Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/23/1993PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 23, 1993 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Support Liaison: Tom Peterson The August 23, 1993 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order al 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chair Lloyd Walker, Sharon Winfree, Jim Klataske, Jennifer Fontane, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier and Rene Clements -Cooney. Staff members present included Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank, Kirsten Whetstone, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Kayla Ballard and Diane Slater. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Frank reviewed the Consent Agenda, which consisted of. Item 1—Minutes of the duly 26 and August 2, 1993 Planning and Zoning Meetings; Item 2—Greenbriar Village PUD, 2nd Filing - Preliminary, Case #19-93C; Item 4—Harmony 66 - Non -Conforming Use, Case #46- 93; Item S--Silver Oaks PUD, 2nd Filing - Final, Case #14-88H; Item 6—CAT 15th, Cinema Savers - Preliminary, Case #53-85F; Item 7—Wildwood Farm PUD, 1st and 2nd Filings - Preliminary, Case #90-8511; Item 8—Modification of Conditions of Final Approval; Item 10- -Sunstone Village PUD, 8th Filing - Final, Case #57-86M. Mr. Frank reviewed the Discussion Agenda, which included: Item 11—Lindimer Subdivision - Final, Case #26-93A; Item 12—Topanga at Hillpond PUD - Preliminary, Case #2-87H; Item 13—Referral of Administrative Change of Raintree PUD, Case #146-79B; Item 14—Raintree PUD - Two Year Extension of Final Approval, Case #146-79B. Member Strom requested Item 7, Wildwood Farm PUD, 1st and 2nd Filings - Preliminary be pulled for discussion. Member Winfree requested Item 6, CAT 15th, Cinema Savers - Preliminary be pulled for discussion. Member Cottier requested Item 10, Sunstone Village PUD, 8th Filing - Final be pulled for discussion. Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 29 49 5, and S. Member Fontane seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. i _ J-.N iRlw 9' U n M, 13: 1 Ted Shepard, Project Planner, stated that this was a request for a 19,344 square foot 6-plex movie theater located in Tract R of the Centre for Advanced Technology, 3.15 acres near the northeast comer of Drake and Shields on Worthington Circle and zoned BP, Planned Business. • Access is provided by an extension of Worthington Circle. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 2 Bruce Darden of Ross, Sheppard, and Pasqua Architects, introduced himself as the owner's representative for Cinema Savers Theater Group. He noted that the four conditions that had been discussed at the work session were acceptable for the final PUD. Member Winfree said that she had noted 1200 theater seats were in the proposal and was concerned with the limited number of bicycle parking spots available and also the kind of structure available for bicycle parking. She commented that this is a community that was exploring and encouraging alternate forms of transportation and would like to know if the applicants can provide what she would consider to be more adequate bike accommodations. Mr. Darden replied that this was a comment made at the initial submittal to the Planning and. Zoning Board. They had discussed why a bicycle enclosure might not be appropriate for the project at a subsequent meeting and then in a meeting with Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner. He stated that Ms. Albertson -Clark agreed to waive the requirement, based on the following four conditions: 1) provide parking for 10 bicycles; 2) double the number of racks; 3) move the bicycle parking closer to the front entrance to provide better night security; and 4) provide a temporary bicycletpedestrian path from the front entrance to the intersection of Drake and Shields to make it more easily accessible. Member Winfree asked what was discussed in those first discussions with Planning Staff and what was the rationale for not wanting to do more with bicycles. Haydn Silleck, President of Cinema Saver Theaters, replied that doubling the number of racks, bringing them closer to the building, and installing the bike path would encourage use of bicycles. He noted that covered bicycle parking is expensive and not practical because the bicycle rider will still be wet if it is raining. At their Boulder theater, bicycling patrons bring rain gear and change inside the building. Member Winfree asked about the bicycle racks themselves and the lighting in the area. Mr. Silleck stated that there is both outdoor recessed lighting under the awnings in front and lighting on the corners of the building as well as light which will come through the large storefront glazed windows at the entrance. The racks will be anchored to the concrete sidewalk, attractive and probably the u-shape type, so as not to bevandalized. Member Strom asked about the size of their Boulder theater and the use of the bike racks there. Mr. Silleck replied that the Boulder theater seats 600 and is located in a small shopping center, and he doesn't know how much the racks are utilized. L • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 3 41'11! There was no public input. Member Winfree reiterated her previous concern and noted that the theater will be located in a fairly densely populated area, close