HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODRIDGE (ARAPAHOE FARM) PUD, PHASES TWO-FIVE - PRELIMINARY - 55-87E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES I
P & Z MINUTES
January 27, 1992
WOODRIDGE (ARAPAHOE FARM) P.U.D.. PHASES TWO-FIVE. PRELIMINARY -
# -$7E
Mr. Peterson started with the description of the project. Mr. Shepard then proceeded to finish
the description of the project. Staff recommended approval.
Member Walker asked if the Solar Ordinance would come into affect on this project.
Mr. Shepard stated that this project was submitted prior to the Solar Ordinance final hearings,
therefore, this project was not affected by that ordinance.
Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated that planning in that area had been in progress
for a long time, particularly over the past 20 months. Back in April of 1990, Cityscape began
working seriously with Woodcraft Homes on the single family area, and in working out the
geometrics of Harmony Road going through the site. In the process of amending the master plan
and doing the final planning for the first phase of development, it was found that a very detailed
storm drainage plan and utility plan was needed.
Mr. Charles Bell, 4020 Royal Drive, asked if any of the streets would tie into the new streets.
Mr. Bell was also concerned with heavy construction traffic through that area or was there any
drainage that would go to the north.
Mr. Shepard addressed the street connection potential. He stated that there are three streets in
Imperial Estates in the Westfield Subdivision (Goodell, Lynda and Royal) and those streets were
looked at as potential residential connections. Mr. Shepard stated that it was decided that those
streets, however, would not serve as outlets for Woodridge. He felt that Woodridge would be
well served by Harmony and Seneca and would have access to Taft Hill Road. As far as
construction traffic, GT Land Colorado, Inc., had not given any permission for construction
traffic to use Royal Drive. Any construction traffic that would use any of those roads would be
considered as trespassing.
Mr. Ward addressed the drainage question with an answer of no, that there is no drainage that
goes to the north.
Chairman Strom closed the public input session.
Chairman Strom asked if the green strip along the north end of the property would be a
pedestrian easement for access to the school and park site.
15
•
P & Z MINUTES
January 27, 1992
Mr. Shepard stated that it would be called a greenbelt access easement. It actually was the water
line easement for the 60" water line that was put in 2 summers ago. It would act as a buffer
between the two subdivisions but it would not be improved with a path. The path is located in
the center of Woodridge through another drainage channel.
Chairman Strom asked if that strip of property was publicly owned or was it an easement.
Mr. Ward stated that at the present time it was privately owned, but would be a utility and
access easement.
Member O'Dell stated that the southwest corner had a triangular shape that was not part of
Woodridge as does the northwest, why aren't they included and what is there now.
Mr. Ward stated that the only thing included in Woodridge development is the single family
development areas. GT Land retains ownership of the other pieces. The northwest corner of
the master plan is for business services with an alternative of multi-family. The southwest
corner is an old county land fill. All the EPA tests have be done and the site has been sealed
and monitored for about 10 years. That area would remain in its native state of Buffalo Grass.
Member O'Dell asked if it would be forever.
Mr. Ward stated that it has been offered to the City on numerous occasions.
Member O'Dell then commented that the site is not buildable.
Mr. Ward clarified that it may be conceivable that someone who did not need any kind of
federal insurance, could purchase the property and build a house. For all intents and purposes
it is just a permanent open space tract.
Member Carroll moved to recommend approval of the Woodridge (Arapahoe Farm)
P.U.D., Phases Two-Five, Preliminary, #55-87E.
Member Clements-Cooney seconded the motion.
The motion to recommend approval carried 7-0.
Chairman Strom concluded the discussion agenda and asked if there were any further items.
16