Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-07/12/1983-AdjournedADJOURNED MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO July 12, 1983 5:30 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, July 12, 1983, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Council members: Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Absent: Councilmember Horak. Staff Members Present: Arnold, Meitl, Huisjen, Krajicek, C. Smith Resolution Amending and Overruling the Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board Relative to the Development of the Property Traded to Mr. Joe Roesser in the Pineridge Open Space Area, Resolution Not Considered Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "On April 19, 1983, City Council considered and approved Resolution 83-80 authorizing the City Manager to exchange a portion of City owned property for some privately owned property in the Pineridge Open Space area. The attached Agenda Item Summaries were presented to Council as background and the basis for staff recommendation that Council take this action. As indicated in these memos, the basic reason for recommending approval of this land exchange is to preserve views of the foothills from the City of Fort Collins. City owned property on the west side of the ridgeline would be exchanged for privately owned property on the east side of the ridgeline thereby potentially allowing development on the west side of the ridgeline but precluding development from the east side. Subsequent to the passage of Resolution 83-80, the properties in question were surveyed, a contract drawn up to initiate the exchange, and a subdivi- sion plat on the parcel presently owned by the City to be traded to Joe ' Roesser was submitted by Mr. Roesser and reviewed by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board. -332- 1 Adjourned Meeting July 12, 1983 During the Planning and Zoning Board's consideration of this item, several residents expressed concern over the subdivision and over the trade of land as proposed. These people were informed that the Planning and Zoning Board was only considering the subdivision request and that any reconsideration of the trade would have to be brought before Council. After deliberations, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the proposed subdivi- sion with the condition that no development be allowed above the ridgeline and that a 50 foot landscape easement be provided to the west of the ridgeline. This brings us to the July 5, 1983, Council meeting. After the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the residents contacted the City Manager's office, and several Council members, and requested that they have an opportunity to ask Council to reconsider authorization of the trade. They made this request since the contract between the City and Mr. Roesser had yet to be signed by either party. Staff felt that delaying signing of the agreement until at least July 5, 1983, would not cause any undue problems, and, at the suggestion of John Clarke, scheduled the item for discussion under Other Business on July 5, 1983. The other issue brought up for consideration on July 5, 1983, was over- ' ruling the Planning and Zoning Board's condition placed on the subdivision. In Council Resolution 83-80, conditions were placed on development of the property to be traded to Mr. Roesser which would preclude development from protruding above the, treeline, rather than the ridgeline and a 30 foot landscape easement be provided rather than a 50 foot easement. Mr. Roesser has contended that imposition of a requirement that no development protrude above the ridgeline would be unacceptable to him and he would not be interested in pursuing the trade. Therefore, the City's position on the subdivision was brought before Council to consider overturning the Planning and Zoning Board's conditions and applying the conditions approved in Resolution 83-80. RECOMMENDATION Staff strongly supports the idea of trading the properties in question. Protection of the ridgeline views from the City has been a long-standing City policy and this trade provides additional protection with little or no cost to the City. To accomplish this action in the simplest way would require passage of the resolution overturning the Planning and Zoning Board's conditions and taking no action on Resolution 83-80. This would leave Resolution 83-80 in tact, giving the City Manager the authority to enter into the contract with Mr. Roesser to exchange the property, and would provide the County with a recommendation acceptable to Mr. Roesser . and consistent with the conditions outlined in Resolution 83-80." -333- ' Adjourned Meeting July 12, 1983 Director of Planning and Development Curt Smith gave an update on the Roesser property negotiations and showed site maps of the location. He restated the staff recommendation which was to leave the original Resolu- tion (83-80) intact and take some action, if desired, on the Planning and Zoning Board conditions. If Council decided not to override the Planning and Zoning Board and let their conditions stand, no action would need to be taken and Resolution 83-80 authorizing the trade would stand and the conditions on the property set by the Planning and Zoning Board would also stand. Mayor Knezovich pointed out that in addition to the Resolution included in the packet, City Attorney John Huisjen had provided a Resolution that would revoke and rescind Resolution 83-80 which authorizes the trade. Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Resolution 83-123 revoking and rescinding Resolution 83-80. Councilmember Rutstein asked if there was anyone present from the Larimer County Planning staff to explain the standing of the exemption request. Russ Legg, County Planning, replied that on May 2 the Commissioners ap- proved an exemption, the creation of one additional lot to the 3 existing lots in the area. He identified the area on a map and noted Mr. Roesser had also been asked to put the east facing portion of the area into per- manent privately -held open space. He added that at a later date the owner of the property could submit a subdivision that could possibly be approved. He stated these lands were permanently in open space until the public body that controls the covenant decides to change that status. He added those changes are rarely made. Councilmember Clarke pointed out a court could also change the open space status because of what they felt were extenuating circumstances. City Attorney Huisjen stated he felt it was very unlikely a court would order that result. The following persons spoke on this issue: 1. Jim Martell, representing Mr. Roesser the applicant, traced the history of the proposal from the beginning. He submitted an appraisal of a lot located entirely on the east side of'the ridge that showed a value of $14,000 per acre. He felt this appraisal would give some idea of the value of the 23 acres proposed for exchange. 2. Tim Johnson, 2939 Brookwood Place, Chairman of the Poudre Canyon branch ' of the Sierra Club, stated he felt the trade was inappropriate and favored revoking and rescinding the Resolution authorizing the exchange. -334- Adjourned Meeting ' July 12, 1983 3. Allison Horton, 2407 W. Drake Road, Town and Country Boarding Stables, spoke of the use of the land by the area residents. 4. Jackie Hadwick, 3505 South Centennial Drive, read a statement prepared by her husband and herself favoring the revoking and rescinding of the land exchange. 5. Mary Anne Lang, 3509 Centennial Drive, questioned how many of the trees could be replaced if they were destroyed. 6. Jay Boyd Best, Jr., 3521 South Centennial Drive, read a statement on behalf of his father, Jay Boyd Best, Sr., C.S.U. Professor, expressing concern about environmental issues in the area of the proposed property exchange and noting was against the trade. 7. Tedd Gatteau, 3425 South Centennial Drive, local realtor, spoke of his involvement in the ownership, sale or trade of property on the ridge running from Dixon Dam to Spring Canyon Dam. He spoke against the proposed exchange. 8. Jim Main, Moore and Company, read a letter from his client, Phil I Landers of Palo Alto, California, that spoke against the proposed trade. 9. Joe Roesser, applicant, noted he had been working on the project since July, 1979. He spoke of the advantages to be gained from precluding house building on the ridgeline or the east side of the proposed trade. He showed photographs taken from Overland Trail near C.S.U. stadium showing both the house that is visible above the treeline and the house built 5 feet below the treeline. 10. John Gascoyne, attorney representing some of the homeowners on Centen- nial Drive, presented petitions containing approximately 80 signatures against the proposed exchange. Councilmember Clarke spoke of his 3 year concern and experience with this property dating from his term on the Planning and Zoning Board. He noted he had an overriding goal to keep people from building homes on the east side of the foothills and stated this trade was a good opportunity for the City to obtain land in the foothills. Councilmember Rutstein stated she was uncomfortable with Council's earlier decision to adopt Resolution 83-80 and her earlier vote on that Resolution. She stated she had since become aware of additional information and had formed different opinions. She felt there was no reason to go ahead with ' something some of the Councilmembers were uninformed about. -335- 5 Adjourned Meeting July 12, 1983 The vote on Councilmember Rustein's motion to adopt Resolution 83-123, revoking and rescinding Resolution 83-80 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Elliott, Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: Councilmembers Clarke and Cassell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Cassell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Cassell, Clarke, Elliott, Knezo- vich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. �$SISW17 Mayor 0-11 ATTEST: ,ty C erc' 1 -336-