke of his concerns regarding the scenic view between
Horsetooth and Bellvue and urged that the site be preserved in its present state.
Robert Davidson, 1203 Cascade Court, believed the Planning and Zoning Board and Council
received inadequate information and expressed his concerns regarding the fate of the foothills.
Brad Edwards, a Fort Collins resident, noted he distributed written testimony to Council and wished
to amend it. After further comments from Mr. Edwards, he withdrew his comments.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated it is important for everyone to receive written comments in advance
of the meeting to give the prevailing side an opportunity to prepare a response.
Opponents
John Spillane, attorney representing Gateway American Properties, stated the project was presented
for annexation over a year ago and has appeared before the Planning and Zoning Board four times.
He stated that he believed the proposed development has benefited by the scrutiny of the Board. He
stated the project is consistent with the Foothills Policies and requested the decision of the Planning
and Zoning Board be modified to read as follows:
1 118
May 30, 1995
"By approval of this Cluster Development Plan the layout and densities as shown on the '
plan are hereby approved and vested as provided in Section 29-512 and the following
Sections of that Article in the Code for the term setforth in the Annexation Agreement
dated September 20, 1994 between and among the City, Wallace R. Noel and HMN
Limited Liability Company. However the applicant must complete and obtain approval
of, final utility and drainage plans and other such documents as are required by the City
for review and approval of final subdivision plats pursuant to Section 29-643 of the
Code, before the applicant can obtain any Building Permit or perform any construction
earth work on the property."
Frank Vaught, Vaught Frye Architects, stated he believed there was a limited impact on the aesthetic
view of the foothills and stated the project meets criterion #6. He stated building heights would not
exceed the 5250 ft. elevation and remarked the proposed project is consistent with the Foothills
Policy.
Rebuttal - Support
Dave Harrison, 712 Kimball Road, expressed concerns regarding density.
Brad Edwards, a Fort Collins resident, stated he did not believe the Planning and Zoning Board took
the traffic impact into consideration or the impact the proposed development would have on the view I
of the foothills.
John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain Avenue, concurred with comments by Mr. Edwards relating to
the aesthetics of the view.
Robert Davidson, 1203 Cascade Court, spoke of soil reports and stated there is no opportunity to go
back to the County since the property has been involuntarily annexed by the City. He stated that
disregard of the Foothills Area Policy would jeopardize the relationship between the City and
Larimer County.
Rebuttal - Opposition
Frank Vaught, Vaught Frye Architects, he stated that staff and the Board concluded the project
complies with the policies in the R-F Zone District. He stated if allowed to be built, this would be
a quality neighborhood and stated only 32% of the site would be developed. He urged Council to
uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Gayla Martinez, representing her aunt, Mrs. Erma Devers, expressed concerns regarding the
preservation of the Maxwell Rock House.
119
May 30, 1995
' City Planner Ted Shepard responded to Council questions and clarified that if the property is
deannexed, the County would determine if the development proposal would merit annexation to the
City. He stated parcels under 35 acres above 5250 ft. elevation are exempt from state law for County
review and would not be reviewed by the Commissioners or Planning Commission. He stated access
and health and sanitation issues would have to be addressed according to state law. He spoke of the
conditions placed on the development.
Spillane stated that after the preparation and approval of the final plat Gateway American Properties
would precede with the first phase immediately.
Vaught responded to questions regarding visual and street width issues.
Councilmember McCluskey requested clarified regarding the IGA vs. the RF Zoning.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated it was his opinion that the development should be approved or denied
on the basis of the criteria in the Code that applies to Cluster Development Plans. If the County, as
a party to the agreement, believes any decision under the Code is in violation of the
Intergovernmental Agreement, the County would be able to seek enforcement of that agreement.
Shepard clarified that all plans which are approved are recorded. He explained the definition "see
' through" as it relates to the corridor and outlined open character locations. He clarified the
substation on the site is not in use and the owner will pay for its removal.
Vaught showed slides and responded to questions regarding open space and landscaping plans.
11
Shepard responded to questions regarding the correlation between the RF Zone and the UGA, stating
an amendment was made to the UGA. He stated this was an area that was eligible to be included in
the Urban Growth Area boundaries.
Councilmember Janett expressed concerns regarding setting a precedent for future developments if
there is vacant land in the area.
Shepard clarified the land to the north is owned by CSU and is exempt from local zoning.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated if the development were approved, the modified language suggested
by the applicant would be preferable to the condition imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board to
avoid any questions regarding interpretation.
Davidson clarified for Council he did not believe the density was appropriate considering what was
intended for the property. He stated this type of density would destroy the rural character of the land.
120
May 30, 1995
Roy responded to Council questions and clarified a 3/3 vote would mean the decision of the Planning '
and Zoning Board would be upheld.
Vaught stated the Design Guidelines are not covenants attached to the property.
Shepard reported development proposal signs were posted on and off for several months and
responded to density questions.
Mayor Azari spoke of open space concerns and access from Overland Trail.
