Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIDLAND GREENS PUD MASTER PLAN - COUNTY REFERRAL - 7-88A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESa 71 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES July 25, 1988 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Chairman O'Dell introduced the new board members that were present, Lloyd Walker and Jan Shepard. Board members present at the meeting included Dave Edwards, Sandy Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker and Alternate Jan Shepard. Staff members present included Sherry Albertson -Clark, Paul Eckman, Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig and Linda Ripley. Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda Included: Item 1, June 27, 1988 and July 11, 1988, min- utes; Item 2, 33-82B ASAMERA OIL COMPANY P.U.D. -AMENDED - Prelimi- nary and Final; Item 3, 203-79E CASA GRANDE P.U.D. (WAGONWHEEL THIRD), PHASE 1 & 2, Extension of Final Approval; Item 4, PINEVIEW PUD - One Year Extension Request; Item 5, 60-88 WESTRIDGE ESTATES P.U.D. -County Referral. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 6, 90-85C WILD WOOD FARM P.U.D. - Master Plan; Item 7, 90-85D WILD WOOD FARM P.U.D., 1ST FILING, CARTER HOSPITAL -Preliminary; GREENS PUD - Master Plan - County Referral. The Board removed Items 1 and 4. Member Kern moved to approve Items 2, 3, and 5 of the Consent Agenda. Member Klataske seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Member Strom indicated that through a letter sent to the Board, he was referred to as "Alternate Bernie Strom" in the June 27, 1988 and July 11, 1988 minutes, which he is not, and would like those two references stricken from the minutes. He would also like to note that in the discussion of the junior high school in the June 27, 1988 minutes, on page 6, paragraph 2, there needed to be more emphasis on City Council and the School Board moving off the dime and a decision made as to who would be responsible for street and side- walk improvements needed for safe access. He would like that kind of mes- sage passed on to the School Board with our minutes. Mr. Eckman also changed the June 27, 1988 minutes in reference to members abstaining in their vote. The members did not abstain from voting because they were needed to make up a quorum, rather there was a withdrawl of participation. Chairman O'Dell recommended that those not present at the previous meetings abstain from voting on those particular minutes. Motion carried on approval of June 27, 1988 minutes 6-0. Motion carried on approval of July 11, 1988 minutes 6-0. July 25, 1988 P&*inutes 0 C Linda Ripley stated that staff requested that Pineview PUD - One Year Exten- sion Request be pulled because staff was not adequately prepared at the work session to address the background information. Staff would present the infor- mation at the meeting. Craig Platt, the applicant for Pineview PUD, indicated that the reason the approvals on tracts A, B, D, and E had not been extended was because the bank took those tracts back from the owners. He had tried to keep the Tract C approval extended. Linda Ripley stated that staff recommended approval with the following two conditions: 1) that the project meet all current city standards at final review; and 2) that an updated traffic study be submitted at final review. Member Edwards asked if the Neighborhood Service Center was still appropri- ate considering the future location of single family dwellings, school, etc. Ms. Ripley indicated that the location of the Neighborhood Service Center was still appropriate given the policies of the Land Use Policy Plan. Member Edwards questioned how staff felt about the abrupt change from a Neighborhood Service Center to a single family. Ms. Ripley noted that staff had not heard of this proposal until this meeting. The applicant would have to come back in to amend the Master Plan. At that time the issue would be addressed by staff. Mr. Peterson also noted that since the Pleasant Valley and Lake Ditch still run behind Tract C, this would aide the urban design parameters needed to achieve neighborhood compatibility. Member Edwards moved for approval of the Pineview PUD Extension until July 25, 1989. Member Kern seconded the motion. Member Kern commented on the fact that this particular proposal was appro- priate but there was going to have to be more care in planning the remainder of the site. Member Walker stated that his concern was the length of the extension. Member Edwards noted that he neglected to say in his motion the two condi- tions outlined by staff be included in his motion. Motion carried 6-0. WILD WOOD FARM P.U.D. - Master Plan - #90-85C Linda Ripley gave the staff report. She stated that the applicant was Wild Wood Farm, Inc., represented by Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. She noted the Master Plan was consistent with the City's _Goals and Obiectives and Land Use Policies Plan, which supported industrial and/or business service uses at this location. Staff supported the location of approved by the State Highway Department. Corbet Drive but it was not yet -2_. July 25, 1988 P&Oinutcs 0 Member Kern asked if in the first condition, did staff intend to delete the words and energy calculation. Ms. Ripley stated that it was left out because the Building Department said they needed calculations. Member Kern stated he would like to see some confirmatory type of calcula- tions included. He also asked that since this project is continuous to Hewlett- Packard, are we cutting corners for not giving points for that and if they were to receive points for that, would they receive the number of necessary points. Chairman O'Dell stated that she supported this motion because it conformed to the City's Goals and Objectives and Land Use Policies. The motion to approve carried 6-0. MIDLAND GREENS PUD - Master Plan - County Referral - #7-88A Linda Ripley gave a description. She noted that staff drafted a preliminary proposal, which was sent to the applicant in mid June, which listed five conditions for approval. These conditions are: 1) that the developer agree to deed the open space along Highway 287 to Larimer County as permanent open space; 2) that the developer provide a landscape plan for the 250 foot wide strip along Highway 287. The plan should be a naturalistic design concept that builds upon the landscape already established along the canal. The developer should agree to construct the approved plan and maintain the plant material for a two year period after which time maintenance would be the responsibil- ity of the County; 3) that the developer provide a set of design guidelines would address fencing and landscaping of private development adjacent to the open space; 4) that the developer dedicate at least four acres of land in exchange for park land fees, and; 5) that the developer grant the local governments a three year option to purchase an additional 31 acres of land. The local