Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLATT FARM PUD PRELIMINARY - 3 90A - MINUTES/NOTES - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGNEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY On Wednesday, January 3, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. in the Media Center of Johnson Elementary, an informational meeting was held on the proposed amended Vil- lages at Harmony West Master Plan and Platt Farm PUD Preliminary plan. In attendance at this meeting was Linda Hopkins and Don Svitak of The Group, Inc.; Phil Hendricks of EDAW and Sherry Albertson -Clark of the Planning Department. Ten property owners attended the meeting. The meeting began with an introduction by Sherry Albertson -Clark to the purpose of the meeting. Phil Hendricks then provided an overview of the proposed project, after which, questions and comments were addressed. The following summarizes the questions asked and responses given by the developers, as well as comments made by the property owners. uestion: Will covenants be provided? Response; Yes. Would require shake shingles, building materials specified, minimum building area. Attorney would write covenants for the developer. uestion; Will there be an architectural control committee? Response: Yes. Don't know exactly who would be on committee. May use existing covenants for Regency Park to pattern the new covenants from. uestion: Would the architectural control committee be able to waive portions. of the covenants? Response: Don't know at this time. Comment: Concerned regarding lesser quality homes being constructed in neighborhood. uestion: Will spec homes be built? Response: Some will be spec, some pre -sale. Ouestion; Who is the owner/developer? Response: The Group, Inc. Comment: Concerned that the lots may be too small to be marketable. Response: Minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet. Open space buffering will make lots appear larger. May do varying sideyard setbacks. Density is 3 DU/acre, compared to Regency Park's 3.5 DU/acre. uestion; Could the number of lots be reduced to increase the overall lot size? Resoonse: Is possible. Evaluated a number of different site designs before this one. Question : What is the price range? Response: $100 - 160,000. uestion: What will the impact on the schools be from these lots? Response: Will be less than the previously -planned multi -family units. Adjustments to school boundary maps are made by the school district, which is completely independent of the City. uestion: What does the developer contribute to the development of the park site and trail system? Responses Staff responded that each lot is assessed a parkland fee of $695. This money is used to construct neighborhood parks in the area as homes develop. Would be difficult to extract fees for development of a park site which is off -site from this development. Ouestion: Who would maintain the landscaping on the site? Response: A Homeowner's Association would be established to maintain open space and the pool area. Question : Why is a pool planned? Are there enough homes to support the pool? Response: A pool is a good marketing tool. There are few developments west of College Avenue with pools. May open membership to the Regency Park area. Question : Is the pool in a good location, given the school location? Response: The pool would not be open during the school year. There are fencing requirements for swimming pools, from a liability standpoint. uestion: Will there be more than one builder? Response: Yes. Ouestion When would Troutman Parkway be built? Response: The street would be an up -front improvement required by the City. Based on the traffic study for this development, the developer may have to construct Troutman prior to building phase two of the site. As adjacent properties develop, repays could be obtained for the original developer. Comment: Concerned about the amount of traffic on Wakerobin, particularly with the school locations. uestion: What is the role of the traffic study? Response: The developer must provide the traffic study and it is reviewed by the City Transportation Director, The study would make recommendations as to the nature of street improvements required with this development. uestion: Is Seneca important to complete? May provide access to the proposed neighborhood park. -2- 11 0 Resoonse: Staff responded that there is some right-of-way already dedicated south of Horsetooth to build Seneca; however, there is a gap in dedication north of this site. u sti n: Can the development be phased? Response: Yes, as long as each final phase plan stands on its own. The issues summarized by the residents as being of concern on this project include the lot size, traffic impact, lack of a guarantee that streets will be completed and the impact on the schools of additional students from these lots. Sherry Albertson -Clark provided a summary of the next steps that may be taken on the proposed development and the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. -3- PROJECT:1�}k� TYPE OF MEETING: -',l�� Da�L: NAME ADDRESS WRITTEN NOTIFICATION YES/NO OWNER RENTE ' 1, r G ' LW yy,5Z 7 u �WZ