Roy stated if the land was dedicated for public use he would have no concerns regarding the public's
ability to use it. He spoke of annexation decisions and stated Council would make the final
decision.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adjourn into
Executive Session for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: Councilmember Smith.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned into Executive Session at 9:30 p.m. '
At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
Councilmember Smith questioned if mid -year evaluations for City Attorney, Municipal Judge and
Interim City Manager could be deferred to another meeting time due to the length of the meeting.
Municipal Judge Kathy Allin stated she would not be opposed to rescheduling her review.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Janett, to overturn the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board, denying the Two Ponds Cluster Plan Development.
Councilmember Apt described what he believed to be flaws in the process, reemphasizing the
development does not met criterion #6. He stated he believed the density was inappropriate and
stated there would be permanent damage to the view of the foothills.
Councilmember McCluskey stated he would not support the motion, because he did not believe the
proposed development would impact the view of the foothills.
Councilmember Kneeland opposed the motion, stating she believed the proposal was sensitive to
the Foothills Residential Zoning District and its policies. She spoke of the importance of preserving
the historic Maxwell Rock House. 1
121
May 30, 1995
' Councilmember Smith stated there would be a visual impact on the view of the foothills regardless
of the vote and spoke of problems in providing public access to the ditch road.
Councilmember Janett stated she seconded the motion to put the issue on the table, but was also
undecided regarding her vote. She spoke of the positive aspects of the project namely large amounts
of open space, preservation of wetlands, bike trails and of historic sites. She spoke of the negative
effects of the proposed development, namely aesthetic impact, obstruction of the view corridor on
Overland Trail, and conflicts between IGA for the UGA and RF Zone compliance.
Mayor Azari stated she did not support the motion and believed the Planning and Zoning Board
decision was appropriate.
The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Janett and
Smith. Nays: Councilmembers Azari, McCluskey and Kneeland.
THE MOTION FAILED.
City Attorney Steve Roy stated Council could modify the condition that was placed on the
development by the Planning and Zoning Board by a majority vote.
' Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to modify the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to include the language read into the record by Mr.
Spillane. (See Page 118)
City Attorney Steve Roy stated since the attorney for the applicant had already read the language into
the record, there was no need to restate it.
Councilmember Apt offered an amendment to the previous motion that the guidelines stated in the
Architectural Guidelines on the Ponds at Overland Trail be made mandatory.
Councilmembers Kneeland and McCluskey accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment to
their previous motion.
Councilmember McCluskey asked the developer if that would be acceptable.
After looking at the map, Mr. Spillane stated that it would be acceptable and explained the changes.
He stated it would be difficult to mandate roof pitches, and requested those be left as is.
Councilmember Apt stated that would be acceptable.
Councilmember Smith stated he would not be supporting the motion, stating he believed it was an
extreme case of micro management.
122
May 30, 1995
The vote on Councilmember Kneeland's motion as amended was as f6llows: Yeas: '
Councilmembers Apt, Azari, Janett, Kneeland and McCluskey. Nays: Councilmember Smith.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Cry Manager Search Process Discussion
Mayor Azari spoke of the process for discussion.
Human Resources Director Jaime Mares stated he was available for questions.
Paul Reaume, PAR Group Inc., briefly reviewed the search process and of the need to move ahead
as quickly as possible.
Mayor Azari suggested sending a visiting delegation to Vancouver to gather additional information
regarding Mr. Fischbach as a candidate for City Manager, and spoke of the importance of developing
an additional pool of candidates.
(Secretary's Note: Councilmember Wanner arrived at 10:22 p.m. and was seated in the audience)
Councilmember McCluskey stated the Citizen Committee did a lot of good hard work on the I
process. He stated in fairness to Mr. Fischbach he would support investigating him further.
Reaume stated the firm made an attempt to select applicants who have had prior experience
regarding Colorado government and Colorado utilities. He clarified there were only 3 candidates
from Colorado with that type of experience.
David Lipp, 626 Remington Street, urged Council to offer the job to Mr. Fischbach.
Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to adjourn into
Executive Session to discuss personnel matters relating to the City Manager search process.
City Attorney Steve Roy responded to Council, stating he would be willing to postpone his mid -year
evaluation.
(Secretary's Note: Councilmember Wanner took his seat and participated in the Executive Session)
The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett,
Kneeland, McCluskey and Wanner. Nays: Councilmembers Apt and Smith.
THE MOTION CARRIED.,
123
May 30, 1995
I
Council adjourned into Executive Session at 10:30 p.m.
At the conclusion of the Executive Session the meeting reconvened at 1 1:30 p.m.
Councilmember Apt made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to send a delegation
comprised of Councilmembers McCluskey, and Janett and City Attorney Steve Roy, to Vancouver
as soon as possible.
Mayor Azari highlighted the discussion of Council during Executive Session regarding the formation
of a delegation and its responsibilities. She directed Mr. Reaume to prepare an additional list of
finalists by June 6.
The vote on Councilmember Apt's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Apt, Azari,
Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
OTHER BUSINESS
Councilmember Smith reported the Transportation Board has requested that the size of the Board
' be expanded.
Councilmember Apt stated alternates were needed on the Commission on Disability.
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1 010SOM0
124