Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS DISCOVERY MUSEUM - FDP - 6-10/A - CORRESPONDENCE - SUBDIVISION PLATPage 2 of 2 >>> Steve Dush 6/18/2010 2:18 PM >>> Marc/Ingrid/all:. I recall that we did discuss this issue during one of our meetings and was of the understanding that we were going to close this loop as a part of this one-time exception process. steve >>> Marc Virata 6/18/2010 2:05 PM >>> Hi Ingrid, I got hold of your voicemail yesterday after 5pm and left you a (typical of me) rambling follow-up. While we're both out of the office today, I thought I'd also send this email out to a few others on your question for them to potentially weigh in. I believe you had inquired as to whether the Council Item that will be considered in July for the project, (which I believe in a nutshell allows the plat to be approved in a manner that is not consistent with our attorney certification requirement of plat and deeds in the Land Use Code), needs to also address other plans/documents besides the plat in terms of ownership signature requirements. Other than the plat, the only other item we typically require the owner's signature on is the Site Plan. The Site Plan has a signature block that has been established by Planning as a requirement from their master list of development application submittal requirements, which is established by the City Manager in accordance with 2.2.3(C)(1). I'm unable to remotely pull up the exact language of the Site Plan signature block, but in my view it's worded a little less stringent than the Plat certification, stating to the effect that "I am the owner of the land as shown on this site plan". So, if I understand your question correctly, does the Council item in addition to the plat, need to address the owner signature block on the site plan? I would think Steve Dush and Paul Eckman need to weigh on this. 2.2.3 (C)(2) allows the Director (Steve) to waive items in the master list that "are not applicable due to the particular conditions and circumstances of that development proposal." Could an argument be made that the Site Plan signature block is not applicable and Steve can waive it because of the Council item exempting the Discovery Museum's plat from 2.2.3(C)(3)(a)? This is perhaps more compelling if the assumption is correct that the plat certification is more rigorous than the Site Plan. Hope this potentially gives enough background for others to weigh in. Thanks, Marc file://CADocuments and Settings\solt\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 6/21/2010 Page 1 of 2 From: Steve Olt To: Ingrid Decker; Marc Virata; Steve Dush Date: 6/21/2010 9:41 AM Subject Re: Fort Collins Discovery Museum - Site Plan Certification CC: Paul Eckman; Sheri Langenberger Based on the language in Section 2.2.3(C)(3) of the LUC I do agree with this approach. I am assuming that City Council has the authority to do this, being a home -rule city, and that there is no violation of the Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to signatures on a plat. Steve O >>> Steve Dush 6/21/2010 9:28 AM >>> that would seem to cover it. >>> Ingrid Decker 6/21/2010 9:19 AM >>> Everyone - thanks for continuing this discussion while I was gone. Based on the earlier e-mails, it sounds like we'll be covered if the operant part of the ordinance for 7/6 reads as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby waives for the Fort Collins Discovery Museum project the requirement of Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code that the plat be signed by all current owners of any recorded fee interest in the surface of the land describe on the plat. Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager and the City Attorney to sign and certify the Fort Collins Discovery Museum plat and site plan on behalf of the City as current owner of the fee interest in the surface of the land described on the plat and as lawful owner of the real property described on the site plan, including the Parcel. Section 3. That the City Attorney's Office is directed to commence a quiet title action to establish record ownership of the Parcel. Do you all think that covers what we need? Thanks, Ingrid >>> Steve Olt 6/18/2010 2:53 PM >>> For discussion sake here is the actual language we have been requiring and do require for the Owner on Site Plans: "The undersigned does/do hereby certify that I/we are the lawful owners of real property described on this Site Plan and do hereby certify that I/we accept the conditions and restrictions set forth on said Site Plan." Owner Date This discussion is only addressing the Owner's signature block, correct? We definitely have to have the Community Development & Neighborhood Services Director's approval block on the Site Plan, with the date of approval. Other than these the only signature block on the Site Plan is the Notary Public for the Owner's signature. Steve Olt file://CADocuments and Settings\solt\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 6/21/2010