government have the exclusive right to purchase the land either in whole or in part for three years from the date of Master Plan approval. The fair market value would be determined at time of purchase. If the local government did not purchase the land within three years, the developer would retain the right to develop the property as proposed on the Master Plan. Dave Shoup, who represented the applicant, indicated how the developer responded to the proposal. In regards to the first condition of deeding the 250 foot strip as permanent open space, it had been agreed to with two minor exceptions: 1) that while the area would be predominantly open space, it would have some uses which could be used for other than open space, such as a community recreation facility, possibly a day care center, or a church. They extended it another 50 feet so that the 700 foot stretch depth of the open space would be 200 feet rather that 250 feet but that space would be added to another open space. The depth of area that would be about 650 feet as pro- posed to the 250 feet; 2) the other exception was a 250 feet parcel. The purpose of that parcel would be to add area to the existing Alpine Autoban Facility. The developers have agreed to provide a landscape plan for the area. They would be amenable to include the guidelines for fencing in the final -7=� July 25, 1988 P&*inutes • approval. In regards to the four acres, there was a problem with the suggestion that they be purchased by a waiver of park fees since this was not a joint venture but a jointly submitted planned unit development for two separate owners. What they suggested was that land from one owner be purchased by granting benefits to the other owner. As to the fifth point, to the extent that if the City and or County were to exercise its option to purchase the remain- ing lots in the Consolidated Industries portion and some nine lots in the back corner of the Midland Greens portion, then there would not be the 100 lots to grant the open space credit on. Some additional funding would be needed to be found. The fifth point also presented some difficulty. The owners were reluc- tant to grant a three year option for a simple reason that it would take the property out of any type of market for a period of time. A right of refusal had been suggested by the County staff as an alternative in the event that a sale for the land would be desired by the City staff. The City and/or County would have the right to buy at that price prior to any one else purchasing it. One other point was in regard to the fifth point was that if the land were purchased as open space, there would be no physical need to build the addi- tional roadway. He also pointed out that with the right of first refusal rather than a firm option it may be possible to maintain this potential. The phasing plan would have to be adjusted. Member Edwards questioned what Mr. Shoup's time needs would be if there were final details which needed to be accomplished. Mr. Shoup stated that they were several months away from starting. Member Edwards asked if there would be an objection to a tabling at this point of this item pending further negotiations and agreement on the June 9 letter and its five conditions. Mr. Shoup noted that he has not been instructed by his clients to offer that as an option. Tom Peterson suggested that staff would hesitate to suggest passing an approval recommendation at least until the five details from the June 9 letter were worked out. He urged the Board to consider a resolution that would: a) keep the recommendation for denial which was set forth in staff recommendation until the five points are worked out; b) suggest to the County to table this matter for 30 days until their meeting in late August, and; c) if Master Plan were approved then attach the five conditions. Paul Eckman expressed a possible concern with the right of refusal. The amount of time the right of refusal given would be a problem with the three governments. Member Kern asked Mr. Eckman where the right of first refusal is to be incorporated in the recommendations since that has the nature of a binding agreement for the City. July 25, 1988 P&2*inutes 1 Mr. Eckman stated that it would not be making an agreement with the appli- cant but a recommendation was being made to the County as to whether the right of refusal was acceptable as opposed to the option that was earlier proposed. Member Kern questioned the waiver of park fees as to whether it pertained to the County park fees, the city's, or both. Mr. Peterson stated that it pertained to the county's. Mr. Shoup asked that if the Board felt the right of first refusal was acceptable then what would be the appropriate time period. _ Mr. Peterson stated that he suggested to the Board a delay of 30 days so that there would be time to wrap up details. Mr. Shoup stated that what he meant was time period for the right of refusal. Mr. Peterson stated that a six month or year time frame was more realistic. Member Shepard questioned the implication of tabling. If the Board recom- mended to table it, would the County still hear it and make a decision? Mr. Peterson stated that it would be up to the County Planning Commission based on a recommendation. Member Edwards questioned whether the Board had the option of referring this issue to staff rather than tabling. Member Walker stated that he felt that the five conditions were reasonable. He felt the right of refusal would be very difficult to work with and what staff has proposed would be more workable given the nature of the governmental entities. Chairman O'Dell questioned what the proposed zone was of the community use area. Mr. Shoup stated that the County would look at a zone and would permit whatever density was decided on jointly. He said that would probably be an El -Estate zone. Chairman O'Dell questioned whether this would fill up the entire space or leave part as open space. Mr. Shoup indicated that it was something that could be negotiated. Chairman O'Dell stated that she felt it was inappropriate to have any of this land zoned as commercial zoning since it was not in conformance with the intergovernmental agreement and she would not support that under any circum- stances. -9- July 25, 1988 P&*Iinutes c C Member Walker moved to approve the plan with the five conditions as stated by the staff. Member Kern seconded the motion only if it was changed to say grant approval only with the meeting of those five conditions. Member Walker changed the motion to read "to be in substantial compliance with these five conditions." Member Kern seconded. Chairman O'Dell questioned condition One on whether the open space included the entire length of the property, including the area the developer has noted to be business. Ms. Ripley stated that when the condition was written —it did not include that item. _ Motion for approval carried 6-0. With no Other Business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. -10-