HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/17/2021 - Planning and Zoning Commission - SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS - Regular Meeting1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 1:25 PM
To:Development Review Comments; Katharine Claypool
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Development
Categories:P&Z
Shar Manno
Manager, Customer Support
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
970.221.6767
smanno@fcgov.com
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Karen Murphy <klavian@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 12:37 PM
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development
Greetings!
I would like to ask the zoning and planning commission to please prevent any more high density housing from being
approved in the city of Fort Collins. Our roads are already more than maxed out, and there is no way to widen most of
them. Most people will not make use of public transportation. Our parks and trails are crowded. There is a point where
we have to set a limit or our quality of life here will continue to decline. Let the developers go to neighboring cities.
Thank you!
Karen Murphy
Sent from my iPhone
GENERAL COMMENT 1
Packet pg. 1
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Rebecca Everette
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 4:35 PM
To:Katharine Claypool; Alyssa Stephens; Paul S. Sizemore
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] 3 housing projects
Categories:P&Z
Hi Katie ‐ here's a general email for P&Z, not necessarily related to a specific item.
Rebecca Everette
Development Review Manager | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We acknowledge the role of local
government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and are committed to dismantling those same systems
in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Development Review Coordinators <DRCoord@fcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 2:20 PM
To: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; Noah Beals <nbeals@fcgov.com>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] 3 housing projects
This came to the DRCoord email this afternoon.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Kate Forgach <kateforgach@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 12:53 PM
To: Development Review Coordinators <DRCoord@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 3 housing projects
Dear P&Z Board:
The Coloradoan reported today you are reviewing three, oversized housing projects.
I beg you to reconsider allowing yet MORE development in Fort Collins. We simply don’t have the water to support such
massive development and the people it draws.
Please keep in mind, “If you build it, they will come.”
Kate Forgach
GENERAL COMMENT 2
Packet pg. 2
Colorado State University Parking and Transportation Services
Parking and Transportation Services
Lake Street Garage
1508 Center Avenue
6012 Campus Delivery
Fort Collins, CO 80523-6012
Phone: (970) 491-7041
Fax: (970) 491-2017
pts.colostate.edu
Dear Meaghan Overton,
On behalf of Colorado State University, we would like to provide input on the residential development currently under
review: The Quarry by Watermark (PDP200019). Recommendations for this project are noted on the attached checklist,
which outlines amenities to support transportation options for CSU students.
The attached Development Review Checklist was designed to assist local developers in supporting transportation
options when students move off campus. By making these options accessible to students, we can reduce traffic
congestion, carbon emissions and parking demand in our community, while promoting a healthier and more sustainable
lifestyle for CSU students.
In their first year living on campus, approximately two-thirds of CSU students live without a personal vehicle. During this
time, these students learn to navigate the Transfort bus system, and use active modes like bicycling and walking to get
around campus and the Fort Collins community. To support these choices, CSU has invested in a variety of amenities and
infrastructure, including the Around the Horn shuttle, separated bicycle and pedestrian paths, over 17,000 bicycle
parking spaces, air/repair stations, 11 Zipcar car share vehicles and two Zagster bike share stations. In addition to these
on-campus investments, the Associated Students of CSU has funded additional bus service on routes that serve our
student population in the Fort Collins community. With access off campus, we believe that our students will continue to
utilize these transportation options.
Upon reviewing your development proposal, we selected some recommendations specific to your project. We hope you
will factor these recommendations into the next phase of your development planning. We would also be happy to work
with the developers and future property managers to provide transportation resources and programs to CSU students
who live at the property.
Please feel free to reach out to us with any questions or for additional details on the attached recommendations.
Sincerely,
Aaron Fodge Erika Benti
Alternative Transportation Manager Active Transportation Professional
(970) 491-2823 (970) 491-7600
aaron.fodge@colostate.edu erika.benti@colostate.edu
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 3
Development Review Checklist
Prepared by CSU for Project:
The Quarry by Watermark (PDP200019)
Bike Parking
☒ Outdoor racks:
● Position close to entrance, for ease of access
● Consider using alternative paving to assist with storm water drainage
● Well lit at night for safety/ security with video camera point towards racks
● Provided covered bike parking
☒Secure, locking cage
☒Indoor bike parking room
Tailored Recommendations:
Covered and indoor bike parking will support LEED certification for this building.
Bike Repair Stations
☒ Include tools and air pump, indoors if possible
Tailored Recommendations:
CSU students are more likely to ride their bikes when they are well -maintained, and may stop riding
due to easily-prevented issues such as a flat tire or squeaky chain. Providing a fix -it station with tools
and a pump can help students to keep their bikes in working condition.
CSU uses the Dero Fixit stands at high-traffic areas on campus (https://www.dero.com/product/fixit/)
When you add a repair station, please notify City of FC to add to their lis t of stations across the City.
Bike Share
☒ Spin Charging Hub
Tailored Recommendations:
Please consider installing a Spin charging hub for e -scooter and e-bike share on-site to help connect
students to the system on campus, in Old Town and throughout the community (to launch July 2021).
Students can end their e-bike or e-scooter trip at any bike rack on the CSU campus for an easy
commute.
Car share
☒ Zipcar: provide dedicated parking space for car share vehicle in a high -visibility area
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 4
Tailored Recommendations:
Consider dedicating one or more parking spaces in a high-visibility area to ZipCar carshare. This will
help serve students who got used to using ZipCar while living on campus, and who don’t own a
personal vehicle.
Certifications
☒ Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
☒ Bicycle Friendly Business
☐ Best Workplace for Commuters
Tailored Recommendations:
Find info about the selected recommendations here:
● LEED (https://new.usgbc.org/leed)
● Bicycle Friendly Business (http://www.bikeleague.org/business )
Commuter/Inclusive Amenities
☐ Break Rooms
☐ Meditation Rooms
☐ Lactation Rooms
Tailored Recommendations:
The Commuter/Inclusive Amenities are typically recommended at worksites, and have not been
selected for this residential project.
Electric Vehicle
☒ 8 single or 4 dual chargers
☒ Conduit: size to accommodate future growth
☒ Signed Spaces
☐ LEV / LEED Parking
Tailored Recommendations:
Plan for future electric vehicle charging needs and at least provide conduit for future residents with
EV vehicles. We have many students with EVs. The State of Colorado Energy Office (CEO) provides
grants for purchase and installation of electric vehicle chargers
(https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/energyoffice/charge -ahead-colorado )
Longboard Racks
☒ Station close to front entrance for ease of access
☒ Recommended rack type: Board Loch Spartan 7 or Spartan 14 (https://boardloch.com/)
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 5
Tailored Recommendations:
Exterior longboard racks protect the interior of apartments from wheels marking the walls.
Resources/Programs
☒ Recruitment Promotion: Include transportation amenities in brochure and advertising; cost saving
associated with non-drive alone commuting
☒ Post Map of nearby Transit Stops
☒ Post Map of nearby Bike Routes
☒ Provide transportation resources on website
☒ Post Carpool matching board
☒ Provide Car Share Membership to residents (ZipCar)
Tailored Recommendations:
● Feature the Transfort Routes 2, 7 and 19 as these routes pass in close proximity to this
development
● Help direct residents to nearby bike routes including the Spring Creek Trail
Note: CSU Parking and Transportation Services Dept is happy to assist with these resources!
Separated Bicycle and Pedestrian trails
☒ Provide logical, easy, safe connections to existing network.
Tailored Recommendations:
● Build spur trail to connect to the Spring Creek Trail
● Install wayfinding for residents to the Spring Creek Trail
For guidance, refer to City and University Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans:
● 2014 City of Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan: https://www.fcgov.com/bicycling/bike -plan.php
● 2014 CSU Bicycle Master Plan:
https://www.fm.colostate.edu/files/forms/BikeMasterPlan_2014.pdf
Shuttle Service to Campus
☐ Shuttle Service to Campus: Provide private shuttle to CSU campus for residents; CSU will make
every attempt to accommodate shuttle space at Campus Transit Center
☐ Uber/Lyft dropoff
Tailored Recommendations:
(c heckboxes not selected due to existing transit service to CSU)
Sidewalks/Accessible Routes
☒ Alignment with ADA crossings, refer to Larimer County LUCAS (Local Universal Design for Sight or
Mobility Impaired)
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 6
☒ Pedestrian Walkway
Tailored Recommendations:
See note re: spur trail connection to Spring Creek Trail above.
Transit
☒ Shelter
☒ Post schedules and route maps of buses served by stop
☐Coordination with Transfort to move existing stop
☒ NextBus Digital Screen located in lobby or at bus stop
Tailored Recommendations:
● 30% of CSU students commute via transit
● Update transit stop on Shields consistent with City standards; align with pedestrian walkways
in development:
http://ridetransfort.com/img/site_specific/uploads/Final_Design_Standards.pdf
● Provide screen in lobby to show when next buses will arrive
Vehicle Parking
☐ Parking Garage – Pay parking for daily users
☐ Ratio Parking to Tenants
☐ Covered Vehicle Parking
Tailored Recommendations:
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 7
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Meaghan Overton
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 6:31 PM
To:Katharine Claypool
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Quarry Submittal to P&Z 6/17 - 2 questions
Categories:P&Z
Some public comment in here to add to the record on the Quarry
From: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 6:23 PM
To: Meaghan Overton <moverton@fcgov.com>; 'Larry Paroz' <larry.paroz@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Auld,Garry' <Garry.Auld@ColoState.EDU>; 'ANN' <arh4@comcast.net>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick‐
hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Dave Dornan' <conflictjujitsu@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Quarry Submittal to P&Z 6/17 ‐ 2 questions
Yes, please include all the Q and A in the record. Thanks!
Colleen Hoffman
The Home Broker
970-484-8723
cohoff@comcast.net
From: Meaghan Overton <moverton@fcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 4:23 PM
To: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>; 'Larry Paroz' <larry.paroz@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Auld,Garry' <Garry.Auld@ColoState.EDU>; 'ANN' <arh4@comcast.net>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick‐
hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Dave Dornan' <conflictjujitsu@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: RE: Quarry Submittal to P&Z 6/17 ‐ 2 questions
Hi Colleen,
It’s my understanding that the conversations about deeding those areas to the City are ongoing. It will all need to be
figured out before final development plans are approved, but does not need to be finalized before the P&Z hearing. I will
make sure that the applicants discuss maintenance of trees, grass/weeds, and fencing. And yes, I have included previous
correspondence in the record. I don’t typically include more of the Q&A type emails (like this one) but would be happy
to if you would like these questions and answers in the record as well. Let me know if you would like me to do that!
Best,
Meaghan
From: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:11 AM
To: Meaghan Overton <moverton@fcgov.com>; 'Larry Paroz' <larry.paroz@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Auld,Garry' <Garry.Auld@ColoState.EDU>; 'ANN' <arh4@comcast.net>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick‐
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 2
Packet pg. 8
2
hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Dave Dornan' <conflictjujitsu@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Quarry Submittal to P&Z 6/17 ‐ 2 questions
Hi Meaghan,
Thank you so much for all your complete follow up to our questions and concerns. At one meeting we had with
Watermark, they discussed deeding this bike path easement area/Importation Canal area to the city. Do you know any
outcome of this possibility? Also, Fencing on the west and east sides of this drainage and bike path area as well as
maintenance of trees, grass/weeds is of concern. Most of our questions and concerns have already been sent to you in
writing, previously, to be included in the record. However, these will be important topics to hear about at P&Z this
Thursday.
Colleen Hoffman
The Home Broker
970-484-8723
cohoff@comcast.net
From: Meaghan Overton <moverton@fcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:42 AM
To: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>; 'Larry Paroz' <larry.paroz@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Auld,Garry' <Garry.Auld@ColoState.EDU>; 'ANN' <arh4@comcast.net>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick‐
hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Dave Dornan' <conflictjujitsu@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Quarry Submittal to P&Z 6/17 ‐ 2 questions
Hi Colleen,
Here is the information about the future of the Canal Importation Channel from Stormwater Master Planning:
1. The Importation Canal Basin update plan includes the canal on the eastern edge of The Quarry and western edge
of Wallenberg Dr. Do you know if this update and future planning is included in the Presentation by The Quarry
at P&Z this Thursday? We have not been contacted about this new City Update and Planning regarding the Basin
and since our street and homes flooded In 1997 it would be important information to have.
This Master Plan update has completed the alternatives analysis phase and is still in the public outreach phase until the
end of next week. Next, we will move into the conceptual design phase with plans to wrap up this master
planning project later this winter. As a part of this project, there are no planned improvements adjacent to the
eastern edge of The Quarry and western edge of Wallenberg Dr. The alternatives report only suggests routine
maintenance of the Canal Importation channel be performed in this location to remove dense in‐channel
vegetation. The channel in this location is a natural creek named the “Canal Importation Channel” and not an
irrigation canal. To my knowledge, there is nothing planned to be presented about this project at P&Z this
Thursday.
The CIPO project, which started in 2006 and was completed in 2012, made significant improvements to the
flooding potential in the Canal Importation basin.
Here is the main Utilities project webpage:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what‐we‐do/stormwater/drainage‐basins/canal‐importation‐drainage‐basin
Here is the Our City project webpage to submit feedback:
https://ourcity.fcgov.com/canalimportation
Contact:
Ted Bender
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 2
Packet pg. 9
3
Project Manager
Phone 970‐221‐6503
Email tbender@fcgov.com(External link)
Best,
Meaghan
From: Meaghan Overton
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 6:58 PM
To: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>; 'Larry Paroz' <larry.paroz@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Auld,Garry' <Garry.Auld@ColoState.EDU>; 'ANN' <arh4@comcast.net>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick‐
hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Dave Dornan' <conflictjujitsu@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Quarry Submittal to P&Z 6/17 ‐ 2 questions
Hi Colleen,
I have the answer for the second question, and hope to have an answer on the first tomorrow.
The Landmark Apartments proposal came to the City for a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) meeting in May to retrofit
the existing Landmark Apartments with additional bedrooms within the same number of units (see attached for packet
and comment letter, which includes parking comments). Jason Holland is the planner on that project, and it would be
subject to a Major Amendment. That means it would require a neighborhood meeting and a hearing before the Planning
and Zoning Commission. The neighborhood meeting has not been scheduled yet, and we have not heard much since the
PDR meeting in May.
I have gotten in touch with colleagues in the Stormwater Master Planning department for information about the Canal
Importation Channel and will share that as soon as I have more detail from them.
Best,
Meaghan
From: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2021 11:09 AM
To: Meaghan Overton <moverton@fcgov.com>; 'Larry Paroz' <larry.paroz@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Auld,Garry' <Garry.Auld@ColoState.EDU>; 'ANN' <arh4@comcast.net>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick‐
hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Dave Dornan' <conflictjujitsu@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Quarry Submittal to P&Z 6/17 ‐ 2 questions
Hi Meaghan,
1. The Importation Canal Basin update plan includes the canal on the eastern edge of The Quarry and western edge
of Wallenberg Dr. Do you know if this update and future planning is included in the Presentation by The Quarry
at P&Z this Thursday? We have not been contacted about this new City Update and Planning regarding the Basin
and since our street and homes flooded In 1997 it would be important information to have.
2. In addition to flooding concerns, our neighborhood has parking, traffic, and increased density concerns. Do you
know how the Landmark Apartments proposal for increasing the 2 bedrooms to 3 in the original group of
apartments built in the 1980’s or thereabouts is progressing? Their proposal did not appear to have enough
parking for increased occupancy and we anticipate that our street will become the overflow parking lot for The
Quarry, and both built out sections of the Landmark Apartments (including the expansion project just finishing
up).
Thanks for any info and contact information on these 2 questions.
