Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODLAND STATION PUD - PRELIMINARY ..... THIRD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING - 18-94B - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGi'kUJLU I. lA)d0DL4i , S i)9-7764 TVIIL DATE: DID Yov PfoflVI wnII'TEN NUTII'ICATION YES/NU -- - IMr �IMIIi K 11. What about the rest of County Road #9? When will the arterial improvements be completed between Horsetooth and Harmony? RESPONSE: Generally, the balance of the unimproved roadway will be constructed as development occurs. The City could, however, improve those sections of the roadway that are adjacent to undeveloped parcels as part of a capital improvement project. Such a project must be weighed against other projects throughout the City that are competing for limited capital improvement funds. This decision has not been made yet. 12. Will any trees be removed along the C.R. #9 frontage? RESPONSE: Yes, we expect to remove the first row of junipers in order to make room for underground utilities. The loss of the first row will still leave a hedge of trees since the stand is very wide at this point. 13. Will there be other improvements along C.R. #9? RESPONSE: Yes, we plan on providing an attractive streetscape that may include fencing and entry signage. We view the trees as an important amenity. We plan on saving as many as possible to create a dramatic entry for our project. 14. Speaking as an individual, I prefer Option C-2. I do not pretend to represent the neighborhood but feel that C-2 is a compromise that I can live with. 15. It is doubtful that the neighborhood will reach a consensus. Some neighbors may find the Options acceptable, some may not. If a majority supports one of the Options, a member of the minority may elect to appeal a P & Z decision to City Council as would be their right. 16. We will take these Options back to the larger group and discuss in more detail. We cannot commit, as a neighborhood, one way or the other, until we convene as a neighborhood group. We will let the Planning Department know of our decision as soon as possible. RESPONSE: As stated at the last neighborhood meeting (Nov. 10th), I am willing to provide an active, improved playground area that could be turned over to the homeowner's association. On Plan C-2, this area could be just north of Lot 33. The trees in this area could be thinned to accommodate playground equipment. My fear is that I offer the playground to mitigate the concern and the P.U.D. is still opposed by the neighborhood. I would like to work cooperatively with the neighborhood group to arrive at a consensus that is acceptable to the City. 3. The City places too much emphasis on the 3.00 d.u./acre policy. The policy does not work. Families with the financial means will move out of the urban area anyway to live on acreage - sized lots in the County. These families are forced to move out because there is no choice of lot sizes in the City. 4. We have heard all the arguments about the City planning for fiscal efficiency and ability to deliver urban levels of services. Frankly, these arguments place too much emphasis on money and ignore qualitative attributes of lifestyles that existing residents have chosen. 5. It is a shame that this prime agricultural land is to be lost to urban development. This land will never be reclaimed for agricultural purposes. This land is rated "prime" A-1 and A-2. 6. The City is discouraging the creation of neighborhoods with individuality. All neighborhoods will look the same. 7. It was frustrating to not be able to talk about density during the annexation hearings. The P & Z Board told us we could not discuss density until the P.U.D. stage. Well, after annexation, with the P.U.D. condition, the density is set at 3.00 d.u./acre. This put us in a "Catch-22" which is frustrating for the affected neighborhood. 8. We are not trying to fight development per se. Rather, we want to influence the nature and quality of the development. 9. What is the absorption rate for Plan C-2? RESPONSE: My estimation is about four years. 10. Will County Road #9 be widened with this development? RESPONSE: Yes, the developer is obligated to construct the "local street portion" of the arterial street cross-section on the east half of C.R.#9• The developer is joined in this effort by the City which constructs the "over -sized portion" to bring the half -width up to the arterial standard. The City's obligation is financed out of the Street Oversizing Fund. The developer acts as the contractor and pays for the full cost of the project. After inspection and acceptance by the City, the developer is reimbursed out of the Street Oversizing Fund. THIRD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Woodland Station Preliminary P.U.D. DATE: November 30, 1994 APPLICANT: Brad Bennett, Chateau Custom Homes CONSULTANT: Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design PLANNER: Ted Shepard, City of Fort Collins The meeting began with a review of a plan that featured 70 lots (2.00 d.u./acre). This plan will not be submitted to the P & Z Board because it is not economically feasible and may not be politically acceptable to the City. Instead, four new options were presented that attempt to incorporate "clustering" while at the same time coming as close to 3.00 d.u. as possible. These four options are summarized as follows: Option C-2: 98 lots, 2.80 d.u./acre, (no patio or townhomes) Option C-3: 78 lots, 12 patio lots, 20 townhomes = 3.13 d.u./a Option C-4: 82 lots, 20 patio lots, 10 townhomes = 3.19 d.u./a Option D-2: 99 lots, 2.82 d.u./acre, (no patio or townhomes) QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. Before we discuss the merits of each option, I would like to express our frustration with having to be boxed in by City policies that seem arbitrary and do not reflect the unique conditions of our area. Although H-P is to the south, there is significant open space and natural features in our neighborhood. The Poudre River floodplain, the ponds, and the open space areas combine to create an ecological area that has value. Developing the Shields and Strachan Farms at 3.00 dwelling units per acre seems like an artificial requirement that is imposed upon us by a City Council that we cannot even vote for. 2. We are worried about no active play area. This will steer children to trespass and play on our acreage -sized properties. We have ponds, horses, roosters, peacocks, which do not mix with children. We are also concerned that, although we have been here for over 30 years, these new urban residents will find our lifestyle objectionable and we will be considered the nuisance.