to existing bikepaths and with the installation of the bicycle/pedestrian path it would be reasonable to encourage bicycle use by having facilities that encourage use. Mr. Silleck replied that he believed they have tried to provide adequate facilities and encourage use with the conditions previously mentioned and if they find they have more bicycle use than anticipated, they will provide more facilities. Member Clements -Cooney moved approval of the Centre for Advanced Technology PUD 16th Filing Preliminary Plan with the following four staff conditions:1) At the time of Final PUD, the parking stalls on the southwest edge of the parking lot shall be equipped with a • landscaped buffer; 2) At the time of Final PUD, the architectural elevations shall indicate the use of additional exterior building material or feature that offers a distinct contrast from the sole reliance on the on the gray -toned concrete block. Such material may rely on the use of color, texture, shape, or any other distinguishing characteristic that clearly provides visual relief from gray -toned concrete block; 3) At the time of Final PUD, the Site Plan shall include a temporary, asphalt bicycle -pedestrian path connecting the sidewalk at the Drake/Shields intersection to the bicycle racks in front of the theater, and; 4) At the time of Final PUD, the parking lot access onto Worthington Circle shall be widened to accommodate three lanes of traffic. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. Member Strom stated that he did not require a staff report but would like some discussion of the site plan, particularly with regard to the grid design of the streets and the relationship of the straight streets to the access point of the County Road. . Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, stated that this is a request for Preliminary PUD approval for 110 single family lots on 29.54 acres, located west of County Road 9, east of Corbett Drive, approximately one quarter mile south of Harmony Road, and is just east of Jr. High 1994. The • site is zoned EP, Employment Park. The proposed density is 3.72 units per acre. This proposal was evaluated against the Harmony Corridor Plan as well as the Solar Orientation Ordinance. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 4 Member Strom noted that this is a flat site without many features and that he was concerned about the affect of straight streets allowing a buildup of speed, especially from the school to the County Road access and also the use of the grid and how this relates to the solar ordinance. Eldon Ward, of Cityscape Urban Design, represented the owner, Wild Wood Farm, Inc. He agreed that a more curvilinear design would be desirable and said that they had to deal with the direct connection of the Jr. High to the County Road. When the planned signal is installed on Corbett Drive and another point of access to the north on Wildwood is built, the road will no longer be a straight shot. Other factors affecting the grid layout were 1) the north/south alignment of the site itself; 2) the shallow Harmony trunk sewer on the east edge of the property line, given that the city utilities prefer to put sewers under streets; 3) the flatness of the site, which made it difficult to get proper drainage with a more creative street design; and 4.) the solar ordinance, which specifies more east/west streets and north/south lots. Mr. Ward mentioned that a more curvilinear plan was originally considered but the sewer and drainage presented difficulties. The curves were principally around the corners but that would only work at a 25 mph design speed instead of the current 30 mph design speed. The City Engineering staff would not support a variance to design at a lower speed with sight distance easements. The staff recommended right angle intersections at comers. Member Strom commented that he would like to hear from the staff about the design speed issue and understood this design is a unique response to the particulars of the site but he was still somewhat concerned about the potential speed problem. Member Cottier noted that the site plan states that the temporary road will be used for school buses and emergency vehicles only. She asked how traffic will be controlled. Mr. Ward said they will sign it to cut down on day to day traffic. He believed the road should not be built as a permanent street to cut down on use, although some city departments feel it should be totally built. He confirmed that there will be a permanent walkway access. Member Cottier asked about the time frame for installing the signal on Corbett Road. Mr. Ward said he didn't know but it would be when it is needed --possibly in 4 or 5 years. PUBLIC INPUT There was no public input. Member Strom asked for input from the Engineering Dept. about design speed, noting he wasn't aware that the design speed had been changed and what were the implications. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 5 Mike Herzig, City Engineer, said the current design for city streets is 30 mph. It was changed in 1986. Prior to that, 25 mph design speeds were allowed on short loops or cul-de-sacs. Mr. Ward was referring to the L-shaped intersections. The Engineering Department believed the curve caused potential problems because the long straight streets would allow speed buildup and sight distance easements would be required to allow adequate visibility. He noted that 25 mph design speed is still allowed but requires a variance. Design speed is not a speed limit but rather picking a speed that up to 85 % of the traffic drives. Member Strom asked if people would learn to slow down before the curve. Mr. Herzig replied that a curve isn't used to slow traffic. Instead, a series of curves or stop sign would be used, as well as providing a safe environment for traffic traveling at the speed . limit. Member Fontane commented that in this case it would seem that using a 30 mph design speed would slow traffic more effectively because traffic would need to slow down more. • Mr. Herzig said that either the street can be designed at design speed if the street has curves or the street can use an intersection, as is done here, to give more control over the speed. Member Strom moved to approve Wildwood Farm PUD, 1st and 2nd Filing - Preliminary, subject to the following three staff conditions: 1) That prior tofinal approval, a note be added to the landscape plan, requiring each lot owner to be responsible by covenant to plant one 2-inch caliper street tree per street frontage; 2) That the responsibility of maintenance of the detention ponds be decided prior to final approval, and so noted on the plans, and; 3) That the design of the temporary roadway be finalized and approved by the Fire Authority, and City Engineering, Transportation, and Planning departments prior to final approval. Member Fontane seconded'the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Corder stated that she had concerns with the landscape buffer on the south edge being the responsibility of the property owner of parcel G and asked what enforcement would be provided. • Kirsten Whetstone responded that, after evaluating the master plan, the developers decided to show landscaping plans on the master plan so potential homeowners would know about the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 6 requirement and if it went to commercial development, then the homeowners would know the landscaping would happen. If the property to the south develops as single family, then the landscaping would not be necessary. No irrigation would be provided. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, represented the owner, Geneva Homes, Inc. He explained that this information was not required by city staff but reflects a pre-existing agreement between the owners. At the time of the master plan, they could see that residential areas would abut commercial areas and agreed on the criteria for a buffer. This landscaping reflects the minimum of what already exists. Member Cottier asked if the owner of Parcel G would be responsible for the fifteen foot landscape buffer in the private agreement. Mr. Ward confirmed they would. Jvlaplmluaal There was no public input. Member Cottier moved to approve Sunstone Village PUD, 8th Filing - Final. Member Fontane seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, said this was a request for 15 single family lots on 4.3 acres, located one quarter mile north of Horsetooth Road and one half mile west of Shields Street at the end of Birmingham Drive. Mark Linder, applicant, represented himself and Bret Larimer. He stated that this was an infill project and through the site plan, covenants, new property owner disclosure, fence, and landscape buffer, the developers have attempted to address the neighborhood concerns. They are unwilling to provide the 100 foot setback requested by the owners of the Horsetooth Stables property for several reasons: 1) the 100 feet is off the widest part of the property and would reduce density to 11 units, which is less than the minimum required in the city; 2) neighborhood meetings with residents of Rossborough, Wagonwheel, and Kingston Woods showed no complaints about odor, lights, or night noise from the stables. A resident of Rossborough who is 35 feet from the stable property line had no complaints and this is the same distance as Lindimer's closest proposed unit; 3) the wood fence they are building is safer than the current • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 7 barbed wire; 4) since the stable is full to capacity, the owner's livelihood has not been adversely affected by the building of Kingston Woods in the past year; 5) reducing the number of lots from 15 to 11 will add at least $4,00045,000 to the price of each home, making the houses less affordable since the cost of development is the same for 11 or 15. Therefore, he is asking the Board to consider granting a variance to allow them to build the house on lot 11 with the garage access off the dead-end as requested by the owners of Horsetooth Stables. They feel the project meets the code and request approval. 