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 2
Packet pg. 10
4
Colleen Hoffman
The Home Broker
970-484-8723
cohoff@comcast.net
From: Meaghan Overton <moverton@fcgov.com>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 3:11 PM
To: Larry Paroz <larry.paroz@gmail.com>; Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Quarry Submittal Documents ‐ Round 2
Hi Larry,
Yes, the links are only active for a period of time on the server if I send them through our secure file transfer. However,
all of the submittal documents for the project are available for you to download here:
All Submittal Documents (enter PDP200019 into search bar)
If there is a particular file you are looking for and you can’t find it, please let me know.
Best,
Meaghan
From: Larry Paroz <larry.paroz@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 11:08 AM
To: Meaghan Overton <moverton@fcgov.com>; Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: Quarry Submittal Documents ‐ Round 2
Hi Megan,
i am not able to open any Links. Is it because they expired april 1st?
Larry Paroz
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 5:02 PM Meaghan Overton <moverton@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I hope you have been well! I wanted to let you all know, as folks who have commented on the Quarry project in the
past, that the project is scheduled for a Planning and Zoning Commission hearing next Thursday, June 17 at 6pm.
The meeting information is available here under the heading for the June 17 hearing:
https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning‐zoning. You can download the staff report, site and landscape plans, etc.
from this page. I’ve attached a summary agenda as well that outlines the different ways to participate in the hearing if
you would like to. It will be conducted as a hybrid hearing, meaning that you can attend either in person or virtually.
Let me know if you would like any additional information, or if any of you have questions I might be able to answer.
Best,
Meaghan
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 2
Packet pg. 11
5
From: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 3:06 PM
To: 'Auld,Garry' <Garry.Auld@ColoState.EDU>; 'Larry Paroz' <larry.paroz@gmail.com>; 'Dave Dornan'
<conflictjujitsu@gmail.com>; 'ANN' <arh4@comcast.net>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick‐hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Kathryn
Dubiel' <k.i.dubiel@hotmail.com>
Cc: Meaghan Overton <moverton@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Quarry Submittal Documents ‐ Round 2
Yes, Meaghan and I discovered this she is working on it…..thanks for letting us know!! Hopefully, you will be receiving
your specific link soon….I’ve included Meaghan on this email as well so she has all your contact info. The files are so
large, need to be downloaded. Thanks, Garry!
Colleen Hoffman
The Home Broker
970-484-8723
cohoff@comcast.net
From: Auld,Garry <Garry.Auld@ColoState.EDU>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 2:58 PM
To: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>; 'Larry Paroz' <larry.paroz@gmail.com>; 'Dave Dornan'
<conflictjujitsu@gmail.com>; 'ANN' <arh4@comcast.net>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick‐hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Kathryn
Dubiel' <k.i.dubiel@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Quarry Submittal Documents ‐ Round 2
We can’t open these files since Meaghan did not send to us
Garry Auld, PhD
Emeritus Professor
Dept. Food Science and Human Nutrition
Colorado State University
From: Colleen Hoffman <cohoff@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 11:37 AM
To: 'Larry Paroz' <larry.paroz@gmail.com>; Auld,Garry <Garry.Auld@ColoState.EDU>; 'Dave Dornan'
<conflictjujitsu@gmail.com>; 'ANN' <arh4@comcast.net>; 'Rick Hoffman' <rick‐hoffman@comcast.net>; 'Kathryn
Dubiel' <k.i.dubiel@hotmail.com>
Subject: FW: Quarry Submittal Documents ‐ Round 2
Hi All,
Meaghan Overton, Planner with the city has forwarded the documents below for The Quarry. Please look them
over. Submittal to P&Z will be coming up next.
Colleen Hoffman
The Home Broker
970-484-8723
cohoff@comcast.net
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 2
Packet pg. 12
6
From: moverton@fcgov.com <moverton@fcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 11:22 AM
To: cohoff@comcast.net
Subject: Quarry Submittal Documents ‐ Round 2
You have received 7 secure files from moverton@fcgov.com.
Use the secure links below to download.
Hi Colleen,
Here are the submittal documents. I did not include the drainage report or the transportation impact study. Let me
know if you want to see those as well.
Best,
Meaghan
Secure File Downloads:
Available until: 01 April 2021
Click links to download:
The_Quarry_Site_&_Landscape_Plan.pdf
16.44 MB
The_Quarry_Project Narrative.pdf
200.90 KB
The_Quarry_Architectural Sheet_Studio M.pdf
129.92 MB
The_Quarry_PLAT.pdf
1.22 MB
The_Quarry_Modification Request - Major Walkway Spine to Connecting Walkway.pdf
354.23 KB
The_Quarry_Modification Request - Orientation to Connecting Walkway.pdf
367.08 KB
The_Quarry_PICP.pdf
17.96 MB
You have received attachment link(s) within this email sent via City of Fort Collins Secure File Transfer. To retrieve the attachment(s),
please click on the link(s).
Secured by Accellion
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 2
Packet pg. 13
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Meaghan Overton
Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 8:55 AM
To:Katharine Claypool; Alyssa Stephens
Subject:FW: Thursday hearing......a request
Categories:P&Z
FYI. I’m working on a response to her and will ask her to send the PPT she mentions.
From: Dale Grenfell <grenfell@q.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 1:42 AM
To: Meaghan Overton <moverton@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Thursday hearing......a request
Hi Meaghan,
I hope you remember who I am. Dale Grenfell.....we spoke a few times awhile back regarding the
Quarry development.. I tried phoning but I can imagine you are swamped. I got the notice of the
upcoming hearing. I will definitely be there and I have an huge request. I looked at the guidelines
for speaking at hearings and it seems we only have three minutes? Three of my neighbors are
unable to attend and they asked that I speak for them. And....for the last few months (in
anticipation of this hearing), I've put in hours of research (just wanted to really educate myself on
what's going on in Fort Collins, other cities, this developer and others like it). I actually put
together a Power Point that is very short but it was helpful to put down ideas and concerns as a
visual.
Developers always come with renderings and visuals; I wondered if it was only "fair and equal time"
for residents as well. It's a long shot, I know, but is there any way I could share the PP on
Thursday? You haven't seen it and, for all anyone knows it could be a real piece of crap. Truly, it's
not. I have an excellent resume in "power points!" If this isn't possible, do you think Council
members would be willing to at least look at it on a flash drive at their convenience? I also have
my presentation notes on paper. Can I give copies to the Commission? Should you want and have
time to see the PP, I'm happy to bring it to you.
I just found out that Heritage Circle is planning to add yet another building on their property
(directly across the street from the Quarry). How much congestion can Shields handle? And
residents? As of now, it sometimes takes me almost 10 minutes to pull out from Hill Pond. As I
drive around Fort Collins, I sometimes feel like we're being choked and squeezed and it
hurts! Higher, denser buildings and, like weeds, they go up overnight.
I'm 77 years old and the years of "impact" on me are are limited, for sure. Not so, however, for the
next generation - and the next - and the next.... My sense is that it's a "done deal" as are the
plethora of other proposed developments pushing through all over the city. I was stunned when i
saw them all on the fcgov development proposal review lists. Over the years, I watched Los
Angeles, San Diego, St. Louis, Northern New Jersey and Spokane go from affordable to out-of-
reach. From beautiful neighborhoods and real communities to uninspired, overpriced, cheaply built
McHousing. From manageable to congested, over-built and polluted. Not one was ever willing to
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 14
2
put on the brakes, take some time to really reflect on future impact and maybe, just maybe,
consider.... "when is more enough?" Sadly, without much protest I see Fort Collins heading in the
same direction. I've talked with neighbors and friends and it's been really sad to hear them
say...."Don't bother, no one listens and they'll do whatever they want." I have to believe that,
indeed, someone will listen.
I am just one voice and, judging by the last proposal meeting, I sense I might be a lone
voice. Nevertheless, I feel I owe it to my neighbors, the friends I have here and to coming
generations to speak. It might take only a few cities to "pause" and model for all other cities (and
generations) an understanding that "we don't own the earth, we are part of it."
We never did manage to meet up for coffee.....but would still love to do that! Hope all (despite
Covid) is going well for you.
Warmest wishes,
Dale
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 15
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Meaghan Overton
Sent:Thursday, June 17, 2021 6:26 AM
To:Katharine Claypool
Cc:Alyssa Stephens
Subject:FW: Power Point for Hearing
Attachments:Public Hearing on the Quarry by Watermark.ppt
Categories:P&Z
Hi Katie and Alyssa,
A supplemental doc for the Quarry public comment attached here. This is the presentation Dale Grenfell mentioned she
might want to share during public comment.
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 16
1
IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
THE QUARRY by WATERMARK
DEVELOPMENT at SPRING CREEK
1. WATER AND POWER
2. AIR, CONGESTION
AND QUALITY OF LIFE
3. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
4. ARCHITECTURE
Are issues of climate change,
water, power, congestion,
affordable housing and
the quality of air and life relevant
considerations for this Commission
and for this community?
1
2
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 17
2
WATER
and
POWER
Lake Mead has dropped so much
(37% capacity) that it has cut Hoover
Dam’s hydro‐power output by nearly
25%.
For the first time ever, the federal
government is expected to declare a
water shortage on the lower Colorado
River later this summer. That will force
automatic cuts to the water supply for
Nevada and Arizona starting in 2022.
Hoover Dam ‐2001 Hoover Dam ‐2021
3
4
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 18
3
By 2040, the ratio of
water withdrawals to
water supply in the U.S.
is estimated to be
40‐80%
2012 Report by
the United Nations
Department of
Economic and
Social Affairs
Colorado ranked
“Physical Water
Scarcity”
August 2020
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) reports that climate
change is responsible for expanding drought extending from the west coast east to
Oklahoma and Texas. NOAA predicts that high‐intensity fires (like those of 2020…..
over 1000 fires across the western US) will persist and increase in number.
2020 ‐WATER SCARCITY IN COLORADO
CSU Colorado Water Center
Recurring drought
Rising temperatures due to climate change
Diminished ground water
Rapid growth
Recreational needs
Fort Collins
Water Shortage
Action Plan
(April 2020)
A good beginning but it was
developed BEFORE the
catastrophic fires of 2020
5
6
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 19
4
City of Fort Collins Utilities (2021)
fcgov/utilities
In 2020, the City’s water supplies were
severly impacted by the Cameron Peak
and East Troublesome wildfires
(considered the two largest in Colorado
history) raising significant concerns about
both availability and quality of our future
raw water supplies.
Sean Chambers, Director
Greeley Water and Power
April 2021
There is growing concern about the quality of water in northern Colorado and
the impact of thousands of acres of burn run‐off on water sources. We are going
to have ash and debris and sediment and all of that stuff has to be removed.
There is no “new” water– ever.
All water on this planet existed
from the beginning.
When it’s gone, its gone.
7
8
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 20
5
TOD PEAK HOUR POWER USAGE
It’s the responsible thing for all of us to limit power usage whenever we can.
To learn to live with a little less comfort for the sake of energy conservation.
Unfortunately, the time of day when families truly need more power (heat,
cooling, cooking, bathing children) it costs 3x as much per kw.
With the city paying more for power and that hike being passed on to
customers, does it make sense to build more?
Putting more stress on power sources?
Putting more stress on residents’ pocketbooks?
AIR
QUALITY
QUALITY
OF
LIFE
CONGESTION
9
10
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 21
6
FORT COLLINS
1964
City of Choice in Colorado
2019
2020
Ranked 24th on the worst polluters list in the country by the
American Lung Association. In December of 2019, the EPA
bumped Colorado’s nonattainment area status from
MODERATE to SERIOUS.
The EPA and the American Lung Association found Denver and Fort
Collins among the top cities most polluted by ozone. Residents and
cities along the Front Range inhaled hazardous air pollution at
elevated levels on more than 260 days a year.
Traffic congestion has long been a concern for Fort Collins residents. Relieving it is the
city service most in need of improvement. (Coloradoan ‐March 19, 2004)
Traffic congestion and other transportation‐related issues are at the top of the to‐do
list for the new City Council. (Coloradoan ‐April 14, 1999)
In a survey done last summer, citizens told us they were very concerned about traffic
congestion and many of the problems it creates. The need is critical and we have heard
the community telling us so. (Coloradoan ‐May 9, 2002)
Traffic congestion remains a tremendous issue. (Coloradoan ‐March 29, 2001)
SPEAKING Heritage Park (right across the street from the Quarry) plans to add
OF an additional 64 units, including 105 parking spaces.
CONGESTION…
JUST HOW MUCH TRAFFIC AND DENSER POPULATION CAN WE TOLERATE?
1993: 1.3 million vehicles traveling daily in Fort Collins
2019: 2.8 million
A 115% INCREASE.
11
12
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 22
7
Multi‐disciplined research has concluded for decades that denser
population is directly related to health, crime, traffic and an overall
quality of life – including an increased sense of anonymity and alienation.
Can we truthfully say that we are thoughtfully giving consideration to the
impact our fast‐forward, maniacal push to build, build, build will have on
the overall quality of life in this city for all residents – including the
diminishing wildlife?
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
13
14
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 23
8
The City of Fort Collins believes one of the keys to a healthy community is
the ability to house its residents in good quality, affordable housing.
Homeownership rates in For Collins are significantly lower for Black (20 in
100) and Latino (42 in 100) households.
WHY IS THERE NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT?
Only 4.8% of housing units in Fort Collins are designated as affordable
housing, made available only to households earning less than 80% of the
area median income.
FYI: On the Curt & Nancy Richardson (owners) website:
•Treat others as you would like to be treated.
•Leading with the heart of a servant, a willingness to serve.
ARCHITECTURE
From Property Lines (2018)
Homogeneous boxy designs with bland superficial facades, flat windows
and colored panels are sprouting like weeds all over the country. They are
changing the landscape, culture and integrity of any given city.
They have earned such nicknames as: toothpick towers, stick apartments,
stumpies, superblocks, blandmarks, contemporary contempt and
spongbuild squareparts.
15
16
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 24
9
“These buildings are hazards to any urban environment. They will begin to collapse and
become maintenance headaches within 20 years.”
Glenn Corbett, former firefighter
Currently teaching Fire Science at the
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
“Architects aren’t just cost‐constrained, they are deliberately being left out of the
equation. Denver is drowning in awful architecture! I don’t think you can call designers
of these buildings either designers or architects. “ Micheal Paglia
Westword Magazine
“Computer‐aided design has led to a degradation of the role of the architect, replacing
a noble craft with a series of equations. These “McUrbanists” are delivering cheap
stick‐framed stumpies.” Patrick Sisson
Urbanist & Columnist for Property Lines
“Formulaic in feel, zoning codes are relaxed so that more and more of these structures
can be rubber‐stamped by city planners. “ Richard Mohler, Associate Professor of Architecture
University of Washington
“A plague that began to happen when no one was watching.”
Steven Zirinsky , Building Code Committee Co‐Chairman
New York City Chapter of the American Institute of Architects
Colorado Springs, CO
Grand Rapids, MI
Denver, CO
Cranberry Township, PA
St. Louis, MO
Castle Pines, CO
Charlotte, NC
Denver, CO
“Designed” by
Watermark
17
18
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 25
10
More
“homogeneous
boxes”
by Watermark
Similarly
“designed”
boxy
McBuildings
already in
Fort Collins
19
20
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 26
11
Could be Tennessee or Indiana Avenues
on a Monopoly board?
Actually, it’s right here in town.
“We haven't hit a break point to make five‐and six‐story
buildings work, but the day will come when those finances work
to make it happen. Cameron Gloss, Fort Collins City Planning Manager
12/22/2019
21
22
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 27
12
The “City of Choice” does not exist in a bubble.
Decisions made here affect elsewhere.
Decisions made elsewhere affect us here.
South America
Asia
Australia
Africa
Europe
Antarctica
Los
Angeles
New
York
Mexico
Canada
Syria
Sudan
Phoenix
It is magical thinking to assume we can continue to grow at
the rate we are and remain confident that resources
to support that growth are unlimited.
