Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODRIDGE (ARAPAHOE FARM) PUD, PHASE 1 - PRELIMINARY - 55-87B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES0 • PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 20, 1991 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell, Joe Carroll. Members Gorman and Walker were absent. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson - Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ken Waido, and Georgiana Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal" statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW - �51 Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Disc ssion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the April 22, 11 1 me ting; Item 2 - Quail Hollow Subdivision, 5th Filing - Final, #46-89D; Item 3 - Continued in i une 24, 1991 Meeting; Item 4 - Woodridge (Arapahoe Farm) PUD, Phase 1, Preliminary - 35 87B; Item 5 - Small World Preschool PUD - Preliminary and Final - #19-91; Item 6 - Arbor aza, Backyard Burgers (Pad 3), PUD Final - #137-80G; Item 7 - Sun Disk Village, Replat - Preliminary Subdivision - #15-91; Item 8 - Larimer County Detention Facility Addition - Advisory Review - #20-91; Item 9 - Burlington Northern Southeast First Annexation and Zoning - #50-90,A; Item 10 - Huber Annexation and Zoning - #21-91,A; Item 11 - East Lincoln Second Annexation and Zoning - #5-91,A. Member Strom pulled items 4 and 6 for further discussion. Member Carroll moved to approve consent items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-0. Woodridge (Arapahoe Farm) PUD, Phase 1. Preliminary - 035-87B. Member Strom stated his concern was the liability of the landscape maintenance on the common open space, being relatively small and outside the fence for most of the homeowners. He did not want to make a big issue at this point but would suggest a second condition to the effect that the liability of the proposed landscape scheme for the common open space shall be demonstrated prior to approval of the final PUD. Member O'Dell asked if Member Strom was asking for evidence of a Homeowners Association that would be prepared to do this. Member Strom replied that we have language in the LDGS to the effect that they have to demonstrate liability of the homeowner's association and or some other landscape maintenance scheme for open space. He wanted to make that explicit so that we have some specific consideration of it when we approve it on final. The language in the staff report indicates that a homeowner's association was not the way they intended to go. He wanted them to demonstrate for their consideration at final that it is a viable approach. Eldon Ward of Cityscape Urban Design asked if there was something in particular that separated this project landscaping from all of the others that had been approached in the past. Member Strom replied his concern was that this is a very small area of common landscaping and they had some discussion at worksession on Friday about incentives for a homeowners association to function for such a small purpose. They did not seem to have any disagreement on the staggered fencing and the additional landscaping along the street was a good idea. The main question was whether homeowners would continue to have the incentive to maintain it and to charge themselves to do that. Mr. Ward replied as they knew part of the other phases have extensive greenbelt. Member Strom moved for approval of Woodridge Phase 1, Preliminary PUD with two conditions. One is noted in the Staff report regarding maintenance of the median and the second to the effect that the liability of the proposed landscape maintenance scheme for the common open space shall be demonstrated prior to approval of the final PUD. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Mr. Eckman, Assistant City Attorney called their attention to page 57, sub -paragraph J of the LDGS, which does require and provide that the Developer shall submit a legal instrument setting forth a plan, providing permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreational az eas and community owned facilities and parking lots. It goes on to say that if the common open space is deeded to a homeowners association then the applicant shall file the proposed documents governing the association. That is the protection to insure that there will be an association formed that has the power to collect money to maintain this. Motion passed 5-0. Arbor Plaza. Backvard Burp-ers (Pad 3), PUD - Final - #137-80G. Member Klataske stated his concern was with the color of the awning in that particular center. We have Wal-Mart with a brown building and the blue accent stripe around that, the audio shop has a blue roof. Pizza Hut has a brown roof. What restrictions, deed restrictions, or PUD conditions were there for color schemes. His concern was the green awning and that was getting away from color scheme of the center. Ms. Whetstone, project planner, replied that in the PUD for the Arbor Plaza there was some wording that the structures and buildings would be compatible in color and materials. The proposed building will be beige and carry that theme through. The blue stripe in the center has been very greatly carried through in the Soundtrack blue roof. The red roof at the Pizza Hut was a board decision and changed to brown. What she sees with this Backyard Burgers was there was no roof per se, it is basically a flat roof. Staff saw the awning as a sign element and it was very small compared to Soundtrack or Pizza Hut. When she was out there she took some pictures of Pro Golf with large green lettering. There are some other colors out there in the signage element. In the center itself, the buildings are a beige stucco, which this will be, with a blue accent. 2