10JAARBI�11 There was no public input. Member Strom asked Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, to read the conditions for granting a variance under the subdivision code. Mr. Eckman confirmed with Ms. Whetstone that the applicant was applying under the provisions • of the "equal to or better than" variance. Member Winfree asked how close the dwelling on lot 11 would be to the adjacent property line. Mr. Linder responded that they will build the house as far to the north as possible. The lot is 65 feet at the setback and he expects the house to be possibly 20 or 25 feet from the property line. Chair Walker asked why a variance was needed. Ms. Whetstone clarified that the request for a variance comes from City Council after the project had been appealed. The City Council requested that Planning and Zoning look at the possibility of using the garage on the south side to buffer the house. Kerrie Ashbeck, City Civil Engineer, said that the City Code requires that at a dead-end street, there is either a temporary cul-de-sac or no house access to the street, for reasons of fire safety and allowing a public turnaround without going on private property. The options for meeting the code are to provide a temporary off -site easement or build a temporary cul-de-sac on the developer's property. The City Council suggestion takes the lot out of compliance. The cul-de- sac is not good for such a small development. Other solutions have been to grant a variance for the driveway as an access easement or not get a building permit on that lot. Chair Walker asked if the city requires paving to the property line. Ms. Ashbeck confirmed that would be required so the lot would have complete street frontage. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 8 Chair Walker asked if the city would require the road to be blocked off beyond the driveway. Ms. Ashbeck said that would be difficult to do. The city would like to encourage people to use the existing cul-de-sac. Mr. Linder noted there will be a visible fence across the property line to encourage use of the turnaround and noted that he appreciates the difficulties this variance request may cause in setting precedent and is asking for it in response to the stable -owner's request for more of a buffer. Member Strom moved approval of the Lindimer -ibdivision Final with the variance to permit the driveway on the south side of the house to add buffering and sees the variance as equal to or better than. This does not establish a precedent for other developers not to construct a temporary cul-de-sac. Member Winfree seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. •' 111 Jg01 ' �I 1 II Chair Walker noted that this item was a continuance request. Ted Shepard, Project Planner, noted that this project, also known as Spring Creek PUD, was heard by the Planning and Zoning Board last month. The Board instructed the applicant and the developer to have another neighborhood meeting, revise plans, and report back. The applicant has conducted the meeting and based on input, has asked that the plan not be considered at this meeting and be considered at the September meeting. Staff recommends a motion to continue this item to September, when it will be heard as a preliminary PUD. There was no public input. Member Strom moved to continue this item to the September 27 meeting. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. � g � ulhl Y:: Y►I �l:: ► g :: I►YY. Y11 ,�SZ�3 Sherry Albertson -Clark, City Chief Planner, stated this was a request to change the approved fmal .site plan (which consisted of multi -family units), deleting the portion of this site which is now the approved Senior Center PUD. The site is located north of Drake Road, west of 0 • • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 9 Raintree Drive and is zoned rmp, Medium Density Planned Residential. She stated this site was considered on appeal for the Preserve PUD. The applicant has requested a two year extension of the final PUD approval, originally approved in 1980. The Planning and Zoning Board has approved a number of extensions since then. The referral of the administrative change has come about as a result of the Planning and Zoning Board approval of the Senior Center Site in 1982. That approval took two portions of the Raintree Area PUD, deleted portion C and a portion of area B, which reduced the dwelling units by 156 out of 448 units. The proposal is now for 292 units with a density of 17.5 units per acre. This results in a driveway location at the northernmost end of Raintree Drive. A portion of the property has planned business zoning. This is included in the Preserve site but is not part of Raintree and was not part of the original approval. Ms. Albertson -Clark continued that the staff review of the administrative review focussed on the density chart as well: as the All Development Criteria. This proposal meets the definition of a minor change. Staff believed it was appropriate to refer it to the Board since the Board will be reviewing the extension request. The two year extension request would mean extending the project if the board approves,the administrative change. Staff recommended one condition with • the administrative change. The northernmost driveway in area B comes into the intersection of Snowbird and Raintree at too close a point and should be redesigned to provide greater separation. Staff was recommending four conditions on the two year extension. First, arterial street landscaping, interior site landscaping, bike parking, sidewalks, and architectural building elevations be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Second, a note be placed on the landscape plan stating that all landscaping in the public right-of- way will be maintained by the adjacent property owner of homeowner's association. Third, utility plans, drainage report and plans, soils report and erosion control plans must be submitted and/or revised to meet City standards and all