It is magical thinking to presume the physical, mental,
emotional and spiritual health of residents, in addition
to the integrity of this community, will not be compromised
by current growth trends.
It is also magical thinking to believe that the
decisions we make now will not have irreversible
consequences for the next generation and those to come.
Only when the last tree has died, the last river
poisoned and the last fish caught will we realize
that we can’t eat money.
Native American Proverb
23
24
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 28
13
WHEN WILL “MORE” BE ENOUGH?
WILL “MORE” EVER BE ENOUGH?
Can Fort Collins Handle the Growth?
Ava Wald
Beyond the Oval: (9/29/2019)
What happens when Fort Collins maxes out on space to build on? Where will we
expand to?
Cameron Gloss: (Department Head, Comprehensive Planning)
Fort Collins will eventually rely more heavily in the future on infilling small vacant
parcels within ‘built‐up’ areas —we call it “infill”, and redeveloping existing areas,
often with larger and taller buildings and more intensive uses.
If, indeed, development of this property is a given and any visionary
regard for current and future ecological, social and community integrity
concerns is not a priority…..
Then, imagine quality –not quantity
Consider the following amendments
Limit to 2‐story buildings
Decrease number of units by half
Add affordable housing
Add park‐like green spaces
One last observation….
25
26
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 29
14
This is cited on the websites of
Property Owners: Curt and Nancy Richardson
&
Watermark Residential
(Thompson Thrift Real Estate Company)
“To whom much is given, from him
much will be required...”
Luke12:48
27
ITEM 2, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 30
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Sunday, June 13, 2021 9:27 PM
To:Katharine Claypool; Rebecca Everette
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] PDP #190003 - Sanctuary on the Green Comments
Categories:P&Z
Here you go.
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Laurie Causer <laurie.causer@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 13, 2021 9:07 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] PDP #190003 ‐ Sanctuary on the Green Comments
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
Hello,
We are concerned about this development proposal as it does not follow the Northwest Subarea plan. This kind of high
density development proposal needs to be rejected. Please follow the Northwest Subarea plan when approving
development proposals for our neighborhoods.
Main areas of concern include:
1.This high‐density development will negatively impact air quality and local traffic patterns. The last traffic study was
done over two 1⁄2 years ago. We would like to see the City require that a new traffi c study be done during the school
year prior to considering this project for approval.
2.This proposal calls for numerous variances that violate the setback requirements for wildlife corridors and wetlands
3.The 2 and 3‐story multiplexes the proposal calls for are incompatible with the Green Acres and Taft Hill single‐story,
single family neighborhoods
4.How is city planning for increase in student enrollment at Lincoln Middle School, Irish Elementary and Poudre High
which are already at, or over, their capacity. This development proposal does not address this issue and we are
concerned that the City is not requiring the developer to address it.
5.Lack of transparency from city of Fort Collins regarding proposal developments and how they’ve changed and how
exactly the developer is meeting City requirements for development on this site.
Kind regards and thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns,
Laurie Causer
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Packet pg. 31
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Sunday, June 13, 2021 9:28 PM
To:Katharine Claypool; Rebecca Everette
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary on the Green development
Categories:P&Z
Here you go.
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Raygina Kohlmeier <rayven80@hotmail.com>
Date: Jun 13, 2021 4:26 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary on the Green development
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
Hello,
I would like to express my objections to the high‐density development being considered for the area. Building
high‐density housing "neighborhoods" in areas without sufficient infrastructure to support them is asinine. A
high‐density housing development is not compatible with the way of life a lot of people enjoy in this area. We
told the city 15 years ago that they had nothing we wanted. We didn't want to be part of the city. We didn't
want the cookie cutter housing developments. The city has shown an incredible lack of common sense and
respect for the resources of the area by engaging in excessive growth without looking at the pros and cons in a
logical fashion. The city can't build its way to affordable housing. Plunking a house on every square foot of
empty space that the city can claim as its own isn't beneficial to anyone.
Thank you for your time.
Raygina Kohlmeier
Virus-free. www.avast.com
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 2
Packet pg. 32
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Snyder,Darrel <Darrel.Snyder@colostate.edu>
Sent:Monday, June 14, 2021 2:29 PM
To:Sharlene Manno
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Comment for 17 June FC Planning and Zoning Meeting regarding Sanctuary on the
Green Project Development Plan #PDP190003
Fort Collin Planning and Zoning Commission:
I won’t be attending your upcoming meeting, but as a neighborhood resident who enjoys regular walks by the subject
property, I want to convey my primary concerns regarding the Sanctuary on the Green Project Development Plan
#PDP190003: 1) Loss of open space in our neighborhood, and 2) Loss of marsh habitat for birds and wildlife in the
area. Such losses are counter to the Northwest Subarea Plan jointly adopted by the city and county for our area about
15 years ago.
Should residential development of the property be approved to proceed, an average of about 6.5 dwellings/acre
(greater if allowing for community spaces and facilities, and some of which are proposed as multi‐family units) seems far
too great relative to most of the existing low‐density neighborhood—many residences of which are on plots nearly an
acre in size themselves. I’d prefer a lower density of dwelling units and integration of some community open
spaces. Furthermore, some of the multi‐family units are proposed as three‐story structures, which are also inconsistent
with most of the existing neighborhood.
If the project is fully developed as proposed, further concerns would the impact of substantially increased traffic in the
area and many more children on our local schools.
Sincerely, Darrel E. Snyder
619 N. Sunset St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Phone: (970) 493‐8753
E‐mail: Darrel.Snyder@ColoState.edu
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 3
Packet pg. 33
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Bill Jenkins <Nawr01@msn.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 7:27 AM
To:Sharlene Manno
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Please do not approve the Sanctuary Development
Good Morning,
I am sending the following talking points regarding the Sanctuary Field proposed development that you are reviewing
tomorrow evening.
It appears that there are enough questions and inconsistencies with the proposal to NOT develop this land in this way.
Thanks for your attention and consideration,
Bill Jenkins
Fort Collins
.The current development proposal does not conform to the Northwest Subarea Plan that the City and County
jointly adopted for our area (2006) and therefore should not be approved. The Northwest Subarea Plan requires
that the City: •Preserve wildlife habitat and corridors: on this property that includes mature trees, habitat in and
along the irrigation ditch (50 ft setback), and adherence to required wetland setbacks (100 feet) to preserve
vulnerable habitat. •Prevent “development that is incompatible with existing stable neighborhoods” (p. 9).
•Preserve open spaces, views of the foothills, and the character of the area. 2. This proposal calls for numerous
variances that violate the setback requirements for wildlife corridors and wetlands. The City should not be
granting these variances. The developer proposes to cut down large cottonwood and other trees that provide
critical habitat to owls, bats and other wildlife so that he can maximize the number of houses he can build.
Based on the NW Subarea plan’s guidelines, these should be treated as “natural resources” of the area and
required to be preserved. 3. The proposal calls for 3-story buildings along the property boundary with City-
owned wetlands and within the required setback area for the irrigation ditch (# of variances). The height of
these buildings endangers and disrupts feeding and nesting patterns of migratory birds who rely on these
corridors, and for whom the current fields are a safe flyway. The City should not allow 3-story buildings in these
areas. 4. The 2 and 3-story multiplexes the proposal calls for, located in the northwest area of the property (and
bordering the proposed stormwater channel), and along Taft Hill prevent deer migration through this area and
are incompatible with the Green Acres and Taft Hill single-story, single family neighborhoods. They also violate
Goal C-1 of the Subarea plan which requires the City to “protect and interpret the historic resources and
landscape of the area.” The document specifically references N. Taft Hill in the section about Existing Historic
Resources. These buildings will also obstruct views of the foothills, in direct conflict with the NW Subarea plan
guidelines. The developer has been asked numerous times in writing to re-locate these high-density buildings
to the interior of the development site but has consistently ignored our neighborhood’s request in every new
iteration of the development proposal. We would like the City to require this change. 5. While the Developer has
technically met the requirements of the City for engineering floodplain waters and stormwater runoff, the
additional elevation of the proposed 2 and 3-story buildings will be far higher than the original elevations shown.
These buildings are incompatible with all of the single-family housing that borders the property and will diminish
property values in the whole area. They do not meet the standard of “low-density” housing according to the
subarea plan, and are not “affordable housing”, as noted by the developer at two neighborhood meetings, so
they do not qualify for an exemption to this standard. The higher elevation will also cause increased light
pollution in the established wildlife corridors and in the wetlands (2) adjacent to the property, degrading habitat
for migratory and resident birds, along with chorus frogs and other wildlife. 6. The last neighborhood meeting
with the developer was held two and a half years ago. Since that time, the developer has submitted numerous
new proposals addressing dozens of concerns raised by City staff about the plan. The City’s website
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 4
Packet pg. 34
2
documents have been very difficult to navigate to understand what has changed in the proposal, and how
exactly the developer is meeting City requirements for development on this site. We would like the Planning &
Zoning Board to require the developer to meet with concerned neighbors to address the changes and discuss
the issues we have raised about this plan’s incompatibility with the Northwest Subarea plan before considering
it for approval. 7. The developer has shown disregard for our concerns and the wildlife habitat of this area since
this project’s inception. Four years ago, when the City’s Natural Resources department was trying to purchase
the property on Taft Hill to preserve the historic farmhouse and three barns on it, the developer out-bid the City
to acquire the parcel, then had the farmhouse burned to the ground, took down the barns, and displaced bats,
owls and numerous birds nesting there in May of 2018. The fire damaged the historic silver maple trees, as no
regard was given to protecting the trees. Subsequent to burning down the historic house, he requested and got
approval for annexation into the City. The City has so far done nothing to ensure that the original farmhouse site
or the historic trees are preserved. The large trees and shrub habitat provides shelter for deer, foxes, birds and
other animals, especially during the winter. We would like to see that whole area preserved and the developer
prevented from taking down any more trees or destroying habitat in that area –including the giant cottonwood
tree along the irrigation ditch that has owls and other birds nesting in it. This request is supported by Goal C-1
of the NW Subarea Plan. 8. This projects calls for 251 units, including 550 parking spaces, in anticipation of
1,000 new residents or more. This high-density development will negatively impact air quality and local traffic
patterns, especially near Poudre High School where pedestrian and car traffic is already challenging, and the
developer proposes to put an entrance to the development site. Additionally, there will be a new turn lane for
the proposed entrance on Taft Hill, where up to 300 trucks pass through a day carrying gravel from the plant on
North Taft. This development will create additional air pollution, noise, and also safety hazards for students and
community members who walk along LaPorte and Taft. The last traffic study was done over two ½ years ago,
prior to Poudre High School changing its schedule and prior to the gravel plant increasing its truck traffic. We
would like to see the City require that a new traffic study be done during the school year prior to considering this
project for approval. 9. This project proposes 251 units, potentially bringing 500 new school-age children into
the area. For those who are not aware, Lincoln Middle School, Irish Elementary and Poudre High are already
at, or over, their capacity. This development proposal does not address this issue and we are concerned that
the City is not requiring the developer to address it. How will this area of the City be expected to accommodate
this influx? Our neighborhood network has suggested to the developer that he create single-story, senior-
friendly housing for the majority of the houses he offers, in order to mitigate this concern. The City has an
incredible need for senior-friendly housing. However, the developer has not included patio homes that would
better attract senior residents to the area. We would like to request that the Planning & Zoning board address
the concern of how this development is going to negatively impact our schools.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 4
Packet pg. 35
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Lorin Spangler <lorinsy@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 7:22 AM
To:Sharlene Manno
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Sancturary on the Green
Dear members of the Board of the City of Ft. Collins Planning and Zoning,
My primary residence is adjacent to the proposed development site, and I am writing to request that you reject the
development in its current state for Sanctuary on the Green. It is your charge to protect the integrity of neighborhoods
from being bullied and bulldozed by private interests that prioritize profit over balanced and thoughtful growth of our
city. Thus far, you have rejected prior iterations of this project, such as the one proposing a senior center, and I thank
you for upholding the NW Subarea Plan.
Thoughtful and sustainable development and growth of our wonderful city needs your constant vigilance and
oversight. Once again you have the authority to do the right thing by rejecting this current proposal because it does not
yet meet the criteria that you have outlined.
The three points I want to focus on are density, building height and environmental impact, the criteria of which is clearly
outlined in the NW Subarea Plan.
First, the land is zoned LMN. The current proposal is not using the net residential acreage, but rather the gross
residential acreage to propose a number of dwelling units that is too high for this area. The net residential acrage
should be used in this calculation, and I request that the city hold the developer to a number of dwellings that would in
fact be Low density, as stated in the NW Subarea Plan and the zoning for this area.
Second, the building height of the dwellings is not known, and is likely to be higher because of the water table in this
area. This is a flood zone! In the 1997, there was standing water in this entire area for weeks. Because of this, in order
to build in the buildable areas, the other areas need to be higher. The actual heights will not be in alignment with the
NW Subarea Plan, or consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods. Please hold the developer to building heights that
will not block views of our Foothills for existing or new residents.
Lastly, the environmental impact of the displaced wildlife would be immense. I don’t know how individuals on the board
personally feel about this, but it is your duty to uphold the NW Subarea Plan, which prioritizes development on this side
of town that can coexist with wildlife. The New Mercer ditch runs along the edge of this development, and it’s where
animals travel. Established cottonwood trees should not be removed from this land, and tallest buildings, if they have to
happen, should be on Taft Hill Road, not adjacent to existing neighborhoods.
Please continue to advocate for the residents of Ft. Collins and please require additional amendments to this proposal.
Thank you for your time,
Lorin Spangler
316 N. Impala Drive
‐‐
Lorin Spangler
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 5
Packet pg. 36
1
Katharine Claypool
From:kiri Saftler <kirilynn@bajabb.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 5:47 AM
To:Sharlene Manno
Subject:[EXTERNAL] P & Z-comments for Sanctuary on the Green proposal
To whom it may concern,
Regarding the Planing and Zoning decisions for keeping NW Fort Collins environmentally and consciously protected!
I have lived at the west end adjacent to the "Sanctuary on the Green" Property for 45 years.
We have been told this is one of the most complicated pieces of property to develop and probably should not be considered for
development for many reasons: mostly water!!! (flood plain, storm water, irrigation ditches, high water table)
Here are my concerns regarding the development of this property.
1)Density and height (size) of the buildings being proposed for this property.
According to the N.W. Sub‐area plan, the proposal for Sanctuary on the Green is not at all
“ compatible” , with the surrounding neighborhoods. The intensity and density that is being proposed feels like the developers are
being allowed to build more than the appropriate amount of units regarding the fact that almost 1/4 of the land is un‐developable,
because of the flood mitigation canals running along the north part of the property.
We have been told by water experts that the developers current plan for flood mitigation, and storm water (which I have personally
witnessed a few times over the years ) remains to be seen, as to whether it will actually be effective when we get the next flood, He
seemed to doubt this! The new homes and older existing properties will all be greatly impacted.
2)The developer has denied several requested suggestions and compromises and not been transparent with the existing
neighbors!
One request was for a few feet more for set backs from neighboring properties and an increase in fence height, to block the lights,
view, noise and traffic on new roads (alleys) adjacent to our property. There was no concession made.
AND It is my understanding the developer had been given the opportunity to hold another neighborhood meeting to help keep
neighbors informed. (it has been two years since we had the last neighborhood meeting and there have been many revisions to the
original plan. The proposals today are quite different, than they were 2 years ago). Because it isn’t required they chose not to be
community minded and transparent. AND The city web site has been a challenge to navigate to find the current plans.
Over the 20 plus years that this developer has been trying to develop this property, I have consistently asked the developer to
consider optimizing solar gain and sustainable building, to be a leader and show that they can be environmentally conscious for the
future of our city, and planet. I ask the Planning and Zoning Board to also consider this forward thinking when planning
developments for our community.
