HomeMy WebLinkAboutLARIMER COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY EXPANSION SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 22 91 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES11
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
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent
Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the April 22, 1991 meeting; Item 2 - Quail Hollow
Subdivision, 5th Filing - Final, #46-89D; Item 3 - Continued until June 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 Plaza, 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 - #35-87B.
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