construction improvements must be designed and constructed to City standards in place at the time of construction. Fourth, this extension shall expire upon the earliest of the following events: a) August 28, 1995, b) a final approval that has created a vested right (by virtue of the passage- of the appeal period) by any other PUD affecting all or part of this property. She noted that the first and second conditions were 'not a requirement in 1980, when this was first approved. Staff has evaluated each extension request under the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System and feel that the project continues to make sense from a land use policies standpoint and is an appropriate location for this density and multi -family housing. Staff feels it is a logical location and good design and the conditions are important to keep a high quality of development. Ronn Frank, Raintree Associates, noted that Raintree Drive and Snowberry have switched places on the newer site plans and asked for approval of the administrative change and the two year extension. The change is necessary because of the location of the Senior Center, which covered • 9 acres of the original PUD. They have also changed the fire lane, as requested by the Fire Department. The division of the property required by the senior center is at a natural place on Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 10 the plan and does not require moving major buildings. He feels that the plan is acceptable in today's market, with a mixture of unit sizes ranging from 440 square feet to 1300 square foot 3-bedrooms. There is a mixture of owner -condo units and traditional clustered apartments, which are in the center of the plan. Average unit size is 783 square feet, so these are not massive units. The removal of the Senior Center reduced the density by 35 %. They are asking to extend the PUD because of the demand and need for multi -family housing and low interest rates now make it economically feasible to develop. The area has been zoned multi -family for 16 years and this project has been approved for 13 years. The site meets community needs for a number of reasons: it is close to two main streets and a shopping center; is across from CAT, which is a large employment base; near Ross Open Space and Rolland Moore Park; is buffered by the open space, the park, Drake Road and a detention pond, and a shopping center; is at the intersection of bus routes, bike and pedestrian paths; and is centrally located. Mary Ellen King, area resident, distributed a map to the Planning and Zoning Board. She asked why a piece of property which can't be built upon is included in the overall acreage to figure density since north of the ditch can't be built on. This makes the other areas to be built more closely together and she feels this area is already overbuilt, with 12 apartment complexes within one half mile of Shields between Prospect and Drake. This is a total of almost 2000 units and almost 4000 bedrooms and the accompanying car traffic. She would like to see something more like Hillpond at Sundering with low buildings close to the land. She feels that the 292 units on 17 acres will cause too much of a traffic increase and that the area has changed dramatically since 1980, when the project. was first approved and that no other area of town has the sort of density found between. Shields and Prospect. The other neighbors also feel it is too dense and will detract from the quality of life. Ms. Margaret Filmore, 2337 South Shields,,.said she owns one acre of residential property directly east of the.Senior Center, which had not been mentioned, for the record. Ms. Nancy Piper, 2424 Newport Court, stated she owns residential property west of the proposed project and would like more details about the types of buildings planned for the project. Mr. Frank said the units are from two to three stories and some may be built as condos as demand dictates. The apartment units are a traditional style and are two and one half to three stories in blocks of 8 or 16. Ms. Piper inquired about the length of the buildings. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 11 Mr. Frank responded that he didn't have that information but that the efficiency units are 450 square feet, the one bedrooms 550 square feet, the two bedrooms 760 square feet, and the 3 bedrooms 990 square feet and are therefore not large units. The buildings are not yet fully designed. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the buildings are in units of 2, 4, 8, or 16 with those closest to the Ross Open space being no larger than 85-100 feet in length. The maximum building height is 40 feet. Ms. Piper said that this is a massive project and with a large portion of the project being changed, she feels it would be appropriate to look at making other changes. Thirteen years ago, possibly 85 % of the neighborhood either didn't exist or didn't live there and she feels that the neighborhood needs more information. She accepts that the area will be developed but wants to make sure it will blend in with what is already there and be in keeping with the size. She was also concerned about the increase in traffic. The Preserve, with 276 units, had a projection of 2,100 trips per day and this project has 292 units. She believed that Drake and Shields is IdIlk already overburdened with traffic