3)I have observed so much wildlife in this are over the 45 years: Lets not force our animals out of their habitat!
The NW Subarea plan specifically states on p. 9 that the City must protect wildlife corridors and habitat. This proposed plan calls
for 3 story row houses over much of the property, right next to the irrigation ditch, which ducks and other birds cannot fly over or
around. 3 story houses in this area are not appropriate. Please follow the NW Subarea plan guidelines, protect our environment, .
4)Historic habitat considerations:
The developer plans to cut down mature trees that are over 100 years old, around where the historic farmhouse stood when he
acquired the property. He had the house burned down and demolished the historic barns as well, before engaging with the city
and neighbors.
The trees that are still standing are important habitat for deer, raptors and other animals who shelter year round. Right now
there is a mother and 2 baby fawns sheltering beneath these trees and they wonder the property as well as neighboring properties
including mine.. Please don't let this important wildlife habitat be destroyed, these trees are an important natural and historic
resource.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 6
Packet pg. 37
2
5) Traffic Study Out Dated (it was done two years ago), and Over crowded schools:
This proposal is for 251 units, and around 1000 new residents to a new neighborhood where the schools are already full or over
capacity. It would more than double the number of people and cars in our area. For example, the round‐about at Taft Hill and Vine
is beyond it's capacity, including truck traffic, school traffic and local transport.
I ask that you reject this plan and require this project to reduce the number of units proposed, so that it is compatible with our
single‐story neighborhood, and conforms to the NW Subarea plan. I ask you to think about the future of our community
and sustainability of building practices in our city. The well being of our community has so much to do with the health of our
environment. Thank you for Caring and doing what it right for our city.
KIRI Saftler
230 N Sunset ST.
Fort COllins, CO 80521
" If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other." Blessed Mother Teresa
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 6
Packet pg. 38
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Barbara Denny <barbarawaves@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 5:09 PM
To:Sharlene Manno
Subject:[EXTERNAL] 6.17.2021 P&Z Comments PDP#190003 Sanctuary on the Green
1)The NW Subarea Plan specifically states that new development must be of low intensity and
compatible with existing neighborhoods. This proposal is NOT low intensity and NOT compatible with our
neighborhoods.
We ask that you reject it and require this project reduce the number of units proposed.
25% of the 44+ acre plot cannot be built upon due to various buffers to wetlands, etc. therefore the
density calculation should be based on 75% of the acreage, and due to surrounding neighborhoods, at
the lowest allowable density for LMN zoning.
2)The developer has submitted 6 revisions of his proposal since our last neighborhood meeting. We
would like the City to require him to inform the neighborhoods around this property about how his new
plan will deal with building on the floodplain, and manage storm water so it doesn't negatively impact
our neighborhoods. The West Vine Basin Master Plan includes this property area, and is still under
review, not yet finalized.
We have repeatedly requested another Neighborhood Meeting to understand what has changed from
years ago, but we have been denied.
I have found it impossible to look up the plans on the Development Review website, as it is too long and
deep. I get to pg. 190, past The Quarry documents, and after reviewing a few pages, my computer
crashes and sends me to the top of The Quarry again. I tried several times.
When I look into the Development Review website for City Staff reviews, several state that final reviews
are due 5/25/21, yet they are still TBD.
3)The NW Subarea plan specifically states on p. 9 that the City must protect wildlife corridors and
habitat. This plan calls for 3 story row houses over much of the property, right next to the irrigation
ditch, which ducks and other birds cannot fly over or around 3 story houses in this area are not
acceptable. Please follow the NW Subarea plan guidelines and reject this proposal. There are NO 3 Story
homes in any of the surrounding neighborhoods. Views of the foothills are to be protected.
This property was just annexed to the City, and all the neighborhoods are still in the County where there
is a countryside, not urban feel, but a transitional place to farms and ranches. Horses, donkeys, goats,
chickens, ducks all live on Sunset!
4)The developer plans to cut down mature trees that are over 100 years old around the historic
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7
Packet pg. 39
2
farmhouse that he burned down. These are important habitat for deer, raptors and other animals who
shelter there year round. There is a mama and 2 baby fawns that neighbors have seen and they are
sheltering beneath these trees. We ask that you follow the NW Subarea Plan and protect these trees as
important natural and historic resources on this site. Please don't let this important wildlife habitat be
destroyed.
5) Our organization (SFNN) has met with the developer multiple times about our concerns, yet he has
not made any modifications to the density of this development. This proposal would create 251 units
and bring up to 1000 new residents to a new neighborhood where our schools are already full or over
capacity. It would more than double the number of people and cars in our area. How is this "low
intensity" as required by the NW subarea plan? My neighborhood is the Rostek Subdivision, and all 0.99
acre lots on Sunset and Hollywood. Sunset borders the development on the Western edge.
This is not acceptable. Please require the developer to reduce the density of housing in his proposal so
that it is compatible with our single‐story neighborhood, and conforms to the NW Subarea plan.
Thank you, I plan to speak to the P&Z Commission.
Barbara Denny
420 N. Sunset St.
Fort Collins, 80521
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 7
Packet pg. 40
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Heather Matthews <heather@alumnae.mills.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:02 PM
To:Sharlene Manno
Subject:[EXTERNAL] PDP #190003 - Sanctuary on the Green Comments
Hello there!
I would like to comment via email for the meeting coming up on Thursday about Sanctuary on the Green. If I am there, I
could say this myself, but as of right now I am unsure if I can attend.
My concern is that the developer is not being transparent with the stakeholders of our neighborhood. I believe that
there is a way to move forward with this project and still keep all groups cooperative and resorting to minimum drama. I
hope that he and his colleagues will continue to listen and take the time to negotiate, using the NW Subarea Plan as a
guide for housing density, wildlife management, traffic, and stormwater management. I would invite him to come spend
a few days in our neighborhood, to get a feel for the type of homes and people who live up here. He and his colleagues
are certainly welcome to a drink on my back deck!
I know that development of that property is inevitable, so I am hopeful that the developer will move forward with
utmost sensitivity and collegiality. There doesn't have to be bad blood here. Please stay humble and kind and resist the
urge to lean into indignance and power.
Thank you so much,
Heather
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 8
Packet pg. 41
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Joyce Owens <jowex@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 3:25 PM
To:Sharlene Manno
Subject:[EXTERNAL] PDP #190003 - Sanctuary on the Green Comments
To Whom it May Concern
I have several issues with this development.
It does not comply with the NW area plan.
It is not low density.
It will adversely impact wildlife corridors.
It has 3 story units which do not fit the neighborhood.
Flooding issues have not been addressed.
It could bring 1000 more people to this neighborhood. The streets and schools are not
ready for this increase.
This plan has languished for years because it is not a good plan and not the right
location for a development of this nature.
Look at Greyrock to see what can be done. It preserves open space and fits in with the
neighborhood. Development can be done that won't have the adverse impact of the
current plan.
Thank you
Joyce Owens
area resident
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 9
Packet pg. 42
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Marla Roll <mcroll03@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 2:38 PM
To:Sharlene Manno
Subject:[EXTERNAL] PDP #190003 - Sanctuary on the Green Comments
Dear Planning and Zoning ,
I am writing to you with concerns about the proposed Sanctuary on the Green development in northwest Fort Collins. I
live in a neighborhood that is adjacent to the proposed development and have greatly enjoyed the character and open
space we currently relish. My concerns are the following:
1.It would seem the current development proposal does not conform to the Northwest Subarea Plan that was
adopted in 2006 which aimed to preserve wildlife habitat and corridors and prevent development that is
incompatible with the existing stable neighborhoods and to preserve open spaces, views of the foothills and the
character of the area. There is a great deal of habitat that I view on my daily walks in the proposed development
area. There is a small wetland type of ecosystem that has a variety of birds, reptiles and other large mammals
that utilize this space.
2.The proposal calls for variances that violate set back requirements for the wildlife corridors and wetlands.
The Cottonwood trees host a variety of species of birds, bats, and other wildlife that are natural resources we
should work to preserve.
3.The proposal calls for 3 story buildings along the property boundary of a city owned wetland and irrigation
ditch. I worry greatly about the impact to migratory birds who would find their flight paths disrupted as a result.
I am also concerned about the impact to deer that I see daily crossing that space. Additionally, three story
buildings would greatly change the character of the current neighborhood and block sight lines and disrupt
these existing ecosystems.
4.The proposed buildings are supposedly going to be elevated to address floodplain issues. This seems
incompatible with the current low density type of development and again would change the character and feel
of the current neighborhood which is single family housing.
5.This development calls for potentially 1000 new residents to the area. This high‐density development
raises a large number of concerns for me such as air quality and traffic flow. As a parent of a child attending
Poudre High School, I already experience challenges with the traffic along LaPorte to both enter and exit the
school with sometimes very long waits to enter the school area. The combination of this increased traffic along
with the existing large amounts of truck traffic that already exists due to the gravel pit, will negatively impact the
environment due to noise and air pollution in an area where families reside. It will also have an impact on the
cyclists and pedestrians that have to use Taft Hill Road to get to work and school. There are no sidewalks in the
area and it is already quite congested with traffic so this extreme increase in residential numbers could impact
the safety and well being of citizens.
In summary, Fort Collins is a wonderful place to live partly because it has taken great care in considering open
space in and around its residential areas. I would like to hope and trust that those considering this
development consider the negative impacts to both the humans and wildlife that currently reside in this area.
Sincerely,
Marla Roll
970‐217‐1880
Mcroll03@gmail.com
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 10
Packet pg. 43
Hello, my name is Miranda Spindel and I live at 330 N Taft Hill Road. My 3 acre farm borders
most of the east side of this proposed development. Thank you for the opportunity to share
some of my concerns about the Sanctuary on the Green proposal.
I would like to first comment on the historic nature of this site. As you know, this site falls
within the Northwest Subarea Plan. The property is featured there and is noted to be of
potential historic significance (pp 2, 57). Unfortunately, in May of 2018, prior to annexation, the
developer quickly and quietly got rid of the barns and donated the original farmhouse to PFA to
burn down in a training exercise rather than proceed through historic review. Several of the
beautiful, old trees on the site were damaged in the fire. Many neighbors, myself included,
were appalled by this disregard for the local history and character. There were other options
that could have been explored for this home to be preserved as a part of the development.
There continue to be options to preserve the remaining old trees and land rather than further
degrade it. When the farmhouse was destroyed, it motivated me to research my own property.
In September of 2019, my home and property were officially listed on the Colorado Register of
Historic Properties. Because I am in the county, my home was not included in required historic
review of nearby properties. In fact, my home has never actually appeared on the developer’s
plans to date, despite my own and the City’s request. I hope the Planning and Zoning
committee will consider the historic nature of both the actual site and neighboring farm when
reviewing the plans. There is nothing comparable to the proposed 3-story multi-family row
houses in our neighborhoods, and these structures will block views of the foothills for everyone
around them, except for the new residents in them. The plan outlines a density of 6 units/acre,
however ¼ of the property is not developable land due to floodplain and wetland issues. If
density is calculated on the actual land to be developed, it is more than 8units/acre, which
certainly will not, as stated in the design proposal, “compliment the country feel and
appearance as described in the Northwest Subarea Plan”.
This brings me to my second concern. This development is not in accordance with the
Northwest Subarea Plan. The subarea plan’s vision and goals speak to preserving historic
structures, small farms, and open fields.
(pp 42) The plan clearly calls for new development to
x “fit the pattern and character of the area in terms of scale, use, lot sizes, setbacks, and
landscaping, and should provide connected open space and avoid natural areas”.
(pp 9 ) The plan further recommends
x “The area should also retain aspects of its semi-rural heritage including historic
structures, small farms and irrigation ditches, natural areas, foothills vistas, and open
fields. As new development or change occurs, it should occur slowly and be of low
intensity and fit in with the diversity and country feel of the area. New development
should safeguard natural features and protect wildlife habitats”.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 11
Packet pg. 44
(pp 103) The plan additionally states that
x “an enhanced landscape buffer should be provided between developments containing
new, multi-family structures and existing single family homes fronting on Taft Hill Road.
Enhanced landscaping will help to soften the visual impact of larger buildings in the
neighborhood.”
(pp 103) And goes on to say
x “multi-family or attached housing should be buffered from existing single family homes
fronting Taft Hill Road with methods including, but not limited to, stepped down building
masses and enhanced landscaping”.
Nothing on the east border of the plan fits the character of my historic acreage or attempts to
“step down” or buffer the visual impact the building masses in this development will have.
Three story buildings along Taft Hill are 100% incompatible with our neighborhood and the
Subarea Plan. Calling the architecture and the white coloration “farmhouse” is, quite frankly,
insulting. Both we as neighbors and the City have made multiple suggestions for decreasing
density, placing taller buildings at the center of the plan, and correcting areas where disregard
for the Northwest Subarea Plan is apparent – and they have been largely ignored or poorly
implemented submittal after submittal. Why is the city not holding the developer to its own
guidance?
Finally, I want to touch on traffic concerns. Although a traffic impact study was conducted, it
was done three years ago. The development is now proposed to contain 251 units and has 516
parking spaces (which seems conservative to me). If every unit has two cars, that’s ~500
resident cars. Where will guests park? The TIS estimated 152 cars during morning peak hour,
and 185 during afternoon peak. With 500 resident cars in the development, this seems vastly
underestimated. This study was also conducted prior to Poudre High School’s change in
start/end times. With the time change, both morning and afternoon peak traffic (as determined
by the TIS) fall at the same time as start/end of PHS. Traffic in this area is already a problem,
especially with the new crosswalk for the Punta Verde open space and when school is in
session. Noise, headlight glare and difficulty exiting my own driveway because there is a road
and turn lane directly across from it if this plan goes through will be life altering. I would like the
Planning and Zoning board to consider whether the TIS study is even accurate and the reality of
bringing 500 additional cars or more to this neighborhood.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 11
Packet pg. 45
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Annie Addington <annaddington@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 14, 2021 9:24 PM
To:Sharlene Manno
Subject:[EXTERNAL] 6.17.2021 P&Z Comments - PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green
Dear City Planning and Zoning Commission members,
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed Sanctuary on the Green development. I have lived in the
Bellwether neighborhood adjacent to this area for about 10 years, and we moved to this part of town because of the
fact that it seemed zoned in a way that focused on the preservation of wildlife corridors, natural areas, small farms and
single‐family residences.
I take walks and runs daily near the proposed development and enjoy seeing the many migratory birds, herons, hawks,
owls, deer and the occasional fox and muskrat in the canal. The current field provides a nice corridor for animals with
the adjacent Puente Verde Natural Area to the east and the open ravine to the west. I’m also a teacher, and after
teaching my fourth graders this year about the history of Fort Collins, I realized I felt a deep appreciation for the way the
city has managed to preserve the rural and historic character of the communities that were central to the early
formation of what is Fort Collins today.
I’m not alone in my love of the appeal of this Northwest region of Fort Collins; it’s why most of us live on this side of
town. As the city and county Northwest Subarea Plan states: “Residents and business owners of the Northwest Subarea
value its country feel and appearance, including the presence of wildlife and livestock, agricultural fields and views, an
eclectic variety of housing styles and neighborhoods, and low‐density/low‐intensity types of development. This Plan
provides guidelines for how new development can be designed to fit the character of the area.”
I recognize that my dream of this lovely field at the heart of this region of town staying a natural field where wildlife can
thrive is not in line with the vision of most developers, but I do think the city can at least understand the importance of
keeping any potential development in line with the Northwest Subarea Plan and its promise to ensure that new
development is designed to fit the character of the area and adhere to low‐density mixed use residential zoning. The
three‐story elevated buildings are not in any way in keeping with this region of town and they happen to be placed
closest to the wetlands and trees where most birds in the area are concentrated. These taller buildings will block the
flyways of birds, block views of the foothills and lead to a high‐density population that the roads and schools in our little
neighborhood are not designed to accommodate.
