Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE PUD - FINAL - 55-87D - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES Jvtu Z ('t1( I Member Strom asked for a brief discussion of how the maintenance was being handled. Mr. Peterson replied that the First Interstate Bank would maintain the storm water detention ponds since it is on their property. He stated that it would not be a city facility. Member Cottier asked if there was assurance from First Interstate that they would maintain the pond because they have not maintained it in the past. Mr. Peterson stated that they have not maintained it in the past because they did not own it in the past. Member Cottier made a motion to approve Hickory Hill Village PUD Final. She commented that she was glad to see that it was worked out and she believed that, with no neighborhood residents to speak tonight, that the neighborhood would be satisfied with the maintenance of the pond. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. THE GATES AT WOODRIDGE (ARAPAHOE FARM) PUD -FINAL -Case #55-87C THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE (ARAPAHOE FARM) PUD -FINAL -Case #55-87D Ted Shepard gave descriptions of both proposed projects. He stated that at preliminary, the Board placed two conditions which, at that time, was one PUD that covered both filings. The conditions related to the viability of the common areas and the ability of the homeowners' association to maintain those areas. Staff examined the final, the assurances of the developer, the site and landscape covenants have been modified to address the medians in Harmony Road, and the enforcement mechanisms in the city code give staff the assurance that the conditions have been met. He presented, for the record, a letter that was received from the water district. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design and representative of WoodCraft Homes, stated that the conditions of the preliminary have been met and other issues that came up through Final Review have all been resolved. Mr.Shepard cited a letter that was received from the Fort Collins/Loveland Water District and signed by Michael Ditullio which read: "The Fort Collins/Loveland Water District submits the following comments for the abovementioned project for the public record. The Fort Collins/Loveland Water District owns and operates and maintains an existing water line in private easement located in the abovementioned project. The water line is the main distribution loop in the district's water transmission system. The district respectfully requests that all planning, zoning and design elements design accommodate the existing easement and water line with regard to access, ease of maintenance and repair, and potential damage should the line break. The district is willing to allow relocation of the water line where the existing location is not conducive to the development provided all district requirements are satisfied, coordinated appropriately, and at the developer's expense. The district will require that any relocation be installed in accordance with the district standards specifications for water distribution systems." (A copy of the letter is attached to the minutes.) 13 Chairman Klataske asked if it would be necessary at any point throughout the line's present location to be relocated. Mr. Shepard stated that there would a slight relocation that would occur toward the northern end of the Gates project. Member O'Dell asked for clarification of where the water line was located throughout the site. Mr. Ward stated that the water line ran north/south through the site where the street alignment and the future greenbelt will be. He stated that rather than rigidly designing the subdivision around the water line, the water line would jog between certain lots and back to the existing alignment or, if it had to stay under streets the entire length, it would wrap around. They have had on-going discussions with the water district and it was agreed that it would stay in the street and that the district would participate. But Mr. Ditullio's letter indicated that the relocation would be at the developer's expense. Member O'Dell asked what would happen if, after this area is developed in the greenbelt area, there was a problem or leak with the water line. Who would be responsible for repairing the line and replacing the landscaping? Mr. Ward stated that the water district standards states that the district would be responsible for repairing it unless the leak was a result of someone else's negligence. There would be some limits for replacement of trees and large shrubs within that 15 foot corridor. Member Walker asked if, given the water line situation, the Board needed to put in some language to the effect that the water line issue needs to be clarified in the motion. Mr. Shepard stated that the Board would be taking action on the land use. He stated that to mandate an agreement between two parties would be difficult. He stated that he would discourage the Board to put language into their decision to address this issue. Mr. Peterson stated that before this development could proceed, the district would have to execute the utility plans so the issue would have to be resolved again before the plats could be filed. This is the standard operating procedure. Member Strom moved to approve The Gates at Woodridge PUD Final. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. Member Cottier moved to approve The Overlook at Woodridge PUD Final. Member Strom seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. TOYS "R" US/WESTERN AUTO PUD -FINAL -Case #23-C Steve Olt gave a description of the request stating that this was a request for two separate uses, one being auto related and the other general retail, which was located on 10.33 acres. The two acres. The two buildings totaled 60,863 square feet with Toys "R" Us being 45,487 square feet and Western Auto being 15,376 square feet. He stated that the property was located 1/3 mile south of Horsetooth Road, on the east side of South College Avenue and was zoned H-B Highway Business. He stated that the Toys "R" Us/Western Auto PUD Preliminary was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 20, 1991 with the following condition that 14