Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUILDERS SQUARE AT HARMONY MARKET PUD, 2ND FILING - FINAL - 54-87D - CORRESPONDENCE - ADJACENT OR AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS • Stanford Plaza 3555 Stanford Road Suite 100 G. T. LAND COLORADO INC. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Fort Collins — 303-223-3933 Denver— 303-440-3433 Longmont—303-651-6336 Facsimile — 303-223-4671 August 8, 1990 D City of Ft. Collins AUG 8 IMO Planning and Zoning Board P. 0. Box 580 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Members of Planning and Zoning Board: On July 23, 1990 you approved the Builders Square project. We would 4ike to take this opportunity to thank you for the manner in which you handled the review of this project. During the public input portion of the meeting Mr. Charles Butler and Mr. Mark Thomas made a presentation regarding the "Deed Restriction" which was agreed upon at the time of the "Pace" approval process. We were not made aware of any concerns of these gentleman or the Fairway Estates Homeowners group or we most certainly would have answered those concerns had they been expressed prior to the July 23 meeting. Several statements were made at the meeting which we feel were inadequate. Mr. Fiest was not responsible in any manner for the preparation of the Deed Restriction. The commitment to provide this to Fairway Estates was from the effected land owner, Oak Farm Inc. , through G.T. Land Colorado Inc. , and not Fiest Meager & Co. It is true that the deed restriction was not completed immediately. As I explained at the meeting we had ongoing issues related to the Front Range Baptist Church which we felt were important to resolve prior to the filing of the deed restriction. A deed restriction is a very important legal document which when recorded will run with the land within the terms contained in the restriction. It was our opinion that until some change occurred in the land, ie: change of ownership or development plan, that having the deed restriction in place was not critical. We do have correspondence with the attorney for Fairway Estates and Mrs. Belenda Butler, then President of the Fairway Estates Homeowners Association, explaining the issues and the reasons why the document had not been filed. The designation of the effected parcels on the Oak/Cottonwood master plan were Parcels 1-G and 1-H. As you know these are planning designations not legal definitions. It was necessary to create legal descriptions for these parcels to properly record the deed restriction. In order to avoid confusion in the future the recorded deed restriction identified the two areas as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. which were more identifiable from a title examination and legal view. The land uses for each represented the area on the amended master plan with one exception, a small portion of Parcel 1-G on the master plan extending to Boardwalk Drive. An option has been given to The Front Range Baptist Church to purchase this area. Their A • • Fairway Estates Deed Restriction Page 2 of 2 intent is not to build facilities on the west side of the option parcel, but would like to build faculty housing on the eastern portion adjacent to Boardwalk. This seemed a reasonable request and one which did not violate the idea of a buffer against Fairway Estates. In any case a restricted buffer of 300 feet of R-L Low Density Residential has been provided for the entire length of Fairway Estates. An illustration of the areas described is enclosed which will clarify the areas discussed. It would appear that one of the major concerns expressed by Mr. Butler and Mr. Thomas was that the restriction could be amended by the planning and zoning board. We did have discussions with the Homeowners Association about the need to have some mechanism to amend the restriction should changes be necessary. We clearly expressed that this should only be possible if any use outside of the approved uses were acceptable to Fairway Estates. At that time the association did not agree to participate. Since the planning board would review any development proposal as a condition of the master plan on this area it was felt the current language would insure a mechanism for the future. If a proposal was not acceptable to Fairway Estates, the Board could decline approval. We are very sorry that this issue has come before you in the manner which it did. G.T. has gone to considerable time and expense to insure that the commitment to provide a restricted buffer for Fairway Estates was put in place. We will continue to work with the new officers of Fairway Estates Homeowners Association to resolve any outstanding issues which they may have. We would like to take this opportunity to reassure the Board, city staff, and citizens that G.T. has a long term commitment to this community and will always act in good faith. Mr. Eckman and I have met and we have scheduled a meeting with a representative of the Homeowners Association early next week. We clearly feel that most of the issues expressed at the Planning meeting were a misunderstanding between the parties and that with open communication outside of the public arena we will be able to resolve any issues. Ve ruly yours, eter C. Kast Vice President Marketing & Sales CC: Susan Kirkpatrick Fairway Estates Homeowners Association Steve Burkett C/O Charles Dodson Paul Eckman Charles Butler Tom Peterson Mark Thomas Ted Shepard Tony Fiest Eldon Ward AUG: 8-90 WED 16:22 GT LAND COLORADO INC FAX NO. 3032234671 P. 01/02 • • . / ,---ffl HARMONY ROAD 1--- — — - T _ , ,,,,„,,,,,,,,,s, . [ _ . \ ._, 1 1 1 ;r 111F-.7-- --.--=7. :\. PARCEL 0/ DEED PURCHASED 404 RESTRICTION G 8YHA CHURCH AREA 2 ! l +1 a * 1 i Q411(Roc_ .--. OP P ON ER OP ON BY C URCH I t ~ 1{ \ \ \ DEED RED ION I1 \ \ \ 1 •� / 1 ` �/ / \ < 1 1 1 M,� a. T. LANDco .RDODIa C+ttyg�•apt• \\\ FRONT RAH GE f3G°QFii T CHURCH ` \ k I 1 PROPERTY TRANSFER AND DEED RESTRICTION AREAS\` 4-23--90 0 1-1,0 200' 1 1 { \___ Jl.. OAK FARM FARM..5__.L. '\\\%\\\\\) \ COTTONWOOD