My own aging parents just spent several months trying to find a ranch level home in Fort Collins and had to pay well
over asking to finally get a place. We have experienced firsthand the shortage of senior‐friendly housing in Fort Collins, a
city with many bi‐level homes that don’t work for seniors who are unable to constantly navigate stairs. I would feel
better if this development were a less dense ranch‐level development for seniors and other community members, less
likely to block the flyways of birds, less likely to crowd our already overcrowded schools and less likely to increase traffic
congestion especially at peak school starting hours. I mention this since I know the original plan submitted by this
developer would have helped address this senior housing shortage.
I appreciate your taking the time to consider the decidedly negative impact this development would have on our
community and on the wildlife that lives in and migrates through this area.
Sincerely,
Annie Addington
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 12
Packet pg. 46
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Walker,Lloyd <Lloyd.Walker@ColoState.EDU>
Sent:Monday, June 14, 2021 6:22 PM
To:Sharlene Manno
Subject:[EXTERNAL] 6.17.2021 p&z comments pdp #190003
Comments by Lloyd Walker
1)Density too high and lacks compatibility with surrrounding neighborhood and
NE area plan. Number of modifications to city codes requested suggests density is unworkable. Bulk and scale of
proposed buildings is is way out of character with surrounding neighborhood. Break up clusters of multi family units to
create a more diverse local neighborhood feel within the overall development proposal.
Reduce total units to 170, eliminate 3 story buildings, reduce number of buildings by 10% to create more open space
around remaining 1 and 2 story buildings.
2)Lack of imagination and creativity in integrating New Mercer canal and storm water conveyance into site. Use the
example of agreement between New Mercer and City in Red Fox Meadows Natural Area to create a similar shared use of
these resources. Create a walking path on the canal access road and add plantings to create wildlife habitats.
3)Less density will allow more usable open space options. Labeling the New Re Mercer and storm water rights of way
as open space in the proposal is too much of a stretch since they have priorities not associated with the proposal
4)Incorporate senior friendly housing to accommodate a pressing unmet City housing need: single story floor plan, no
steps, handrails, wide doorways, ADA sized bathrooms, walk in showers.
Thanks for your consideration of these comments
Lloyd Walker
Lloyd Walker Sent from my iPhone
970.218.4275
Lloyd.Walker@colostate.edu
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 13
Packet pg. 47
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:22 AM
To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] proposed Sanctuary Field development-Planning/Zoning meeting
Categories:P&Z
Shar Manno
Manager, Customer Support
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
970.221.6767
smanno@fcgov.com
From: valerie vogeler <pv_vogeler@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:58 AM
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] proposed Sanctuary Field development‐Planning/Zoning meeting
Hello Shar,
My name is Phil Vogeler and my family and I own a home at 520 North Taft Hill Road...across the road from the
proposed Sanctuary field development.
I am very familiar with the plan as it is proposed and see it in complete disregard of the FC Northwest SubArea Plan's
vison for this area.
Since this NW SubArea Plan is still on your City of Fort Collins website, this must mean that it remains your focus, despite
pressure from developers who don't even live in this area.
The planned density of the development is not consistent with anything in this area and the height of the proposed 3-
story townhouses will block all foothill views , especially if placed along Taft Hill Road at entrance to development or
anywhere on the perimeter. This area should be open space or isolated single family one story homes around the entire
perimeter.
I am also concerned about loss of wildlife habitat, the storm water/floodplain issue , and the increase in traffic that this
will bring to Taft Hill road, Laporte , and west Vine. We are already dealing with excessive/noisy polluting truck traffic from
Martin Marietta's asphalt/gravel operation. The walking/biking trail where Puente Verde open space adjoins Taft Hill road
will become a very dangerous crossing for children, with 3 schools in this area.
Please consider all of these concerns and remember that we are counting on you (City of FC Planning/Zoning) to be
keeping our neighborhoods safe and peaceful....where you would enjoy living in yourself.
Respectfully submitted,
Phil Vogeler
520 North Taft Hill Road
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 14
Packet pg. 48
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:22 AM
To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] PDP #190003 - Sanctuary on the Green Comments
Categories:P&Z
Shar Manno
Manager, Customer Support
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
970.221.6767
smanno@fcgov.com
From: flyer23109@aol.com <flyer23109@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:19 AM
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] PDP #190003 ‐ Sanctuary on the Green Comments
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Dana Pisculich and my family lives in the neighborhood near the proposed "Sanctuary on the Green"
Development. I want to express my many concerns regarding this development and its negative impact that will occur if it
proceeds as is proposed.
1. My family and I moved to NW Fort Collins for the rural setting and peaceful and tranquil atmosphere surrounding
us. We spend hours enjoying the nature around this proposed development, from the wildlife such as the many ducks,
red winged blackbirds, and deer that frequent this property to the open view of the foothills and the beautful trees. We
have found so much joy and peace in this area. The last year, being full of so much unknown, fears, and some anxiety,
our mental health has been restored whenever we spend time in this beautiful site- hiking, biking, walking our dog, doing
yoga, sledding, meditating/praying, and just enjoying overall solitude. The proposed development will undo all of these
beautiful benefits our family has received and bring with it, noise, much traffic congestion (in an already very congested
traffic corridor), disturbed natural habitat, and an increase in pollution/trash. Our daily life will be impacted greatly, and it
will definately change how we feel about living in this area of Fort Collins and our mental health will be impacted as well.
2. The impact on the wildlife greatly concerns me as well. This area is teaming with massive amounts of migratory and
nesting birds- such as red winged blackbirds and ducks, frogs, foxes, and deer families. The 3 story buildings will be
detremental to the ducks as they are higher than they can fly over. As this development stands to be, it will destruct the
sanctuary these animals have on this property, driving them to try to locate another reprieve from congestion in an already
congested city. My boys have learned so much by observing these animals through the years and it grieves me that
future generations will not have this oasis to learn and appreciate nature from. There is immeasurable worth in this nature
immersion the many families enjoy in close proximity to us. Children who grow up in an area that is surrounded with
nature immersion, learn to appreciate and respect wildlife and will work to preserve this experience for future generations
to come. By turning this site into another generic development, we are losing that cycle of nature appreciation and all the
joy that would be to come for future generations.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 49
2
3. The NW Corridor plan for Fort Collins does NOT support this medium to high density project at all! This area was
always to be a low intensity area. Nothing about the proposed development respects this low density plan. Fort Collins is
turning into a very busy high density city. This NW Corridor has always had the rural atmosphere that most people have
enjoyed about living in Fort Collins. It is now unique to have this rural atmosphere. This development will just steal this
peaceful and tranquil rural atmosphere away from the hundreds that enjoy it so much.
4. The proposed development will produce increased traffic congestion in already very congested area. The increased
traffic and traffic noise will create headaches and stress for existing residents and strain for the already strained
roads. Law enforcement will be strained with an uptick in accidents and it will decrease the safety for all who pass
through this area.
5. Adding to the population in this corridor by 1000 residents will stress the existing neighborhood schools. At this time,
the neighborhood schools are at capacity for students. The new students will put tremendous strain on already strained
teachers and budget tight schools.
I ask you to consider why many of you decided to move to Fort Collins in the first place( if you were not born and raised
here). Did you move here for generic housing developments that blocked views of gorgeous foothills? Did you move here
to be stuck in traffic? Did you move here so your kids could attend crowded schools? Did you move here so you could
hear traffic noise instead of restoring nature sounds? Think for a second about future generations to come, what do you
want for them? Do you envision a picture of what I addressed in my 1st and 2nd point? Why don't you think about this
before you vote away their future nature immersions? their future good physical and mental health? their joy and peace?
Do the right thing in your heart for the community you love. You are in your position I assume because you love this
community and want the best for future generations to come. You know in your hearts what that best is for this
community, do not put economic interests above all that is so much more important than money. Be a part of the solution,
and make this community the best it can be.
Please reconsider your support of this medium/high density development. Be respectful of the current residents who call
one of the last tranquil areas of Fort Collins home. "Sanctuary on the Green" development will be no "Sanctuary" for
current human residents nor animal/bird residents. It will only bring "Sanctuary"to the developers' bank accounts. Do not
let greed influence this decision!
Thank you so much for your time and consideration of my concerns! Now, make the best decision you can to make future
generations proud of the day you cast your vote!
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Dana Pisculich
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 15
Packet pg. 50
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 12:25 PM
To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary on the green
Categories:P&Z
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Mary Timby <mary.timby@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2021 12:23 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary on the green
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
Hello,
My home is located at 627 Irish Drive and I am writing to share some thoughts on the development of sanctuary field.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
While I acknowledge Fort Collins has a housing shortage that is impacting many people, I am concerned with the
developer’s inconsistent plans for the property.
The NW Subarea Plan states that new development must be of low intensity and compatible with existing
neighborhoods. This proposal is not low intensity and not compatible with our neighborhood. I ask that you reject it and
require this project to reduce the number of units proposed.
The developer has submitted six revisions of the proposal since our last neighborhood meeting. We would like the City
to require the developer to inform the neighborhoods around this property about how his new plan will deal with
building on the floodplain, and manage storm water so it doesn't negatively impact our neighborhoods.
The NW Subarea plan states (page 9) that the City must protect wildlife corridors and habitat. This plan calls for three
story row houses over much of the property, right next to the irrigation ditch, which ducks and other birds cannot fly
over or around. Three story houses in this area are not acceptable. Please follow the NW Subarea plan guidelines and
reject this proposal.
The developer plans to cut down mature trees that are over 100 years old around the historic farmhouse that was
burned down. These are important habitat for deer, raptors and other animals who shelter there year round. There is
currently a mama and two baby fawns sheltering beneath these trees. We ask that you follow the NW Subarea Plan and
protect these trees as important natural and historic resources on this site.
This proposal would create 251 units and bring up to 1000 new residents to a new neighborhood where our schools are
already full or over capacity. It would more than double the number of people and cars in our area. How is this "low
intensity" as required by the NW subarea plan? This is not acceptable. Please require the developer to reduce the
density of housing in his proposal so that it is compatible with our single‐story neighborhood, and conforms to the NW
Subarea plan.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 16
Packet pg. 51
2
Thank you,
Mary
‐‐
Mary Blair-Elizabeth Timby
(970) 692-3788
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 16
Packet pg. 52
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 12:25 PM
To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] PDP#190003 Sanctuary on the Green
Categories:P&Z
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Kathleen Mineo <kathleenamineo@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2021 12:11 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] PDP#190003 Sanctuary on the Green
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
June 16, 2021
Regarding Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on June 17, 2021:
I have been a resident of the West Vine Bungalow neighborhood since 2007. If there was any way to keep that land
open space, that would be my preference.
That being said I did read the Northwest Subarea Plan created in 2006, as well as the developer’s final iteration of their
proposal. On paper the developer has made all the necessary changes to meet the requirements of the plan.
My questions to the city:
Who will hold the developer accountable to all the requirements necessary in the meeting of those
standards? Who will have oversight on the construction area to assure
the adjoining neighborhoods won't be cluttered with debris and dust? Who will make sure no
building exceeds 38
feet? Who
will check to see all the trees are planted, the open space is indeed included, and the water mitigation meets the new
West Vine Basin standards? If the developer requests major or minor amendments after the PDP is approved will
the public be notified?
Will that development share the responsibility of upkeep for the existing bridge over the Mercer ditch and the trail that
leads to Taft Hill Rd and Cherry St?
My biggest concern is that once the approval is made, there will not be enough oversight by the city and we as the
existing neighbors will suffer from that.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kathleen Mineo, 515 Coriander Lane
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 17
Packet pg. 53
2
‐‐
Kathleen Mineo
In a world you can be anything,
BE KIND
307-421-2957
"What would John Lewis do?"
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 17
Packet pg. 54
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 1:25 PM
To:Development Review Comments; Katharine Claypool
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary Field
Categories:P&Z
Shar Manno
Manager, Customer Support
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
970.221.6767
smanno@fcgov.com
From: nancy frederick <nancyfred2x2@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 12:32 PM
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary Field
I live on Laporte Ave., directly across the street from the new Stodgy
brewery. The traffic increase generated by the brewery is enormous.
Two hundred cars or more going into the brewery on Friday, Saturday
& Sunday per day is not unusual. Laporte Ave. cannot accommodate
the increased amount of traffic Sanctuary Field will generate and it
will also greatly impact Poudre High School when school is in
session in my opinion.
Please consider a much lower density for this development.
Sincerely.
Nancy Frederick
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 18
Packet pg. 55
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 1:26 PM
To:Development Review Comments; Katharine Claypool
Subject:FW: Comments for Sanctuary on the Green P&Z Hearing tomorrow night
Attachments:Wildlife Impact Assessment of Sanctuary on the Green.docx; Planning and Zoning Board 6-17-21–
Comments for Sanctuary on the Green Development Proposal.docx; SFNN Letter to CITY &
Developer-3-7-19.docx
Categories:P&Z
Shar Manno
Manager, Customer Support
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
970.221.6767
smanno@fcgov.com
From: Laura Larson <laura_larson@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 1:24 PM
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments for Sanctuary on the Green P&Z Hearing tomorrow night
Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners,
Attached please find my comments on the development proposal on behalf of the Sanctuary Fields
Neighborhood Network. I am including here a copy of the document we submitted to the City in 2019, which
the developer has still not responded to, that outlines in detail the concerns we have expressed to them about
this proposal over the past 3 years, and our suggestions for making this project conform to the NW Subarea
Plan. I am also including the Wildlife Impact Assessment report commissioned by our organization and
submitted to the City in 2018.
I look forward to sharing my comments and presentation with you on behalf of SFNN tomorrow night.
thank you!
Laura
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 56
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, 6/17/21
Comments for Sanctuary on the Green Development Proposal on behalf of SFNN
My name is Laura Larson, I live at 320 N. Impala Drive and my property abuts the proposed
development site. I am speaking on behalf of Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network (SFNN)
which represents over 200 neighbors who will be affected by this development. Our
organization includes the majority of the resident population surrounding this site,
encompassing the Green Acres, Bellweather Farms, Taft Hill, Sunset and LaPorte Avenue
neighborhoods. The open fields, wetlands, historic farm site along Taft Hill, and the wildlife that
inhabits this area defines our neighborhood. They are a vital part of the character that the
Northwest Subarea plan was designed to preserve.
In 2006, with large participation from the neighborhoods we represent, the Northwest Subarea
plan was created and both Larimer County and the City signed onto it as the governing plan for
development in this area. Many of us bought our homes with the understanding that the City
has to abide by this plan in considering new development, and that we would be protected
from the high‐density, 3‐story row houses and multiplex structures that this proposal includes.
Specifically, the “Vision” for the Northwest Subarea (p. 9) is described as follows:
“The Northwest Subarea should continue to be predominately a low density residential area at
the edge of Fort Collins with stable neighborhoods. The area should also retain aspects of its
semi-rural heritage including historic structures, small farms and irrigation ditches, natural areas,
foothills vistas, and open fields. As new development or change occurs, it should occur slowly
and be of low intensity and fit in with the diversity and country feel of the area. New
development should safeguard natural features and protect wildlife habitats.” In the Planning
Framework (p. 15) it states: One of the primary objectives… is to ensure that future development
is compatible with the density, uses, and character of existing neighborhoods.” The Subarea
plan specifically states that the City should “protect stable neighborhoods from incompatible
development” (p. 9). That’s why we’re here this evening. We are asking you to protect our
neighborhoods and the wildlife on this property from incompatible development.
