Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/23/1992PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES March 23, 1992 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice -Chairman Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, Jan Cottier, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Ted Shepard, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, Kayla Ballard and Patti Schneeberger. Member Carroll moved to have Item E, Other Business, discussed prior to the reading of the agenda. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Member Carroll stated that there have been several public comments about the sign erected by CSU at the southeast corner of Elizabeth and Shields. He commented that the Board was not aware of the particulars concerning this sign. Member Carroll moved to have staff present a report to the Board regarding the signage at the regular April meeting stating in that report the following: 1) the compliance, or non-compliance, of the sign with the City Sign Code and if It does not comply, in what regards it does not comply; 2) the presentation of a report from the City Police Services stating any traffic hazards that may or may not occur through the installation of the sign, and; 3) comments from staff regarding the interaction and discussions . between the City and CSU before the installation of the sign. Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Member Carroll commented that he would welcome any comments from CSU staff at the April meeting and extended an invitation for them to attend the meeting in April. Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the February 24, 1992 meeting; Item 2 -Pinewood Patio Homes PUD, Preliminary & Final, Case 04- 92A; Item 3 - Villages at Harmony West, Amended Overall Development Plan, Case #3-90D; Item 4 - Fort Collins Second and Harmony PUD at the Villages at Harmony West, Lot One, Preliminary, Case #3-90E;Item 5 -Gates at Woodridge PUD 2nd Filing, Final, Case #55-87F; Item 6 -Overlook at Woodridge PUD 2nd Filing, Final, Case #55-87G; Item 7 -Seven Lakes Medical Office Building PUD, Phase 2, Final, Case #95-81I; Item 8 - Park South PUD, 1st Replat, Final, Case #46-881);Item 9-Poudre Plains Subdivision, Two Year Extension, Case #72- 87A; Item 10 -Overland Hills Subdivision, 1st Filing, Final, Case #38-90B; Item 11 -North Lemay Plaza PUD, One Year Extension, Case #57-87B; Item 12 - Resolution PZ92-3 Vacation of Easements at Spring Creek Professional Park PUD; Item 13 - Resolution PZ92-4 Vacation of Easements at Hickory Hill Village at Cunningham Corner PUD; Item 14 -Resolution PZ92-5 Vacation of Easements at Sunray Place PUD was continued to the April meeting; Item 15 - Springwood Institute PUD, Preliminary & Final, Case #2-92. Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 16 - Paragon Point PUD, Final, Case #48-91B; Item 17 - Replat of a Portion of Tract A, Southridge Golf Course, Case #9-82AE; Item 18 - Paragon Point PUD, 1st Replat, Final, Case #48-91C; Item 19 - Housing Authority Facility PUD, Preliminary & Final, Case #28-89A; Item 20 - Laurie Subdivision PUD, 2nd Filing, Final, Case #44-89E;Item 21 -Laurie Subdivision PUD, 1st Filing, Amended Preliminary & Final, Case #44-89F; Item 22 - Pheasant Ridge Estates Subdivision, Final, Case #43-83D,and; Item 23 -Potts PUD, Preliminary, Case #6-92was continued to the • . April meeting. P&Z Meeting Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 2 Chairman Strom pulled Item 4, Fort Collins Second and Harmony PUD at the Villages at Harmony West, Lot One, Preliminary. Member O'Dell moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15. Member Collier seconded the motion. The motion for approval passed 7-0. FORT COLLINS SECOND AND HARMONY PUD AT THE VILLAGES AT HARMONY WEST, LOT ONE -PRELIMINARY -Case #3-90E Chairman Strom stated that he had a concern with the two access points on Harmony Road, particularly in close proximity with the Regency Drive intersection. He stated that the City usually resisted access along major arterials especially close to intersections and particularly one use with more than one access. He asked what kind of precedent the City would be setting. Kirsten Whetstone stated that the Transportation Department addressed this concern when the project was brought forward at Conceptual Review and through the review process. The two points of access were allowed at that time. The Transportation Department did not want anything other than a church use to have access on Harmony at that point. If there were a shared access on Harmony, this would allow uses on the adjacent lot to access Harmony. If the church were to sell the building for some other use, they would lose access on Harmony. She added that, in regards to setting a precedent, it is typical in Fort Collins for churches to have access on major arterials. In this case, the two access points work for the church site and do not create a conflict because the peak time for a church is the minimum time for rest of the traffic. Two access points work better for circulation for a church use because the traffic is so concentrated. She added that any change of use at this site would have to come before the Board. Member O'Dell moved to approve Fort Collins Second and Harmony PUD at the Villages at Harmony West, Lot One, Preliminary with the two conditions suggested by staff and with