Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD, 2ND FILING - FINAL - 44-89E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES0 • PLANNING 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'DelI, 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 #4- 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, lst Replat, Final, Case #46-88D;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, lst Filing, Amended Preliminary & Final, Case #44-89F; Item 22 - Pheasant Ridge Estates Subdivision, Final, Case #43-83D, and; Item 23 -Potts PUD, Preliminary, Case #6-92 was continued to the S . April meeting. • ., • P&Z Meeting Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 10 The motion to deny carried 7-0. LAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD, 2ND FILING -FINAL -Case #44-89E LAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD, 1ST FILING - 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 heF 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 E • 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 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. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0.