Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHORSETOOTH WEST MASTER PLAN - 14-88 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESY April 25, 1988 Page 12 �,d1AY� IV%q\drainagc y�i $b oPaul Eckmanith regards to the snow removal, the City requi s within 24 hours aftstorm the snow be removed from public sid alks. He commented hf feel the Code would require1snow remov from these sidewalks sinould be privately owned. Member Edwers od the City would have multiple. op ons if the situa- tion he mentre t occur. He inquired if these pon s would become a part of the ainage utility. And what impact wo Id there be on the Home Owneiation t recirculating the water and maintaining the pumps. Ted Shepard stated it is his un erstanding that se eral of the ponds would function as retention and detenti n ponds. The onds would be platted as easements, and would not in any wa be dedicate as ownership to the City. Member Edwards inquired if the pri to entit decided not to pay the taxes would the City take over and maintain he ar s. Mr. Clinger stated the subdivision codes r ire developers to provide detention ponds. The proposed ponds were 99% wit ' Home Owners Association lands. Member Edwards stated with a site pl like his one, as an observer of a lake amenity and the issue of sidewalk on one side of the street, he was as supportive of staffs recommendat1 n as to t adherence to the code. He commented should there be one s' ewaIk make re it is wide enough so that two people can walk together o it. He suggeste _that staff and the applicant further study areas of simila nature to determ a the walking patterns of people. Mr. Clinger stated he appr/iated Member Edwards re?Varks. Member Brown stated ith having the sidewalk on the north of the long cul- de-sac the snow will elt off much quicker. Member Klataske i quired if fencing would be provided fo the lots that back up to the lake. Mr. Clinger st ed that low split rail fences with screens on a inside would be constructe . Member rn moved to approve Provincetowne PUD, Waterchase, P se 1 -Pre- liminary and Final with the variance requests and conditions as o tlined by staff. ember Strom seconded. Mery�ber Brown stated she felt the Board was impressed with the quality of the pr sect. - HORSETOOTH WEST PUD - MASTER PLAN Ted Shepard gave the staff -report. April 25, 1988 • Page 13 Rick Hattman stated he represented the owners of the property. He stated the project was mixed use in nature. The property was envisioned as a long term master plan which would build -out in the next ten, years. He indicated the School Board has approached the owners of the pro erty concerning a future elementary school for 1992. He stated the north area of the project would be buffered with single family homes adjacent to the north county residential lots. The school site was located off the arterial on a collector street. The dual land uses on Tracts G and H were due to the fact that Parks and Recreation was also looking for a site in this area for a neighborhood park. Ted Shepard stated the request for a master plan was in conformance with the plans and policies of the City and recommended approval. Member Crews stated a lot of the presentation by Mr. Hattman was focused on the school site. He inquired if the school was a sure thing. Ted Shepard stated at this point the construction of the school was not definite. Mr. Hattman commented the two parties were in negotiations about the pro- posed school and at this time the school site was not purchased. Tom Peterson informed the Board that the School District was reviewing other sites. Member Brown was concerned about the appropriateness of the neighborhood center and convenience store being located close to the school. Mr. Hattman stated the location of the neighborhood center had been discussed with the School Board. He indicated negotiations for setbacks had been discussed but not finalized. The convenience store in Tract D was far enough away from the school site and would not be a major concern. Member Edwards stated normally when a master plan was presented a prelimi- nary accompanies it. He inquired why there is only a master plan for this project. Tom Peterson stated it was at staff's request that only a master plan be presented. The issue of the major water main extension down Horsetooth Road was presented and the City became aware that the School Board was negotiat- ing with the applicants which made this situation somewhat unique. John Stednick stated he was a resident who lived just north of the property in question. He read a letter prepared by the members of the Teft Acre Water Association. The letter was signed by twenty homeowners. He proceeded to submit the letter to the secretary. Member Edwards inquired if the plan was inconsistent with the Larimer County Land Use Plan. He also asked what set of plans and criteria was being used to evaluate this project. April 25, 1988 • Is 14 Ted Shepard stated the Board evaluated the project under the City adopted Land Use Policy Plan. He commented that the plan was consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement. Member Edwards indicated that the project is within the City and within the urban growth area boundary. He stated from a land use policy standpoint, the project was considered under the City's policies. Tom Peterson stated that Mr. Stcdnick had brought up the concern about turn- ing movements off Horsetooth Road and Taft Hill Road. He informed the Board that the City was planning to install a traffic signal at the location this summer. Mike Versharty wanted the record to show he agreed with everything Mr. Sted- nick stated. Joyce Oppenheimer complimented Mr. Stcdnick on his research. She stated she had been advised that the children coming out of both trailer courts, as well as Rossborough, will be part of Johnson Elementary School. She commented that this leaves very few children to the north of the proposed site to attend the new school. She stated she found it hard to believe the site will be chosen for the school location. She added that the traffic problems were also a concern. She felt that