the third condition that if there is any change of use or added use to this particular church, then it must come back to the Planning Department to have the traffic impacts reviewed. Member Walker seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried 7-0. PARAGON POINT PUD. FINAL -Case 048-91B Mr. Eckman stated that this project was tabled from last month's meeting to this month's meeting. He stated that he sent a memorandum to the Board through Mr. Peterson regarding the participation of Member O'Dell and Member Klataske and their absences from the last meeting. He stated that if they were to participate in the discussion this evening, they would need to have reviewed the video of last month's meeting in its entirety before participation this evening. He suggested that Member O'Dell and Member Klataske indicate that they have reviewed the tape so that they are familiar with the record. He added that, since the matter was tabled, all of the record that was made at last month's meeting was still a part of the record in the event of an appeal, as well as tonight's information. Member O'Dell stated that she did review the tape and that she will be participating in the discussion. 0 0 P&Z Meeting Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 3 Member Klataske stated that he also reviewed the tape and would be participating in the discussion. Steve Olt gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval with the following condition: "The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development final plan upon the condition that the Development Agreement for the planned unit development be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer, and that the utility plans be fully executed and approved by the City prior to the next monthly meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said next monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the Development Agreement and/or utility plans, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had a reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, if applicable), then the final approval of this planned unit development shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this planned unit development shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights." Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design and representative of the applicant, discussed the proposed project stating that the development agreement has been agreed upon by the developer and the City. He stated that they worked with the Natural Resources Division and used some of their research material in their report. He stated that most of the 67 acres that would not be in a conventional park would be in an area that they would not develop at this point. He presented and discussed slides of the site and how they relate to the study. He stated that what they were attempting to do in the process was create diversity on the site with vegetation and also create diversity on the site with wildlife. He stated that water conservation was being addressed in that native vegetation of the prairie zones and drought -tolerate types of grasses will be used, the same as in the urbanized parks. He stated that human recreation uses are real and those uses will be addressed in the urban park. However, some of them will be addressed in the prairie area also. He stated that the conclusions that they arrived at are that they are attempting to create balance on the project so that this will be an area identified as a prairie study area and will have a population of prairie dogs that will be managed. The criteria for management of the prairie dogs will be protection of the watershed and erosion control with tree plantings and buffering. He added that they would locate perch sites and relocate dying cottonwood trees until larger trees are developed. He briefly discussed the ponds and their shorelines of marshy habitat, the riparian area along the stream, and the trail system. PUBLIC INPUT Bob O'Rourke, area resident, questioned how many prairie dogs will be destroyed and how large a study area will encompass the prairie dog area. He commented that the Fossil Creek corridor should remain largely intact because the open space that exists is a natural habitat for birds, animals, insects and plants. He believed that this was an excellent opportunity for the public to view nature that has existed for centuries. He did not believe that this area could be • improved upon by man and that if it was intruded upon, mistakes would be made such as killing the animals and disruption of the plant life that would affect the web of life. He P&Z Meeting Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 4 believed that the earth and the intimacy of living things has been abused. He believed that judgements are made, such as putting animals in good categories and bad categories. He referred to the handout that he presented to the Board (see attached) in speaking of the prairie dogs and their history and habitat. He urged the Board to review the plan and how many prairie dogs will be destroyed and how many will remain, and to set aside more acreage for the prairie dogs and other natural habitat, and to think of generations to come. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Chairman Strom asked for clarification of quantity and areas of the destroying of prairie dogs and their method of management for the prairie dogs. Mr. Sell stated that most of the 67 acres will be in natural condition and that they would enhance this area. He stated that there was a lot of erosion potential as the site exists and there were not native grasses on the site. He stated that the most accepted method of controlling prairie dogs is destroying them, of which there are federally -approved methods of doing this, which are addressed in this plan. He added that even under. the best conditions, approximately 80-90% would not survive. He stated that this would occur throughout most of the site. The site needs to be revegetated. He stated that they would have a prairie dog town on the site. He stated that about 7.5 acres will have prairie dog protection. Karen Manci, City Natural Resources Division, stated that the site currently has approximately 148 acres with the majority having prairie dogs on it, but with different densities. She added that about 1/4 of the site has no prairie dogs. Mr. Sell stated that part of the process is balance and one thing that was not being considered and not mentioned was parks. If they were to try and maintain prairie dogs over the entire space, the cost would be substantial. Member O'Dell asked if the number of prairie dogs would be reduced in the conservation portion or will the prairie dogs be allowed to reproduc6. i Mr. Sell stated that most of that particular area is not in bad condition in terms of vegetation. Initially, they are not planning on removing prairie dogs from that area. From that time on, it will be determined on the basis of if they are compromising the vegetation. Member Clements -Cooney asked if the applicant has any criteria as to what the decision would be based on to maintain or eliminate prairie dogs without City approval. Mr. Sell responded that several things could be used to base the decision on, such as the expense, public perception of there being a threat. He stated that the applicant agreed to a three-year experiment with the developer paying the bill to maintain the area. He believed that this area should have as much wildlife as possible. Member Clements -Cooney asked how potential homebuyers might learn about the resource. management plan and the development in this area. Mr. Sell stated that there could be interpretive stations along the walkways to learn about the different plant materials and wildlife habitat. This has been discussed by the developer and the Natural Resources Division. 0 P&Z Meeting Minutes March 23, 1992 • Page 5 Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director, stated that they suggested that this was an important part of making this habitat management plan work and left open the possibility of working together to implement that education program. Member Clements -Cooney stated that, should this proposal be approved and the plan be implemented, after the end of the three-year study an on -going communication between Natural Resources and the developer should continue. Chairman Strom asked for a brief clarification of the resource management plan. Mr. Shoemaker stated that Natural Resources Division was supportive of the plan as an integrated, balanced plan. He stated that it has some innovative techniques, the prairie area is desirable, a positive wetlands restoration work. He stated that this plan was not without trade-offs such as a reduction in the habitat available for the birds of prey. He stated that an overall conservation plan needs to be developed and criteria to address this without bringing in the conflicts that are sure to occur when residential areas are in close proximity to prairie dog towns. Member Walker asked if this habitat could support the types of birds that they are seeking to maintain on the site. Mr. Shoemaker stated that prairie dogs are an abundant food source for these birds. . Member Walker commented that if the public is going to have an effective way with the prairie dogs in the environment, the City should review this in total. He believed that in integrating animals into an urban environment, it should be recognized that there are difficulties with that. The presence of houses would make a difference with the birds and how they feel toward close contact with human activities. Regardless of what is done with the prairie dogs, if they were to remain and houses were built, there would be some degradation of the habitat from the fact that this property is being developed. He stated that one of the issues being dealt with was Criteria 14 in the LOGS and he believed that this was being addressed in two ways: One in that the prairie dog study area was being maintained; and two, that habitats are being created which the animals can prey off of and other species are being introduced. He stated that prairie dog towns have a certain aesthetic quality but not in a residential context. He believed that in terms of Item 33, the habitat development plan does a good job addressing the overall aesthetic quality. Member Collier commended the Natural Resources staff and the developer for arriving at this plan. She believed that this could be used as a model for developments in the future where there are other significant natural resources that can tie into the overall conservation plan for all sorts of species and vegetation. She emphasized that it was important to recognize the distinction between privately -owned and publicly -owned land and what would be reasonable to be required for privately -owned land. In this situation where it is a privately -owned parcel, she believed that the developer was making a significant contribution to the City in his efforts to maintain this and go along with the three-year experiment. Member O'Dell asked how many crossings there are, what kind of warnings there will be, and increased traffic hazards for Southridge Greens Boulevard. 