Let me tell you about our neighborhood and who we are. We are a multi-racial, low and
moderate income neighborhood, with Irish Bilingual Elementary School at the center. Our homes
are predominately single story, single family homes, and all of the properties that abut this parcel
are single story homes. Many of us have lived here for over 20 years; some of our members for
45 years; others of us moved here more recently to raise families and run small businesses,
because our neighborhoods are affordable. We have chickens, turkeys, goats and horses on our
properties. We know our neighbors, we walk our dogs together and socialize regularly as a
community, and with city-sponsored block parties annually. The fields on this parcel have served
as a congregating and walking place for our neighbors and residents in the surrounding area for
decades. This past year especially, the natural spaces and wildlife have significantly contributed
to our neighbors’ mental health and physical well-being.
We all care about the wildlife that lives here. We see and hear them every day, they are a part of
our lives. In the Winter, small herds of deer come through our yards on a daily basis, and shelter
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 57
from storms in the willows under the large Maple and Cottonwood trees where the historic
farmhouse stood. In late Spring, we wake up to the sound of meadowlarks, red wing blackbirds
and roosters at dawn. We have chorus frogs singing at night, bats that fly through the fields and
in our backyards because there is no light pollution in the fields or in the Green Acres and Sunset
neighborhoods, as we don’t have streetlights. The wetlands provide nesting sites to redwing
blackbirds and dozens of migratory bird species; there are groups of ducks who nest along the
ditch and swim with their babies along the channel at this time every year. All of these species
will be negatively impacted and their habitat severely degraded by car headlights and other light
and air pollution that this development will cause.
The project proposes to place two 12-plexes along what the developer has denoted on his plan as
a “wildlife corridor”, bringing up to 48 resident cars regularly shining headlights into the
wetlands on City property and into the confluence of County wetlands and irrigation ditch habitat
that the ducks, frogs and other animals depend on. The noise and air pollution, combined with
the hazard of 40-foot tall buildings proposed along the irrigation ditch will destroy this area as
bird habitat.
Over the past 3 years, our steering committee has met with City staff and the developer
numerous times to discuss our concerns about the multi-family 12-plexes that this plan has
located next to our properties, and the 3-story row houses up against the irrigation ditch and
wetlands, impeding bird flight between the waterways. We also discussed that the location of
these structures, and those along Taft Hill will destroy long-established wildlife corridors and
habitat for deer, foxes, and other animals. We have submitted in writing three separate letters
over this time (the most recent has been submitted into the record this evening), requesting that
the developer adhere to the NW Subarea plan and protect this habitat and our neighborhoods
from incompatible development. We asked City staff to please work with the developer to ensure
compliance with the guidelines for our area. While we know that City staff have made
suggestions to the developer to address some of these issues, the changes we requested have not
happened. The only “habitat” being preserved is located on small, non-contiguous areas where
the water table is too high for him to build on feasibly.
The Ecological Character study completed by the developer in 2018 (which is required for their
plan) did not discuss critical wildlife habitat that would be impacted on this property, so in Fall
of 2018, we commissioned our own Wildlife Impact Assessment, conducted by local wildlife
and ecology experts (some of whom are here to speak this evening), to detail the bird life and
flora of the area, and how high density development would damage it. We submitted this to the
City, along with our requests to please ensure that wildlife habitat is protected in this
development site, as the NW Subarea plan requires.
However, despite our efforts and all the information we’ve submitted to the City – detailing both
our concerns and potential solutions that could remedy them - the City staff has now forwarded
to you a plan that has not made any of the substantive changes we requested. This new plan does
not have lower density housing, nor does it protect wildlife corridors, bird flight paths between
wetlands and irrigation channels, or 100+ year old trees around the old farmhouse site that are
providing critical wildlife habitat. Instead, this plan still violates both the intent and the substance
of the Northwest Subarea Plan guidelines. In accordance with the City’s responsibility to
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 58
“protect stable existing neighborhoods from incompatible development,” we request that you
reject the proposed development plan and require the developer to work with neighbors to create
a plan that incorporates lower density housing next to our properties, preservation of wildlife
habitat on this parcel, and better preserves the natural features of this property. We also would
like to see the developer “step down” the buildings facing Taft Hill (something else the Subarea
plan addresses directly), and move any 12-plexes to the interior of the development, not abutting
our single-story homes. The developer has single story and single family housing “products,”
but he has not placed these next to our neighborhoods as we have requested multiple times.
Over the past 3 years our steering committee has met with City Planners as well as the City’s
Floodplain staff, Stormwater staff, and two Ecologists. All three departments have consistently
described this parcel as “very complex” because of all the water ways and wetlands, and because
it’s in the floodplain. In fact, the Floodplain department’s staff told us that this parcel is the
“most complex parcel being considered for development in the entire City.” So, while the
developer has met the technical requirements for a plan to engineer this housing development out
of the floodplain, we are skeptical as to whether the plan will actually work.
We also have yet to hear how this new plan will impact our Green Acres neighborhood, whose
streets all drain into one culvert and intersect with the New Mercer ditch adjacent to this parcel.
As you may be aware, our neighborhoods were severely impacted in the 1997 flood, and City
staff have told us very clearly that the developer is not required to prevent that level of flooding
from happening again. This is of great concern to us. Because the developer has submitted
numerous new plans in the past 2 1/2 years since our last neighborhood meeting, we have not
heard how this revised plan will ensure that our neighborhoods on County property are not
negatively impacted by stormwater coming off this new development area, especially with the
elevated land required for houses built over the floodplain channels. While we have requested a
new neighborhood meeting to help us understand the developer’s new proposal, City staff
informed us that he declined our request and that the City could not require him to do so. The
developer’s assertion to you that his consulting team has kept us informed of changes in this
development proposal, as he has submitted each of six new revised plans, is false. The City staff
can verify this, since we have been bothering them for information on a weekly basis over the
past year. We are very concerned that this whole project will negatively impact our property
values, threaten the safety of our homes, and degrade our quality of life.
Finally, I want to speak to the developer’s plan to decimate the habitat along North Taft Hill,
where he has designated the entrance to this development. In 2017, the City’s Natural Resource
Department tried to buy the historic farmhouse that occupied that area, including 3 barns, with
100-year old Silver Maple trees and mature cottonwoods around it, because they saw the cultural
value of its preservation as well as for wildlife habitat. However, this developer out-bid the City
and acquired the parcel along Taft Hill with the historic farmhouse and barns. In May of 2018,
while the property was still under County jurisdiction, the developer had the historic farmhouse
burned to the ground, and disassembled the historic barns. The owls and bats nesting in those
buildings were displaced, and the historic trees were damaged by the fire, as nothing was done to
protect them. Luckily the bat colony was able to find refuge across the street in Miranda
Spindel’s barn (you’re going to hear from her a little later), where they live to this day. This year,
Great Horned owls were heard in the large cottonwood along the ditch that provides nesting
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 59
habitat in its tree hollows for raptors, woodpeckers, and a host of other birds. In the City’s staff
review documents, we learned that the developer intends to cut down this giant Cottonwood tree
that’s well over 10 feet in diameter and estimated to be 150 years old or more, dating back to the
creation of the New Mercer ditch (based on historical documents). An arborist hired by the
developer deemed the tree “unhealthy.” As you can see from this picture, taken in the last few
days, this tree is exceptionally well balanced, has very few dead branches, and right now is in
full fertility mode, releasing its cotton to reproduce along waterways, as it was designed to do.
This tree has a natural hollow at the base – something that you commonly see in cottonwoods in
the City’s Natural Areas across Fort Collins – and is not an indicator of disease or poor health.
We have in fact investigated that hollow from the ditch, and found by the growth pattern and
stability of the tree that it has merely adapted to accommodate high water flows that periodically
erode the bank under part of its center, as it sits at the elbow of a 90 degree turn in the ditch, and
has no doubt stabilized that bank for all of its life. However, the developer has portrayed it as a
“hazard” to the planned houses nearby, and wants to cut it down, along with the Silver Maples
that were partially damaged in the fire. This has been confirmed by the City’s forester. We have
a serious issue with this. Had the Cottonwood tree been evaluated by the City for its value as
bird habitat, in the context of a natural area to be preserved, we are certain that the verdict would
have been the opposite. This tree, and all the Silver Maples on the property, are part of a historic
site and are required to be preserved under the NorthWest Subarea plan guidelines. In addition to
nesting habitat for owls and other raptors, the trees provide vital shelter for deer, foxes and other
animals who live here. We ask that you please save this giant tree that is a heritage landmark for
our Northwest Fort Collins area, and require it to be considered part of what the Subarea Plan
identifies as “natural features” to be protected on the property.
In closing, we ask that you hold this developer to the requirements of the NW Subarea Plan and
reject this development proposal as submitted. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Laura M. Larson, SFNN Steering Committee
320 N. Impala Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80521
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 60
To: City of Fort Collins Planning Department, Solitaire Homes and Ripley Consulting
From: Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network
Date: March 6, 2019
RE: Proposed Sanctuary on the Green Development
The Northwest Subarea Plan (2006) is the County and City’s joint guiding vision document for
the northwest end of town. It states: “The Northwest Subarea should continue to be predominately a
low density residential area at the edge of Fort Collins with stable neighborhoods. The area should
also retain aspects of its semi-rural heritage including historic structures, small farms and irrigation
ditches, natural areas, foothills vistas, and open fields. As new development or change occurs, it
should occur slowly and be of low intensity and fit in with the diversity and country feel of the area.
New development should safeguard natural features and protect wildlife habitats” (p. 9). The
Subarea plan also states that the City should: “Protect stable existing neighborhoods from
incompatible development.”
We previously submitted to the City and the developer a series of suggestions of ways this
development proposal could be modified to conform to the Northwest Subarea plan. Despite three
extensive meetings with Ripley Consulting and the developer over the past 9 months, they have not
altered their housing plan in any significant way in response to our neighborhood’s stated
concerns. Their proposal also contains some misrepresentations of “compromise” for the natural
areas and wildlife corridors we have requested. They have, for example, labeled City storm water
drainage areas as “HOA open space,” and misrepresented setbacks from neighboring properties as
twice their actual footage in their plot map. The most recent iteration of the proposal is in fact
higher in density than the previous one, involving a preponderance of 3-story structures, two-story
12-plexes bordering the Green Acres single-story neighborhood, and other high density housing
right next to the wetlands and the only feasible corridor for deer and other wildlife to travel through
this area. In addition, much of the 3-story row housing being proposed lies in the flood plain. We
ask that the City follow the vision laid out in the subarea plan for our area, protect the natural
habitat and wildlife on this property, preserve the stable neighborhoods we live in, and reject the
Sanctuary on the Green proposal in its current form.
Following is an abbreviated version of the suggestions we submitted to the City and developer in a
lengthier letter on September 24, 2018. We are reiterating areas that have not been addressed to
again request that the City ensure compliance with the Northwest Subarea plan for this property,
and require the developer to genuinely respond to our request for lower density housing that is
compatible with our neighborhoods.
I. Partner with City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department to conserve wildlife habitat
and create a local natural area that benefits both wildlife and residents.
We would like to see the City’s Natural Areas Department purchase and manage at least 15 acres of
the 42-acre parcel. We would also like to see all mature trees preserved, including the large trees on
the East side around the former farm house, and on the West end of the site, where Swainson’s
Hawks nest annually. We envision users of this new natural area would include local residents,
school children, and Poudre High and Irish Elementary School employees, thereby encouraging
healthy lifestyles in the area, promoting neighborhood cohesion, and advancing the City’s Natural
Areas’ goals.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 61
II. Stormwater Management on and around the site
The SFNN encourages the developer, City of Fort Collins Stormwater staff, the Natural Areas
Department and the New Mercer Ditch Company to work together to create a wildlife-enhancing
stormwater conveyance that incorporates the current wetlands on City property and allows an open
stormwater channel to flow from the wetlands to Taft Hill. The water could then be put in a pipe to
go under Taft on its way to the regional detention basin on the east side of Taft. We believe that it is
in the City’s and the neighborhood’s interest to have a wildlife-promoting and environmentally-
sound stormwater plan that incorporates the natural environment in its design.
III. Residential Development Plan
The SFNN would like to see the following included in Solitaire Homes’ plan:
A majority of single-story, senior-friendly homes, arranged so that there are community
gathering areas in the center of each cluster or block. These would provide compatibility
and privacy with the existing neighborhoods and be community-centered. Such units would
address a housing need that is in high demand in the city, in an area with a healthy lifestyle.
Park areas and community gardens, facilitating neighbor interaction, community cohesion,
exercise, and offering space for outdoor events.
In line with the City’s stated values of sustainability, units should be built with energy
efficiency and passive solar in mind, meaning an intentional orientation to allow for south-
facing solar gain on all new structures.
Any multi-unit development should be restricted to 4 units per structure, no more
than two stories, and such structures should be located in the interior of the new
development site, not adjacent to existing single-story homes where homeowners’
privacy would be compromised. We would like to see economic diversity of housing units
in the next iteration of a development proposal, including single-story homes.
25-foot easements planted with native xeric plants should be created along all the
boundaries of the new development and storm water channels.
Walking paths that join neighborhoods from Sunset to Taft, and North to South, allowing
for safe travel for young people going to and from Irish Elementary and Poudre High
School (where social trails already exist). A walking path should also be built along the
west side of New Mercer ditch, in partnership with the irrigation ditch company, similar to
what the City did in Red Fox Meadows Natural Area along New Mercer. This could be in
the form of a 6-foot wide graveled track which would serve the maintenance needs of the
company, provide recreational trails that align with established social trails on the site, and
allow for water to permeate the soil.
Conservation easements (in partnership with the Natural Areas Dept.) along the Northwest
and West boundaries of the development site, preserving flight paths for birds, a corridor
for deer and other wildlife who travel north to south via the ditch when it’s dry, and giving
a wide berth to nesting sites in the wetlands and adjacent trees along the New Mercer ditch
(Northwest end). As noted above, healthy trees should be preserved.
The builder should provide 10-foot fencing to adjacent neighbors who request it.
Additionally, temporary fencing to block dust and debris from construction on the site
should be erected along all the boundary lines to protect wetlands and neighboring
properties, prior to any digging or construction. This should be discussed in detail with
neighbors prior to final approval of the project.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 62
IV. Preserve positive wildlife habitat conditions on this site.
Currently there is no light pollution (no street lights) around our neighborhoods or on the field, and
development of any sort is going to destroy the darkness at night that allows the local wildlife to
live and thrive here. SFNN has commissioned a Wildlife Impact Study that documents in detail the
potential impacts of development on wildlife in the area, including populations of migrating birds
that have federally-protected status. We suggest the following mitigations to minimize the damage
to wildlife habitat:
Keep light pollution to a minimum through the use of down facing illumination of
minimum required brightness
Preserve all healthy trees on the site as determined by the City Forester
Plant native, xeric plants to provide shelter and food sources for wildlife along stormwater
channels and property boundaries, creating wildlife-safe corridors, and demonstrating
water-conserving landscaping practices
Create storm water detention basins for wildlife on the West end of the development
(behind Sunset) as was done in Red Fox Meadows Natural Area.
V. Traffic Concerns
Our members are very concerned about the impact of increased traffic that will come with this
development. LaPorte Avenue is already very congested during school opening and closing times,
and the school bus depot is located opposite the proposed entrance for the development. Not only
will there be increased residential traffic, but increased noise and pollution in an area where
children are walking to and from two schools in close proximity. As mentioned in our previous
letter to the City about our concerns, Irish Elementary, Poudre High School and Lincoln Middle
School are already at or over capacity and do not have the necessary resources to expand. We would
like to see this development scaled back in order to prevent exacerbation of the existing challenges
in this area, and creating an unsafe environment for children and other pedestrians.
We hope that through the development of a partnership with the City’s Natural Areas Department,
the overall footprint and number of residential units proposed in this development can be reduced to
no more than 100 total units, at least a portion of which would cater to a senior population, and
thereby minimize the above concerns.