there was no need for another convenience store in the area. Lynn Courtney inquired if there was additional need for the child care center. He stated he had spoken to five day care centers who said they were not at full capacity. He added he wanted to go on record showing he supported what had already been stated. James Gabel stated he owned property directly ne:rth ,of the proposed project. He wondered if the roads which cross from the north would go to some other area. Mr. Hattman stated that duringy his discussions with Rick Ensdorff they decided the eventual' collector system would be placed in this mile section would avoid existing roads. Mr. Gabel stated the project would block his view of the mountains and there- fore he was not in favor of the plan. Member Edwards requested staff to highlight what a master plan meant. He also wanted to know where the project was in this process. Ted Shepard stated that a master plan was not a request for a subdivision, not a PUD, and there was no development proposal uncder review. He indicated only land use designations are being reviewed. He explained the reason for this was to look at street systems, curb cuts. This aided in the development of long range utility and traffic planning. MastcT. plans create a level of expectation as to what some of the proposed land uses might be. For anything to happen on the proposed site a preliminary PUD would have to be submitted. a April 25, 1988 • Page 15 Member Kern inquired what would happen if the proposed school were not located on the site. Mr. Hattman stated single family homes would be constructed on Tract F simi- lar to those on Tracts A and B. Member Kern stated there was a traffic impact concern. Mr. Hattman stated last year the capital budget contained information about the development of this area. Member Kern stated a master plan entails a level of expectation for the development. He commented the staff applied their 'criteria to the project. Ted Shepard indicated each square mile of the project created a circulation system. The project has internal access to itself. He added the plan has mixed uses. Chairperson O'Dell inquired about the density of the single family lots. She stated it would be wise, at the preliminary level, to increase the density to the southern part of the tracts and decrease the density where the area meets the larger lots. Member Crews inquired where on the map Moreland dead ends. Mr. Hattman stated Moreland terminates at the cul-de-sac just short of the property. Member Edwards commented to the statement "we have too many child care centers, too many shopping centers, etc." He stated that the development was based on the land use decisions. It was compatible= --with_ the surrounding areas. Member Brown stated the site of the school was inappropriate with the other uses from an activity standpoint. She disagreed with having a neighborhood center and convenience store acras from each other. Member Crews stated he agreed with Member Brown. He commented he felt the convenience store was too close , to the school, and by this fact he would have to vote against the project. Member Kern indicated the elementary school was too close to the neighbor- hood shopping center. He added he also had some concern about the single dwelling units to the north. He stated the school site next to an arterial was not an appropriate use. Member Edwards stated the project was only a master plan. He commented it is slightly premature to condemn the land use at this point. He indicated the school could be adequately provided for and buffered. Member Brown stated she still felt this was not an appropriate adjacent land use, even at a master plan level. f April 25, 1988 • • Page 16 Chairperson O'Dell stated she would be surprised if the School Board were to choose this site as being acceptable for the ' reason that the arterials arc too close in relation to the proposed school location. Member Edwards moved to approve the Horsetooth West PUD - Master Plan as presented. Member Strom seconded. Motion passed 4-3. With Members Crews, Kern and Brown voting no. MIDLAND GRE S COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PUD AND ON- ING -COUNTY RE RRAL Linda Ripley gave the taff description of the project. Dave Shupe stated he w nted to correct the staff report. a indicated the property north is an au ahn; a recreational center fe uring go-carts. He informed the area is design as an open space./tted oach of the plan is the concept of separation be een the cities. Hgreen space along the front and across the fronta a of the commerto the north can be heavily landscaped. He inform d a plan had tted to the County that illustrates the type of la dscaping beid. He stated the landscape screen can add to the se ration of thn appropriate way. Linda Ripley stated staff is recomVGwth enial because of the project's inconsistency with the Larimer Coune Plan and the Intergovernmen- tal Agreement of the Fort Collins UrArea. She stated that the plan proposed commercial development, assidential density twice the limit allowable in the agreement. Mr. Shupe stated the Intergovern ntal A reeme.nt also provided that the County would restructure its zoni ordinanc in such a way to enforce the rural farm designation in th/ble He stated hat the County had chosen not to do this, for reasons unko him. He ated by virtue of the zoning ordinance only, this propertcontain 125 u its under the FA zoning. He said this could be an enforctuation. Member Kern stated that in the FA zone, 1/2 acre lots would be acceptable. He asked to what exte do the Intergovernmental greements override this zoning. Tom Peterson stated a was not sure the . answer he was iving was completely correct. The Inte governmental Agreement created an verlay zone which superseded Count zoning in the areas covered by the Inte overnmental Agrcc- ment. Mr. Shupe std that his comments stemmed from a legal representative he had sought, andatehat they were not his own. \ Memy rown commented that one fact was ''-that C-Comme cial was not allowthe FA zoning. She stated the development might be 25 units but not crcial. C c