0 P&Z Meeting Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Olt stated that there are currently three golf cart crossings on Southridge Greens Boulevard and this would add a fourth. There are approximately 40,000 crossings per golf season per street crossing. Member O'Dell asked if the golf cart crossings are marked. Mr. Olt believed that there was some signage but was uncertain. Mr. Peterson stated that staff has had discussions with the Parks and Recreation Department that manages the golf course and the Transportation staff regarding these concerns. He stated that staff will follow up on this issue and will make them available to the Board. Mr. Herzig added that addressing the safety problems of site distance and visibility are handled by special request by the Traffic Engineer. Member Walker asked for clarification of what Council was requesting regarding Southridge Greens Boulevard. Mr. Olt replied that Council was requesting the Board to improve, in its entirety, Southridge Greens Boulevard from Phase 1 of Paragon Point to Trilby with a paved section. What is proposed by the developer is a gravel -based road at final grade from the first phase to Trilby Road, which is acceptable to Poudre Fire Authority as an emergency access road. This road will be maintained by the developer and will be barricaded at the north of end of Phase 1 adjacent to the golf course during the construction phase. When the first home is ready to be occupied, Southridge Greens Boulevard would be opened from the north on the paved section across the golf course. The barricade would then move to the south and become an emergency access only until a subsequent phase requires the completion of Southridge Greens Boulevard to Trilby Road. Member Cottier suggested that their response to Council would be that the Board would not require the road to be paved all the way to Trilby Road at this point. Chairman Strom asked about the disposition of the existing emergency road across the golf course. Mr. Olt replied that he was unaware of the timing but when a second emergency access is provided, either in final form or as the gravel based road through Paragon Point, then this would eliminate the need for the existing emergency access through the golf course. Mr. Peterson stated that the Parks and Recreation Department is not pleased with having the gravel based road going through the golf course. They have indicated to the Planning staff that they will monitor the situation. Mr. Herzig stated that there was also a portion of that access that is on a tract between two houses. The City will have to check to see who owns that tract and see what happens. The City can vacate their interest in it, in terms of the emergency access easement. Chairman Strom asked if a formal action needed to be taken in getting the development agreement signed before final. Mr. Eckman replied that a condition may be placed on the approval of this project P&Z Meeting Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 7 • Member Walker moved to approve Paragon Point PUD, Final subject to the staff condition and sited the fact that Criteria 14 and 33 were the relevant criteria that bear on this and his decision. He commented that the gravel road extension of Southridge Greens Boulevard satisfies Criteria 9. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Chairman Strom commented that this was a unique site with interesting features. He appreciated the efforts of City staff and the developer in working toward a resolution and arriving at the Natural Resources Management Plan. The motion for approval carried 7-0. REPLAT OF A PORTION OF TRACT A SOUTHRIDGE GOLF COURSE -Case #9-82AE PARAGON POINT PUD. 1ST REPLAT -FINAL -Case #48-91C Steve Olt gave a description of the two proposed projects recommending approval of both replats. Chairman Strom asked if this was a request of just adding to the right-of-way and not vacating a portion of the other side of Southridge Greens Boulevard. Mr. Olt replied that this was correct. A dedication of right-of-way can be done with the plat and the vacation of right-of-way is required to be done through City Council. Steve Humann, TST Consultants, stated that the alignment across the golf course could be shifted further to the east and would allow the applicant to save what was determined to be an important tee box. He stated that they have met with Parks and Recreation Department staff and staff was in favor of this replat. Member Clements -Cooney moved to approve Replat of a Portion of Tract A, Southridge Golf Course and the Paragon Point PUD, 1st Replat Final. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion to approve both items carried 7-0. HOUSING AUTHORITY FACILITY PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - Case #28-89A Kirsten Whetstone gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval. David Herrera, Fort Collins Housing Authority Director, stated that a meeting was held with three of the neighbors with their concerns being when would the additions end. The Housing Authority offered to stipulate on the plat that this was all the Housing Authority would do in terms of additions to the site. PUBLIC INPUT John Messineo, 137 North Bryan, stated that a petition was submitted to the Board in February stating that 90% of the neighborhood that he surveyed did not want another expansion to this existing project. He did not believe that this addition for shop, storage, and parking was residential in character. He gave a brief history of the existing facility and questioned what would the proposed addition be used for and if more garage could be added in the future. He P&Z Meeting Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 8 stated that the requirement for a one lot subdivision was not mentioned at the neighborhood meeting and believed that this request should not be approved. Nancy Gray, area resident, stated that non -conforming use is non -conforming use whether it coincides with the Westside Neighborhood Plan or not. _She believed that there has been a quality in this area that has open space but is not active open space. She believed that the City could work with the Housing Authority and find an alternative location, such as the Service Center on Wood Street, so the existing site would not be expanded. She believed that the credibility of the City was at stake with this proposal and believed the Board should be more stringent. Ron Steinbach, City Park Neighborhood Association, 1345 W.Mountain, expressed appreciation to Ms. Whetstone for promptly delivering a response on the history of the existing facility. He stated that the association was opposed to any non -conforming development other than single- family residential development in this area. They also oppose the inclusion of the PUD process in the NCL zone. He added that he had a concern that this proposal did not change from last month's Board meeting except for the name of the proposal. He stated that the association was opposed to this proposal; however, if the Board should decide that this is a valid improvement, they would suggest a few conditions: 1) No further development of the site; 2) That a commitment be made by the City that the lease would not be expanded; 3) That the City would commit to no new development in the area as defined in the Westside Neighborhood Plan as the "City Park" area unless it was Parks and Recreation oriented facilities. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Member Walker asked what was the staff interpretation of non -conforming use for this particular proposal. Ms. Whetstone replied that originally the building was issued a building permit in the RL zone. The office, daycare, and recreation center, at that time, was deemed a use -by -right. Later, expansions occurred as non -conforming uses. At some point, the interpretation of what the building was, changed. The zoning has not changed, but the setbacks have changed in the code over time. Member Walker asked if this met the objectives of the Westside Neighborhood Plan. Ms. Whetstone stated that the area of City Park addressed by the Westside Neighborhood Plan was meant to be the area by Firecracker Hill and the�ake and the real park area. The fire department, park shop, and Housing Authority are not entioned specifically in the plan. She added that staff interpretation was that open space, referred to in the Westside Plan, did not include these areas on this part of Mountain Avenue. Member Walker asked Mr. Herrera how a pitched roof blends with a flat roof structure. Jim Kline, 1715 W. Mountain, stated that they attempted to not have the building appear like a storage area or a metal building -type structure. He stated that it was a little residential in character with the roof line being pitched. Member Walker asked what the length of the building would be along Mountain Avenue. P&Z Meeting Minutes March 23, 1992 • Page 9 Mr. Kline replied that the addition would be 48' by 56' deep. When added to the existing structure, the length would be 128 feet. Member O'Dell asked if the Housing Authority should outgrow this site, what happens to the building if there is a proposed change of use, what would be the process, and would it be feasible that this building could ever be used residentially. Ms. Whetstone replied that she was uncertain if the building could be used residentially. This is the first time the Housing Authority project has come before the Board as a PUD which carries with it all the restrictions and requirements of any PUD. If there were any changes to this in the future, an amendment or an administrative change would be required. Member Walker asked why this was brought in as a PUD. Ms. Whetstone replied that this initially came in as a non -conforming use. A review of the site plans from the Zoning Department brought up concerns that it may not meet all the setback and building requirements for that zone. Staff suggested to the Housing Authority that this be a PUD because of these reasons. The City also required the Housing Authority to plat the property and when the plat came back, it showed that the Housing Authority expansion did meet the requirements of the zone. They then had the option of submitting this project as a non -conforming use or a PUD, of