Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOTTONWOOD RIDGE SUBDIVISION - FINAL - 31-94A - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 13 Member Strom asked what happens if the final plat is approved and the Applewood residents are not satisfied and won't sign the plat. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that He has not experienced this as yet. Usually they are negotiated outside of the City Attorney's office involvement. This would be a civil matter and would not involve the P&Z Board in the future. Mr. Olt stated that there are technical resolutions to this that would work out after the Board's approval. If this should necessitate to lot line adjustments, if they were minor, this could be dealt with prior to recording the plat. Member Strom moved to approve Cottonwood Ridge Subdivision Final with the Staff condition. Member Bell seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 12 concerns known to the developer that the irrigation lateral, if placed underground, be made with PVC pipe and covered to a depth of 30 inches. They requested that the developer eliminate all sharp angles from the pipeline. Once the pipe is in place and installed and the development is completed, then any problems that developed as a result of that pipeline being underground will fall to the Applewood residents to take care of in terms of repair. Applewood's preference would be that final approval for the development be delayed as a incentive to resolution engineering aspects of the underground irrigation pipe going through Cottonwood Ridge. Kerrie Ashbeck, City Engineering Department, stated that the irrigation lateral is private and the city's only requirement in relation to this is that prior to final approval of the utility plans and plat, the irrigation lateral or ditch companies sign off on the plat and the plans if they cross the property. The only review that the city does is look at the location where those laterals cross the public right-of-way. The city makes sure that those crossings are built to standards that withstand the loading on the public streets. It is left up to the developer to obtain the approval of the private irrigation company. Eric Thayer, developer of the project, stated that the final utility plans and plat follow the basic format of the preliminary plan. The plans and plat have been reviewed by City Staff who has been aware of Applewood's concerns. The ditch is one of four ditches that pass through the project. He stated that they are proposing to put in concrete pipe because it would require only one foot of cover. The city requires concrete pipe in the street rights - of -way. Rubber gaskets of concrete pipe are just as good as PVC pipe and differential settlement is possible with both types of pipe. Velocity of the pipe will be high enough that silting will not occur. The Applewood Board is required to sign off and approve this plan which gives them ultimate control as to what happens. There was no Citizen Input. Member Strom commented that it appeared to him that it was a matter between the proponent and the ditch company who is in the position to stop the development if they are not satisfied. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that it is a State statute that all owners and proprietors have to sign the plats. Member Strom asked if there was any reason to believe that whatever resolution is arrived at could affect the delay of the subdivision. Mr. Olt replied He was uncertain. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes March 6, 1996 Page 11 Member Davidson reiterated concerns about how the public schools are impacted and other localities. He believed that work needed to be done on the definition of major employment center and how bonus points are awarded. Member Strom commented that some work has been done on the major employment center issue but more importantly is the philosophy behind that of mixing land uses. People cannot be forced to work in an employment center closest to their home. The theory behind this is that if you give people opportunities, more people would do it than not do it. He had concerns with the school issue and strongly encouraged City Council to have a more intense dialogue with the Thompson school district on the order of what has happened in recent years with Poudre R-1 school district working closer with Fort Collins. He understands that Thompson school district has problems but to a degree it is of their own making. He believed that it is not incumbent upon the City of Fort Collins to stop what is going on here because Thompson school district hasn't done the things they should do in Loveland. Member Colton concurred with Member Strom regarding the school issue. He believed that there is not a real strong case based on what is in the LDGS versus the LUPP to deny this project. Thompson school district's policy is that Fort Collins makes their decision and then they will accommodate the growth. Loveland does have a task force reviewing what can be done to adequately service the growth. Boards such as this one needs to be able to make decisions and if the schools are not adequate, the Board cannot say no they cannot be continued because the schools are at a critical level. Because the school districts won't deal with it doesn't mean that the citizens of the community involved have to suffer the consequences. This criteria can be used more strongly with ODPs because the LUPP is unclear with PUDs on this matter. Chairman Walker commented that the issue has to do with sprawl and the circumstances that it creates in terms of transportation and adequate infrastructure. The school district did not say that it was inadequate rather that they would provide what is needed. The nature of this type of project has caused the revision of the density chart in attempting to develop a more compact city. The motion passed 5-0. COTTONWOOD RIDGE SUBDIVISION - FINAL - #31-94A Bruce Francy, representative for the Applewood Water Users and Homeowners Association, pulled this item because the irrigation lateral bringing water to the Applewood subdivision goes through this proposed development. The developer proposes to put the current irrigation ditch underground. In 1994, Applewood board members made their