City Council Agenda and Packet 1997 09 02

Home Browse Search

permitted in the BO zone district. This approval does not constitute approval of any Special Review Use and any such use shall require Special Review Use prior to commencement." Condition No. 4, "To delete from the drawings anything that would indicate that such use had been granted." Seconded by Mayer. Roll call was taken. Motion passed by a 7 0 vote. APPEAL COLONY SQUARE 'OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT AND A PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN Paul Wood, Planning Director, stated that Council may approve as submitted, approve with modifications, or deny the preliminary plat and shall make explicit its findings if different from those of the Planning Commission. Commission's actions were based upon: 1. Testimony provided by Comfort Inn that the proposed building placement on the preliminary PUD would not maintain a reasonable view corridor to the hotel from McCaslin Blvd. 2. The intensity of building coverage and the lack of adequate parking. 3. Insufficient open space coverage and the concern that open space would decrease further to accommodate additional parking. 4. The status of the vacated 80th Street right -of -way and the ability of that issue to significantly impact the layout of both the preliminary plat and PUD. Wood stated that Commission's action was based, in part, on the fact that both the proposed preliminary subdivision plat and PUD development plan had incorporated the easterly 25' of the vacated right -of -way without Council authorization. Based upon recorded documents, it appeared the entire west one -half of the vacated right -of -way is now owned by T.E. Associates. It was the opinion of the City, as outlined in a June 3, 1997, memo from the City Attorney and a response letter from William Simmons to Craig Blockwick dated June 3, 1997, that neither the preliminary or final PUD for Colony Square operated to convey to the City any portion of the vacated right -of -way, nor did they contractually obligate the City to a land exchange process. Further, the final PUD did not create a statutory vested property right to obtain and develop the northeast quarter of the vacated right -of -way. Davidson called for the applicant's presentation on the 88th Street issue. Craig N. Blockwick, an attorney with Wells, Love Scoby, 225 Canyon Boulevard, Boulder, Colorado 80302, stated that there was an agreement to do this exchange reflected in the formal actions of the Planning Commission and this Council. It was repeated in recorded documents and referenced in informal discussions. He pointed out that this final PUD is a binding plan, approved by the City and remains in effect until revoked, altered or amended. It shows the City parks as including this specific strip. Davidson called for Council comments or questions.