which they opted for the PUD. Member Clements -Cooney asked when the $1 per year lease began. . Mr. Herrera replied that they entered into the lease agreement in January 1977. Chairman Strom commented that he did not have a problem with continuing the use; however, he did have concerns with the proposal as it stands in terms of scale and architectural compatibility with the neighborhood and the existing structure. Member Clements -Cooney concurred with Chairman Strom and added that she believed that the Housing Authority has outgrown the existing structure and believed that they should be looking at other sites. r, Member Walker also concurred with Chairman Strom and commented that he was concerned with the non -conforming use issue. He believed that maybe the Housing Authority had outgrown the existing facility and should begin looking for another site. Member Cottier commented that she had concerns with this site having three expansions to a non -conforming use and the character of the building. She believed that their performance with the Westside Neighborhood Plan was legitimately questioned and she did not agree that it was complying with the Westside Neighborhood Plan. Member Walker moved to deny the Housing Authority Facility PUD Preliminary and Final. Member Cotner seconded the motion to deny. Member O'Dell commented that she concurred with the motion, siting specifically LDGS All Development Criteria #2, as not being able to answer positively to this criterion. • Chairman Strom stated that he agreed with Member O'Dell and added that he had concerns with this proposal meeting Site Design Criteria #26 and #33. P&Z Meeting Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 10 The motion to deny carried 7-0. LAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD 2ND FILING - FINAL ace #44 89E LAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD 1ST FILIN AMENDED PRELIMINARY & FINAL Case #44-89F Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of both proposed projects recommending approval of both projects with staff conditions as stated in the Staff Report for each item. Dennis Donovan, Land Development Services, stated that the owners were agreeable to the conditions set by staff. PUBLIC INPUT Mark Schultheiss, Applewood Homeowners' Association President, stated that the ditch that they use needs to be relocated and piped. Details need to be worked out with his association but they have reached the point where this can happen and did not wish to hold up this evening's approval. He stated that the association was satisfied with the condition that they sign off on the plans within another 30 days. This would also give them the opportunity to include the plans for the pipeline in the development agreement. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that Richard Lea contacted her this afternoon and asked her to pass on his comments to the Board. She stated that he had concerns about building height of the proposed homes and covenants. She stated that staff had not seen covenants to date; however, staff did recommend that the applicant include several of the conditions that the Board placed on the preliminary approval in those covenants. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Member Clements -Cooney asked for clarification of the installation of a drainage ditch that would border two properties in The Ridge. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that two property owners to the south of this site had expressed a concern about the potential increased run-off with development of this site. The Stormwater Department suggested cutting in a minor drainage swale along the south edge of this site. The applicant was asked if he was interested in providing that channel, which he agreed to provide. Chairman Strom asked if the development agreement would address the issue of the irrigation ditch to Applewood and, if so, how would the Applewood Association be involved with the development agreement. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that it is expected that the development agreement would address the Applewood situation; however, it is uncertain as to what the final outcome will be. Chairman Strom asked that if the Applewood Association has the rights to the ditch and water, would any changes to that have to be approved by them. Mr. Eckman replied that this was correct, but the Applewood Estates residents would not be a party to the development agreement. He anticipated that the developer and the Applewood residents would reach an agreement and then the development agreement between the 0 P&Z Meeting Minutes March 23, 1992 • Page 11 developer and the City would reflect whatever obligation the developer has agreed to in the Applewood agreement. Member Walker commented that he was satisfied that the applicant had addressed the Board's concerns. Member Walker moved to approve Laurie Subdivision PUD. 2nd Filing Final with the following conditions: 1) that the Planning & Zoning Board approves this PUD final plan upon the condition that the plat for the PUD be executed by the developer and all other owners and proprietors (as defined by Colorado Statute) prior to the next monthly meeting of the P&Z Board; or, if not, so executed, that the developer, at said next monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. If this condition