VI. Conclusion
SFNN believes that if Solitaire Homes incorporates the suggestions we’ve provided in their
development plan, the Sanctuary on the Green development would be more in alignment with the
Northwest Subarea plan, would help to maintain the cohesion of existing neighborhoods, and better
balance the developer’s objectives with the needs of the neighbors and resident wildlife.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 63
Wildlife Impact Study
Sanctuary on the Green Housing Development
Submitted 09/14/2018
Commissioned by Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network (SFNN)
The primary authors of this assessment of the potential wildlife value of the area that is
proposed to be developed as “Sanctuary on the Green” and the potential impacts to wildlife of
that development include:
Dr. Matt Holloran: Matt received his doctorate in zoology and physiology with an emphasis in
wildlife management, and has been researching the response of wildlife to anthropogenic
activity, primarily energy development, in the western U.S. for over 20 years.
Ms. Alison Holloran: Alison received her master’s degree in zoology and wildlife management,
studying the response of wildlife to gas and oil development; she is the Executive Director of
Audubon Rockies and has been working in the wildlife conservation field for over 15 years.
Ms. Abbie Reade: Abbie received her master’s degree in zoology, studying honeybee physiology
and nutrition at Colorado State University; she currently works in CSU’s Biology department.
Ms. Erin Strasser: Erin received her master’s degree in raptor biology and is an Avian Ecologist
for Bird Conservancy of the Rockies. Her research has focused on how anthropogenic change
impacts breeding bird behavior and physiology.
The Sanctuary on the Green residential development is being proposed on fields dominated by
flowering forbs (predominantly alfalfa) and grasses. The eastern portion of the development
area borders a functioning wetland to the north, the western portion of the development area
borders a degraded wetland also to the north, and the New Mercer Ditch bisects the proposed
development; combined, these habitats establish a wetland complex that would likely be
negatively impacted by residential development. The southwest portion of the development
area contains a stand of mature deciduous trees that also may be impacted. The development
area borders a large open area across North Taft Hill Road to the east, and the western portions
of the development area border larger acreage properties to the west and north, establishing a
link in a potential wildlife movement corridor that may be impacted by the development.
Field Habitats
The strong forb community in the fields dominating the proposed development offers an
abundance of flowers which are a good source of both pollen and nectar. This food resource
for bees and other pollinators is relatively unique as most of the hay fields in the area raise
grass hay. Honeybees, which are kept by multiple beekeepers in the neighborhoods
surrounding the proposed development, are known to use the fields extensively. Diverse
forage is important to overall colony health, fortifying the local hives and helping to sustain the
colonies through the winter. Honeybees will generally travel approximately 2 miles to forage,
but when necessary they will travel up to 6 miles. Therefore the alfalfa flowers could provide
an important food source for hives of domesticated bees throughout the northwest corridor of
Fort Collins and LaPorte.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 64
These fields are also used by several different species of native, cavity‐ and ground‐dwelling
bees. These animals contribute to the vitality of the fruit, vegetable, and floral crops grown by
local farmers. Some native bees that have been observed in the area include various species of
bumble bees, hairy leg bees (digger bees), hairy belly bees (leafcutter and mason bees), green
metallic bees (sweat bee), carpenter bees, and cuckoo bees. Unlike the honeybee, these native
bees do not live through the winter, but lay eggs in a fortified nest so that the next generation
of pollinators will emerge the following spring. These undomesticated pollinators could be
negatively impacted if the fields were developed. Detailed information on native pollinators
along the Front Range of Colorado can be found here:
https://nativebeewatch.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/fieldguide_12march2018_lowrez.pdf.
Wetland Complex
According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife, wetlands comprise only about 1.5% of the surface
area of Colorado but provide benefits to over 75% of the wildlife species in the state, including
several species of conservation concern. In arid climates like Colorado, where evaporation
often exceeds precipitation, wetlands are an irreplaceable habitat for wildlife species that use
wetlands to either breed or as migratory stopover locations. The complex of wetland habitats
provided by the wetlands bordering the proposed development and the New Mercer Ditch
(considered seasonally riparian) provides habitat to numerous wildlife species including birds,
amphibians and reptiles (western chorus frog; woodhouse’s toad; garter snake), and mammals
including bats. Amphibians are one of the most imperiled groups of animals world‐wide and in
Colorado, with habitat loss resulting from anthropogenic activity including residential
development being the single greatest threat faced by species in this group
(http://www.coparc.org/). Residential developments may also degrade water sources and
wetland areas, adversely affecting amphibians and reptiles as well as bat foraging patterns. As
a result, preserving and improving wetlands that may be degraded as a result of urban
development is a management goal established in the Colorado Bat Conservation Plan
(https://cnhp.colostate.edu/cbwg/pdfs/ColoradoBatConservationPlanFebruary2004.pdf).
Detailed information on the importance of wetlands in Colorado can be found here:
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/CDOWWetlandsProgramStr
ategicPlan110804.pdf.
Deciduous Tree Stand
The stand of mature deciduous trees in the southwestern portion of the development provides
structure that is important in particular for nesting raptors. In addition to the raptors
documented in the area near the proposed development (see Attachment 1), Swainson’s hawks
and great horned owls are known to nest in the area and use the stand of trees in the proposed
development during foraging and as habitat during fledging. The Swainson’s hawk territory
that encompasses the tree stand has been active for at least the past 4 years, with the pair
fledging at least 1 chick each of those years. Swainson’s hawk populations declined significantly
in the latter‐half of the 20th century, but populations have stabilized since. However, the loss of
suitable nesting sites characterized as shelter belts in rural landscapes, similar to the patch of
trees in the proposed development, may pose a threat to populations in the future. A detailed
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 65
description of Swainson’s hawk life‐history can be found here:
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Swainsons_Hawk/lifehistory.
Combined Habitats
Over 75 species of birds have been documented using the habitats that make up the proposed
Sanctuary on the Green development area for breeding or as a stopover site during migration
(see Attachment 1). This list includes species of conservation concern as identified by the USDA
Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and/or Partners in Flight, and a majority of the
species identified are federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Stopover sites
during migration are an especially important and not well understood habitat for birds.
Stopover sites sustain birds' long‐distance migrations by providing crucial resources including
food important for replenishing lost fat stores (some birds double their body weight at stopover
sites) and safe places to roost and rest. Recent research suggests that, instead of birds making
stops anywhere along their migratory route, they instead select specific locations and often
stay in these sites for multiple days. This suggests the stopover habitats are especially key
locations along a bird’s migratory path (https://abcbirds.org/stopover‐habitats‐birds‐need‐
migration/). Although migratory pathways are just now being mapped in detail due to
advances in monitoring techniques, preliminary data suggest that the front range of Colorado
may be an important corridor for birds migrating through both the central and pacific flyways.
For example see the migration time‐series of the Western Tanager here:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/03/bird‐migration‐interactive‐maps/.
Fort Collins is situated on the alluvial fan deposited by the Poudre River as it exits the Rocky
Mountains, and provides habitats rich in resources for migrating birds. This combined with the
use of the Front Range as a migratory corridor suggest the region may be an important
migratory stopover site and areas within the urban landscape of Fort Collins that provide
stopover habitat may be critical to sustain migratory birds during migration.
Movement Corridor
When viewed from a broader‐scale, the importance of the area proposed for the Sanctuary on
the Green development as a link in a chain of open habitats between natural areas and the
Poudre River corridor is apparent (see Attachment 2). Attachment 2 is a screenshot of an aerial
image of the northwest quadrant of Fort Collins (the yellow star denotes the area of proposed
development). The loss of this link may isolate other open habitats within the urban
environment, especially the large patch of open habitat east of North Taft Hill Road between
Laporte Avenue and West Vine Drive. More importantly however, the loss of the corridor link
currently provided by the area of proposed development may limit movement of mule deer in
particular from the foothills to and from the Poudre River corridor; this movement may be
important for maintaining genetic linkage between deer herds residing in the foothills and
those residing farther east in the plains. Effective dispersal (in other words, the dispersal of an
individual that results in gene flow) shapes evolutionary dynamics and is critical for persistence
of wildlife populations. Urban development along the Front Range of Colorado is potentially
isolating big game populations east to west. Maintaining suitable conditions in habitats
between these population strongholds may be critical for the long‐term persistence of
populations in these stronghold areas by allowing the movement of individuals and therefore
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 66
gene flow among populations. In most instances, movement of big game in an urban landscape
is through distinct areas that provide animals with the open space and security cover necessary
for movement. Mule deer are regularly seen in the proposed development area and the open
space to the east of the area. Although the specific movement patterns of big game through
Fort Collins are unknown, the open space currently provided by the area proposed for
development appears to be a uniquely situated link in a potential movement corridor in
northern portions of the city. A detailed discussion of the importance of linkages between
distinct population segments of a wildlife species can be found here:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2018/1017/ofr20181017.pdf.
Conclusion
The rate of human population growth and residential development along the Colorado Front
Range is increasing quickly. This is resulting in expanding disturbance which is pushing wildlife
that relies on the unique habitats situated along the foothills of the Rocky Mountains into
smaller, dispersed habitat patches that remain. This presents a situation where necessary
habitat may be destroyed (habitat loss), may become unavailable or unusable (habitat
degradation), or may become isolated (habitat fragmentation). Developing Sanctuary on the
Green has the potential to contribute to each of these concerns by eliminating an area that may
provide critical stopover habitat for migrating birds, removing a critical link in a potential
movement corridor through the urban landscape effectively isolating big game populations east
to west, contaminating wetland habitats negatively impacting amphibians and bats, and/or
eliminating an important food source for domestic and wild pollinator populations.
The concept of cumulative effects to wildlife is important to consider in the case of the
Sanctuary on the Green development. Cumulative impacts can be thought of as effects on
resources within an area or region caused by a combination of anthropogenic actions which
may be individually minor but added together over time may become significant. We do not
have a clear understanding of the combined level of impact the sorts of residential
development represented by Sanctuary on the Green have on wildlife and the viability of
populations within the northern Colorado Front Range region. Although it may be relatively
easy to discount the potential impacts to wildlife of individual development projects at site‐
level scales, the accumulation of the effects across multiple development projects in Fort
Collins and the surrounding region could be substantial and irreversible. Given the rate of
growth and the loss of open space the urban corridor along Colorado’s Front Range is currently
experiencing, guarding against the potential cumulative impacts of the loss of these areas is
vital if we are to continue to enjoy many of the values associated with living in Colorado.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 67
Attachment 1: Bird species documented in or near the proposed Sanctuary on the Green development.
Species
USDA Forest Service
Sensitive Species:
Rocky Mountain
Region
Priority Species US Fish
and Wildlife Service
Migratory Birds
Partners in Flight (PIF)
Species of Continental
Concern
Raptors
American Kestrel
Bald Eagle yes yes
Barn Owl
Cooper's Hawk
Eastern Screech Owl
Great Horned Owl
Harlan's Hawk
Osprey
Peregrine Falcon yes yes
Red‐taled Hawk
Sharp‐shinned Hawk
Swainson's Hawk
Turkey Vulture
Western Screech Owl
Songbirds, woodpeckers, doves etc.
American Crow
American Goldfinch
American Robin
Barn Swallow
Belted Kingfisher
Bewick's Wren
Black‐capped Chickadee
Black‐headed Grosbeak
Blue Jay
Broad‐tailed Hummingbird
Brown Creeper
Bullock's Oriole
Cedar Waxwing
Chimney Swift
Chipping Sparrow
Clarck's Nutcracker
Cliff Swallow
Common Grackel
Common Nighthawk
Common Yellowthroat
Dark‐eyed Junco
Downy Woodpecker
Dusky Flycatcher
Eurasian ‐collared Dove
European Starling
Great Blue Heron
Green‐tailed Towhee
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 68
Species
USDA Forest Service
Sensitive Species:
Rocky Mountain
Region
Priority Species US Fish
and Wildlife Service
Migratory Birds
Partners in Flight (PIF)
Species of Continental
Concern
Songbirds, woodpeckers, doves etc. (continued)
Hairy Woodpecker
Hermit Thrush
Horned Lark
House Finch
House Wren
Killdeer
Lesser Goldfinch
Lincoln's Sparrow
Loggerhead Shrike yes
Mourning Dove
Northern Flicker
Olive‐sided Flycatcher yes yes
Orange‐crowned Warbler
Pine Siskin
Pinyon Jay yes
Red Crossbill
Red‐breasted Nuthatch
Red‐winged Blackbird
Say's Phoebe
Swainson's Thrush
Townsend's Solitaire
Tree Swallow
Warbling Vireo
Western Meadowlark
Western Tanager
Western Wood Pewee
White ‐breasted Nuthatch
Wilson's Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Yellow ‐rumped Warbler
Waterfowl and Wading Birds
Canada Goose
Franklin's Gull
Green‐winged Teal
Mallard
Sandhill Crane
White Pelican
Wilson's Snipe
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 69
Attachment 2: Screenshot of an aerial image of northwestern Fort Collins. The yellow star denotes the
proposed Sanctuary on the Green development. The image is vertically aligned with north being to the
right.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 70
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Alyssa Stephens
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 4:41 PM
To:Katharine Claypool
Subject:FW: Powerpoint presentation for tomorrow night's P&Z meeting
Attachments:Presentation 2 to P&Z Commission 6-17-21.pptx
Categories:P&Z
Alyssa Stephens MA
Neighborhood Development Liaison
City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services
Submit a public comment| Track Development Proposals
From: Laura Larson <laura_larson@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 4:39 PM
To: Alyssa Stephens <astephens@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Powerpoint presentation for tomorrow night's P&Z meeting
Hi Alyssa,
I am speaking on behalf of Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network tomorrow night. Thank you for all of the
clarifications you've provided to enable us to understand how this works!
I understand that you (or someone) will be running the PowerPoint presentation part for us; attached is what I
want to show. It is not timed, so I will need to be able to tell someone when to advance a slide. Please feel
free to reach out to me if you have any questions about this, and I'm happy to chat with you!
Thanks again!
Laura Larson
320 N. Impala Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 71
1
Northwest Subarea Plan
Key Vision and Guidelines for Northwest Fort Collins
•“The Northwest Subarea should continue to be predominately a low density
residential area at the edge of Fort Collins with stable neighborhoods. The area
should also retain aspects of its semi‐rural heritage including historic structures, small
farms and irrigation ditches, natural areas, foothills vistas, and open fields. As new
development or change occurs, it should occur slowly and be of low intensity and fit
in with the diversity and country feel of the area. New development should
safeguard natural features and protect wildlife habitats.” (p. 9)
•“One of the primary objectives… is to ensure that future development is compatible
with the density, uses, and character of existing neighborhoods.” (p. 15)
•“Protect stable neighborhoods from incompatible development” (p. 9).
1
2
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 72
2
3
4
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 73
3
5
6
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 74
4
7
8
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 75
5
9
10
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 19
Packet pg. 76
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 1:55 PM
To:Development Review Comments; Katharine Claypool
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary Field comment-Planning/Zoning Commission
Shar Manno
Manager, Customer Support
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
970.221.6767
smanno@fcgov.com
From: valerie vogeler <vvogeler89@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 1:49 PM
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc: valerie vogeler <vvogeler89@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary Field comment‐Planning/Zoning Commission
Hi! My name is Valerie Vogeler and I would like to add my comments to the many others that I hope you are receiving in
regard to the Sanctuary Field development, as it is proposed.
There are many issues that are problematic...many of these topics were also verbalized by my neighbors on North Taft
Hill, West Vine, Laporte Ave,and all of the adjoining streets on the north and west sides. Unfortunately, many neighbors
are not able to physically attend the Planning/Zoning meeting due to physical or night driving limitations. Nor are they
able to join in on ZOOM meetings. I have encouraged them to call but I also let them know I would bring their concerns
to this meeting.
Our adjoining neighborhood has primarily one story homes, with larger gardens and yards, with chickens and bees and
other farm animals, enviable foothill views, an irreplaceable wildlife area, and very low (to none) artificial light impact.