and is concerned with making it an even tighter area. Chair Walker asked for clarification of the issue of calculating density Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that planners talk about density for purposes of calculating the figure per acre or dealing with a point chart and talk about gross density. Gross density as defined by the Residential Density Chart of the LDGS is based on the total amount of acreage devoted to residential use. This is interpreted as including areas such as here with a detention area and includes open space areas unless they are deeded over to the city or are already taken out of the site. Gross density also includes street right-of-way unless the streets are already built and dedicated to public use. The original Raintree PUD included street area in gross density because it was not yet constructed. Since the construction of Raintree Drive, it has been removed from. calculations. Chair Walker clarified that the staff. included the area north of the canal in the acreage calculations because it is part of open space. Ms. Albertson -Clark agreed and said that at the time of the original approval, 30% of the overall acreage was required to be open space. The staff determined if the reduction of the area is within the guidelines which set a cap at 3% reduction in open space and this reduction is 2%. Since the area is devoted to the use of the project and residents, the staff feels it is appropriate to include it in the acreage calculations. • Chair Walker asked about the removal of the Senior Center and if the remainder of the project is still viable. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 12 Ms. Albertson -Clark said that the Senior Center was in area C, which is a self-contained area and a portion of area B. Area B needed a design change, which resulted in the northernmost driveway being too close to the intersection and staff is asking for that modification. She feels that each phase area can stand on its own and meet the access and circulation requirements for vehicles and emergency service access and the overall project still meets the criteria for the guidance system. Chair Walker reminded the Board that two separate motions were required. He commented that this area has a lot of high density multi -family units such as the Topanga Project. He is concerned that although projects may work individually, he would like to look at the total effect and feels the city has an obligation to residents. If a particular area is to carry the load of high density, then certain factors need to be addressed. Member Clements -Cooney moved for approval of the referral of the administrative change for Raintree PUD Final with the condition that the northernmost driveway in "Area B" be re -designed to provide a greater separation between the driveway and the intersection of Snowberry and Raintree Drive. Member Fontane seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Cottier commented that she views this motion as a technicality that should have been addressed when Planning and Zoning approved the Senior Center and feels the project is still appropriate and will support it. Member Fontane agreed that the site has a lot of desirable elements around it --commercial and recreational --and that when looking at placing a multi -family site, walking and biking access to existing facilities is very important so she supports it. Member Strom said the reason this property is planned and the reason for the extension is that it still meets the city plans and policies such as the existence of close commercial, future and existing employment and so on and he supports it. The motion passed 7-0. Member Strom moved approval of the two year extension with the four following conditions:1) Arterial street landscaping, interior site landscaping, bike parking, sidewalks and architectural building elevations be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit; 2) A note be placed on the landscape plan stating that all landscaping in the public right-of-way will be maintained by the adjacent property owner or homeowners' association; 3) Utility plans, drainage report and plans, soils report and erosion control plans must be submitted and/or revised to meet City standards and all construction improvements must be designed and constructed to City standards in place at • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 1993 Page 13 the time of construction, and; 4) This extension shall expire upon the earliest of the following events: a) August 28, 1995 and b) A final approval that has created a vested right (by virtue of the passage of the appeal period) by any other PUD affecting all or a part of this property. Member Fontane seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Chair Walker noted that the Planning and Zoning Board will meet next week, Monday, August 30 at 6:30 pm for a continuation of this meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm. t-u-IS FLC,T _r i FDQ r `� L NoR�nk WooDS STU AR-r 182/ 390 172A K Co �o rJY ZIo 1 /5. O ►2� �� AN D �,vO C 2. PprL I< 2css GPEt'l SPACE COUL�,as \I -JEST 3do \�2$ Irl r G CA i2o/2i6 PIopoSed: 16%Zo 1�►►-1. suaoE2 VOKID CENT(LE FDfL AOvLI�t:,C�t D C 1 AAA 12-er0 N SCXQ AIZE , -600/ qaD QPAUZ.TW---tJ CDNM4f-XI5- ikI VC V(C iOJ ify O"r ZowNAU (v' by F- PAQN� / (LD55 (optal 5PAer c F i T.5 / t, oc e0w--M&.4