HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK - FDP - 20-05/A - CORRESPONDENCE - LEGAL COMMUNICATIONSteve Olt - Re: Spring Canyon Community Park Page 2
* April 7, 2006 ... The Final Plans for the Spring Canyon Community Park were approved administratively
by the City Engineer and Director of Planning. The plans were then recorded and filed in the City's
Technical Services Department, as well as the subdivision plat being recorded in Larimer County.
The PDP and Final Plans for Spring Canyon Community Park that went through the development review
and approval processes did contain an 8 foot wide concrete trail connection from the perimeter trail in the
Spring Canyon Community Park east to the common property line with Olander Elementary School. The
location of this trail would connect into the school site approximately 40 feet to 45 feet north of the north
property lines of Tract'A' (Utility and Drainage Easement), residential Lot 1, and Tract'D' (Utility, Drainage
and Access Easement) of the Silver Oaks Paired Housing P.U.D. 2nd Filing.
Please let me know if you need further information or clarification about this matter.
Steve Olt,
Project Planner
Planning & Zoning Department
CC: Barnes, Peter; Gloss, Cameron;- Weston, Denise
Steve Olt - Re: Spring Canyon Community Park Page 1
From: Ingrid Decker
To: Foreman, Craig; Olt, Steve
Date: 12/5/2007 9:13:04 AM
Subject: Re: Spring Canyon Community Park
Yes - thanks for the fast follow-up, Steve.
Ingrid
>>> Steve Olt 12/5/2007 8:26 AM >>>
Ingrid,
In this case, a Minor Amendment to the approved and recorded Spring Canyon Community Park plan
would be appropriate, especially because the issue of the trail location and alignment was brought to our
attention by citizens in the neighborhood. When a Minor Amendment is submitted for review the neighbors
should be notified and further notified of any decision made (by the Director of Planning & Zoning). Any
decision by the Director may be appealed to the Planning & Zoning Board.
Certainly the best immediate option would be for the City and Poudre R-1 to come to an agreement about
moving the trail connection further north onto the school site, if possible, to be further away from the
homes. Elimination of the trail really is not a viable option because of its importance for direct, safe access
from the school to the park. Regarding obligation, I presume it could be said that the location of the trail is
not consistent with the approved park plan and that the current, built location does create a conflict with
the adjacent neighborhood.
Does this sufficiently answer your questions?
Steve
>>> Ingrid Decker 12/4/2007 5:07 PM >>>
Steve - thanks for the background. Can you tell me, from a process standpoint, what Park's
options/obligations (and possible consequences) are at this point if the trail connection was not built in the
location shown on the Final Plans?
Thanks,
Ingrid
>>> Steve Olt 12/4/2007 4:17 PM >>>
Craig,
In response to your request for a general chronology of City development review and decisions for the
Spring Canyon Community Park, the following processes and dates apply:
* July 19, 2004 ... Parks Planning staff brought a conceptual plan for Spring Canyon Community Park
before the Conceptual Review team.
* April 13, 2005 ... a "formal" Project Development Plan (PDP) request for Spring Canyon Community
Park was submitted to the City's Development Review Center by the Parks Planning Department.
* September 8, 2005 ... an administrative public hearing for the Spring Canyon Community Park, PDP
was held in front of the City's assigned Hearing Officer.
* September 16, 2005 ... the Hearing Officer approved the Spring Canyon Community Park, PDP.
* October 5, 2005 ... Final Plans for the Spring Canyon Community Park were submitted to the
Development Review Center by Parks Planning.