Is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, if applicable), then the final approval of this PUD shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this PUD shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights; and 2) The Planning & Zoning Board approves this PUD final plan upon the condition that the development agreement for the PUD be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the next monthly meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said next monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation is made at the next succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to • present sufficient Information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, if applicable), then the final approval of this PUD shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this PUD shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights; and Laurie Subdivision PUD. 1st Filing, Amended Preliminary and Final with the following conditions: 1) that the Planning & Zoning Board approves this PUD final plan upon the condition that the plat for the PUD be executed by the developer and all other owners and proprietors (as defined by Colorado Statute) prior to the next monthly meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board; or, If not so executed, that the developer, at said next monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, if applicable), then the final approval of this PUD shall be come null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this PUD shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. and; 2) The Planning & Zoning Board approves this PUD final plan upon the condition that the development agreement for the PUD be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the next monthly meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board; or, if not so executed, that the developer, at said next monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. If the staff and the Developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution if such presentation Is made at the next succeeding monthly meeting of the Board. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient Information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. If this conditionis not met within the time established herein (or as extended, if applicable), then the final approval of this PUD shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this PUD shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. Member Cottier seconded the motion. . The motion to approve passed 7-0. P&Z Meeting Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 12 PHEASANT RIDGE ESTATES IBDIVI ION -FINA -Case 043-93D Steve Olt gave a description of the proposed project recommending approval with the condition that approval of the Pheasant Ridge Estates Final Subdivision is subject to the receipt by the City of unencumbered easements for street and utility purposes for the off -site areas as shown on Exhibit "A" which easements may be legally utilized by the City for street and utility purposes. The approval of this subdivision is also contingent upon the execution by the developer and the City of the Development Agreement in accordance with the Code of the City, which Development Agreement shall contain protective provisions, including indemnification and defense provisions, for the benefit of the City in the event of dispute regarding the legitimacy and legality of any off -site street access easements. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that what was being proposed was consistent with the preliminary, which resulted from a lot of interaction with staff and the neighborhood. PUBLIC INPUT Bonnie Nabors, representative of Terry Ridge Homeowners' Association, asked if there had been any change to the developer's proposal since the preliminary approval. Mr. Olt stated that there has been no change. Mr. Nabors asked if the developer would be responsible for paving Westview Road to county specifications and acceptance at no cost to the homeowners. Mr. Olt replied that this was correct. Eric Peterson, 1919 Westview, stated that he supported this proposal and that this was consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. He added that a concern the neighborhood had was with the traffic that this proposal might engender. Unless and until a bridge is installed on Redwood Street crossing the Larimer/Weld Canal, there would be no through street and this is something that the neighborhood could live with. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion of the meeting at this time. Member O'Dell moved to approve Pheasant Ridge Estates Final Subdivision with the staff condition. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. THER BUSINE Mr. Peterson informed the Board that there will be a special P&Z worksession on Wednesday, April 8, 1992, from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the 281 Conference Room. He added that the first item on the agenda would be the Human Services Policy. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. V •PORTE PLAZA/CR �O W IlL T\ ....... ... GRANAhD DA HEIGHTS P it{e `' ' t0 FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY PLAT w......................... �..�..-r NEW CREATIONS INTERIO�tS PUO QUAIL HOLLOW S/D, 6th • WEBSTER 2nd PINECQNE.PUD/F.C.H.S. j KI f,S ON W(N1DS PUD WA{E FARM$=� °d.; s jI .1 14