Many walkers, bicyclers, runners, and families choose this area to recreate and live. And many older residents find it
safe, easy to travel into the city for healthcare, food and entertainment without having to travel major roads.
One of our concerns is the impact of the proposed development on the floodplain issues that already exist. Many of
these property owners lived here during the flood '97 and remember quite clearly the devastation. We are wondering
how building 251 homes/community center and constructing roads, and utility access will impact the ability of our West
Vine Basin to handle flood waters? I feel certain that protection of the new homes being built (on ground level elevation)
will be at the forefront of the developer's concerns...but what about the property owners surrounding this parcel, who
are much more likely to be impacted by flooding and destruction of property? I applaud the City of Fort Collins and
Larimer County for putting flood planning into the forefront of their efforts and funding. And I am sure there will be
diligent oversight/review of the potential impact of excessively dense construction, inappropriately elevated building
heights, multiple roads, and the violation of setback requirements for wildlife corridors and wetlands... that this current
development proposal puts forward.
If this development is allowed to proceed, I ask that the Planning/Zoning Commission would insist on a very subtle,
open view at the main entrance...with any buildings limited to one story, set far back from the road to allow the Taft
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 20
Packet pg. 77
2
Hill foothills view to remain. (Yes, I am sure that will require MUCH LESS DENSITY than the proposed plan). Equally
important is to match the height of homes all along the perimeter of the development where it borders private
homes/streets, along with buffers.
There is considerable apprehension among my neighbors and myself regarding the inevitable and unacceptable
increase in traffic that 251 new homes/families will pour onto our streets, that are already over‐burdened with excessive
truck traffic from the Martin Marietta Asphalt/gravel plant...especially on North Taft Hill Rd. This is not just a traffic
issue...it is a safety issue for our bikers, walkers, runners, and especially the school children who are trying to use the
pedestrian crossing located very close to the edge of the proposed development.
This is not a complete list of points of my opposition to this development. The disruption of an active wildlife
corridor, the already overcrowded schools, noise/air pollution, the absence of single family, one story senior friendly
homes in the development...all are important.
I hope that the members of the Planning/Zoning Commission are committed to putting the safety and quality of life of
the families in this beautiful area at the edge of town in the forefront of their decision. Thank you,
Valerie Vogeler
520 North Taft Hill Road
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 20
Packet pg. 78
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Katharine Claypool
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 2:08 PM
To:Alyssa Stephens
Subject:RE: Message from Cell Phone CO (9703109464)
Attachments:VoiceMessage.wav
Categories:P&Z
This voicemail is from Connie Place at 2025 W Vine Dr who called to let us know that she is in opposition of the
Sanctuary on the Greens project.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Katharine (Katie) Claypool
Customer Service Rep II
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
City of Fort Collins
kclaypool@fcgov.com
970‐416‐4350
From: Kacee Scheidenhelm <kscheidenhelm@fcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:31 PM
To: Jason Holland <JHolland@fcgov.com>; Katharine Claypool <kclaypool@fcgov.com>
Subject: FW: Message from Cell Phone CO (9703109464)
I’m not sure how they found me! But a comment for the Sanctuary item is attached….
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
KACEE SCHEIDENHELM
Executive Administrative Assistant
Planning Development and Transportation
City of Fort Collins
970.221.6601 office
From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <unityconnection@netcomm‐chw‐cuc1.fcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 3:22 PM
To: kscheidenhelm@netcomm‐chw‐cuc1.fcgov.com
Subject: Message from Cell Phone CO (9703109464)
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 21
Packet pg. 79
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 5:08 PM
To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE Sanctuary on the Green
Categories:P&Z
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Andrea <ashara1@aol.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2021 4:44 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE Sanctuary on the Green
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
To Whom It May Concern:
As a neighbor of this proposed development, I am horrified by the thought of a major influx of people, traffic,
pollution, children to crowded schools, and inappropriately large buildings, with disregard for the character of
nearby neighborhoods, homesteads, and farms. The impact on local wildlife would be devastating. This was all
known and understood as the Northwest Subarea Plan was adopted in 2006. Please adhere to that plan!
Buildings
Too many
Too tall
No smaller or single-level dwellings so
No consideration of affordability issues
No consideration for an increasing population in need of single-level homes
Disregard for wildlife
Three-story buildings, destruction of wetlands, cutting down of old trees, and variances requested to benefit
the builders' profit endanger the habitats and lives of our wildlife, ultimately affecting the quality of life of all of
us.
Please listen to the research and wisdom of the city and county when they agreed to the Northwest Subarea Plan
and DENY this building proposal.
Thank you,
Andrea Faudel
2022 W Vine Dr
Fort Collins CO 80521
Please feel free to use my name and share this letter publicly.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 22
Packet pg. 80
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 5:08 PM
To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] 6.17.2021 P&Z Comments - PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green
Categories:P&Z
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Becca Wren <rmwren@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2021 4:33 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 6.17.2021 P&Z Comments ‐ PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
Hello,
My comments below are in regards to the Sanctuary on the Green Development Proposal.
I am Becca Mueller and I live with my husband Matt Mueller at 504 Sunrise Lane, in the Irish‐Green Acres neighborhood.
We are opposed to the development proposal as it is incompatible with the character of our well‐established
neighborhood.
We have several concerns about how this development will negatively impact wildlife, particularly due to the planned
removal of trees and other natural resources in the area. Migratory birds use this area as hunting and breeding grounds
and their habitat is in conflict with this development proposal. Protection of this wetland area and preservation of
precious open space well loved by current residents does not seem to be addressed in the proposal.
The scale and density of the development (including the number of dwelling units, the number of two and three story
buildings, number of parking spaces, etc.) will pose many challenges to our neighborhood. Please do not approve this
proposal as is currently drafted as residents still have many concerns.
‐‐
Becca Mueller
720‐208‐6168
rmwren@gmail.com
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 23
Packet pg. 81
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 5:09 PM
To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] 6.17.2021 P&Z Comments - PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green
Categories:P&Z
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: "Megan F. Carpenter" <megan.felker@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2021 4:29 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 6.17.2021 P&Z Comments ‐ PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
Hello,
My name is Megan Carpenter and I am a resident of West Vine Bungalows (address 2321 Tarragon Lane, Fort Collins,
CO). My family and I live directly north of the proposed Sanctuary on the Green Development. I am submitting these
comments for the upcoming planning and zoning commission meeting on 06/17/21. I am opposed to the development
as it is currently proposed for the following reasons:
The current development proposal does not conform to the Northwest Subarea Plan that the City and County jointly
adopted for our area (2006) and therefore should not be approved. Specifically, the plan requires that developments:
Preserve wildlife habitat and corridors: on this property that includes mature trees, habitat in and along the
irrigation ditch (50 ft setback), and adherence to required wetland setbacks (100 feet) to preserve vulnerable
habitat.
Prevent “development that is incompatible with existing stable neighborhoods”
Preserve open spaces, views of the foothills, and the character of the area
The proposal calls for 3‐story buildings along the property boundary with City‐owned wetlands and within the required
setback area for the irrigation ditch (# of variances). The height of these buildings endangers and disrupts feeding and
nesting patterns of migratory birds who rely on these corridors, and for whom the current fields are a safe flyway. The
City should not allow 3‐story buildings in these areas.
This high‐density development will negatively impact air quality and local traffic patterns, especially near Poudre High
School where pedestrian and car traffic is already challenging.
I understand we need more (affordable) housing in Fort Collins, but it needs to be done responsibly – in accordance with
the current Subarea plans and taking into consideration the surrounding communities’ interests. It should be developed
responsibly so that it limits disruption of the fragile ecology of the area. I am deeply worried that the developer is not
taking these factors into consideration, and I think it is extremely important our concerns be heard. Thank you for your
time.
Sincerely,
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 24
Packet pg. 82
2
Megan, Colin and Olivia Carpenter
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 24
Packet pg. 83
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 5:39 PM
To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] "6.17.2021 P&Z Comments - PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green"
Categories:P&Z
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Pete Cadmus <petecadmus@hotmail.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2021 5:38 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] "6.17.2021 P&Z Comments ‐ PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green"
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc: Kyran Cadmus <ckyran@gmail.com>,"Pete Cadmus (CPW)" <pete.cadmus@state.co.us>
To: Fort Collins planners associated with Sanctuary on the Green
From: Pete Cadmus PhD, Kyran Cadmus DVM, Darwin Cadmus 2nd grade Irish Student
Re: 6.17.2021 P&Z Comments ‐ PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green
We rented in the West Vine – Irish area before purchasing the home (in 2007). We were in our early 20s and we wanted
to raise a family in a low density urban setting. We were assured by the 2006 Northwest Fort Collins subarea plan that
the Irish School area would have the character and feel that my wife and I sought for a home. We are disappointed by
these Sanctuary Field development proposals. They would fit in the high density sprawl of north, east and south east
Fort Collins. However, it is offensive to the NW Fort Collins plan.
I felt Bellweather Farms development caught the community off guard. As much as I love the people there and would
hate to offend them, I found the high density of homes not in keeping with the character of NW Fort Collins. I think
because it was hidden from the main street, few of us realized there was a proposed use change. Bellwether has little to
no space between homes. Access to back yards is not possible. Although the spunky occupants have added individual
flavor, the uniform architecture made it homogenous and not in the rural flavor of NW Fort Collins and LaPorte. I dislike
that the Sanctuary on the Green development proposal meetings keep comparing itself to Bellwether Farms. Most
occupants of the greater NW Fort Collins area do not see that as a good comparison. Can we please spell out density of
dwellings separately for each neighborhood? Or compare this proposed development to the density of the Vine,
Overland, Taft, LaPorte block as a whole. It was a mistake to allow that high development, repeating this mistake for
consistency or fairness to developers is simply a bigger mistake.
It would be helpful to hear the dwelling density or average lot size for the following areas.
1 Sanctuary on the Green’s new proposal
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 25
Packet pg. 84
2
2 Bellweather Development
3 Vine‐Overland‐LaPorte‐Taft block excluding Bellweather and Sanctuary.
4 All of NW Fort Collins subarea.
I would also be very interested to hear what the impermeable surface area density is and how much impermeable
surface (roof, sidewalk, asphalt) will be for
1 Sanctuary on the Green’s new proposal
2 Bellweather Development
3 Vine‐Overland‐LaPorte‐Taft block excluding Bellweather and Sanctuary.
4 All of NW Fort Collins subarea.
Knowing what techniques for assessment were used, so results can be repeated by a 3rd party, would be helpful. I.E.
what data sets were used, how was dwelling defined, did lots start at street center or at sidewalk, etc. etc.
Per my measurements, in no way is this proposed development low intensity or low density compared to other
neighborhoods. It is in no way keeping with the 2006 subarea plan.
How can 3 story row houses be allowed given the 2006 plan? It is unrealistic and inappropriate.
The developer has submitted 6 revisions of his proposal since our last neighborhood meeting. We would like the City to
require him to inform the neighborhoods around this property about how his new plan will deal with building on the
floodplain, and manage storm water so it doesn't negatively impact our neighborhoods
The NW Subarea plan specifically states on p. 9 that the City must protect wildlife corridors and habitat. This plan calls
for 3 story row houses over much of the property, right next to the irrigation ditch, which ducks and other birds cannot
fly over or around. 3 story houses in this area are not acceptable. Please follow the NW Subarea plan guidelines and
reject this proposal.
The developer plans to cut down mature trees that are over 100 years old around the historic farmhouse that he burned
down. This is offensive. We ask that you follow the NW Subarea Plan and protect these trees as important natural and
historic resources on this site.
This proposal would create 251 units and bring up to 1000 new residents to a new neighborhood. That is not in keeping
with the ideals in the NW subarea plan of 2006. It would ruin the feel of our neighborhood, our local school, our
culture. This proposal is not in any way "low intensity" as required by the NW subarea plan. This is not acceptable.
Please require the developer to reduce the density of housing in his proposal so that it is compatible with our single‐
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 25
Packet pg. 85
3
story neighborhood, and conforms to the NW Subarea plan. It should not be a surprise to the developer that we are
asking existing policy to be enforced. The developer has no right to think he is exempt from the goals and ideals of the
2006 subarea plan.
Longtime residents,
Dr. Pete Cadmus, Dr. Kyran Cadmus and Darwin Cadmus.
687 Irish Dr. Ft. Collins CO 80521
970‐420‐8467 970‐420‐0087
(Please confirm that this was received)
Sadly I will not be able to attend the ZOOM call as I am away on travel for work.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 25
Packet pg. 86
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 9:23 PM
To:Development Review Comments; Katharine Claypool
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary on the Green PDP190003
Categories:P&Z
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Rebecca Parks <beckydalep@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2021 6:36 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary on the Green PDP190003
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
I am against the plans to build on the 41 acres located east of Sunset north of Laporte to Taft Hill. Destroying the mature
trees and wildlife habitat in and along the irrigation ditch is not acceptable. 2 and 3‐story multiplexes are not compatible
with the single‐story, single family neighborhoods in the area. This area is anticipating over 1,000 new residents to the
area. Irish Elementary, Lincoln Middle School and Poudre High are at capacity now.
Traffic is heavy already, since the addition of the semi‐trucks from the gravel plant north of Vine. How would the city
and county handle the roads and traffic?
I truly hope the city will consider our views.
Rebecca Parks
611 Irish Dr
Ft Collins, CO
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 26
Packet pg. 87
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 9:23 PM
To:Development Review Comments; Katharine Claypool
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] 6.17.2021 P&Z Comments - PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green
Categories:P&Z
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: John and Mary Hoover <johnmaryhoover@live.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2021 6:22 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 6.17.2021 P&Z Comments ‐ PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
To whom it may concern:
My husband and I purchased our properties at 330 N Sunset St and 330 N Overland Trl , where we
currently live, about 3 years ago. We chose this neighborhood because of the agrarian nature and
low density of the neighborhood. The NW Subarea Plan specifically states that new development
must be of low intensity and compatible with existing neighborhoods. This proposal is neither low
intensity, nor is it compatible with our neighborhood. The proposal is both significantly higher
intensity than the existing neighborhood and is urban in nature. Three story row homes, 251 units and
1000 new residents is unacceptable. As a neighborhood property owners we request that the
developer be required to lower the intensity and the height of the housing to conform to the NW
Subarea plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Mary and John Hoover
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 27
Packet pg. 88
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Thursday, June 17, 2021 6:42 AM
To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] PDP #190003 - Sanctuary on the Green Comments
Categories:P&Z
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Shelley Neth <nethshelley@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 17, 2021 12:49 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] PDP #190003 ‐ Sanctuary on the Green Comments
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
Dear Planning and Zoning Department.
I have been a resident of North Impala Dr., Green Acres Development, for 27 years and I am writing you today about the
proposed Sanctuary on the Green Development proposed for the properties south east of Impala Dr.
I would like to first thank the owner of the property for his kindness in allowing us to use his land for our dog walking
and recreation for so many years. It will be a great loss to many residents once developed as there are few remaining
areas such as this left in the area for recreation.
You may recall that some years ago the homeowners on N. Impala Dr, etc., packed City Hall in a fierce opposition to a
densely packed townhouse community proposed for a lot at the corner of Vine and N.Impala You may recall that our
numbers were so large and our energy so determined that even though we were unsuccessful in total, we were able to
convince your department to reduce the proposed high density development to a low density one. After that fight a
representative from Planning and Zoning told us that you understood how passionate we were about our north west
neighborhood remaining semi rural, and you promised us then that you would make it a priority to keep it so.
That development was, in the end, never built, but we still remember your promise to us in regards to keeping the area
semi rural, low density. So I write to you today to remind you of that promise.
I am not opposed to the Sanctuary development. I understand the right of the property owner to use his land as he
wishes and would again like to thank him for allowing us to walk our dogs there.
Still, this area of town is not fit for such a highly packed subdivision.
It has always been my understanding that the City Plan called for less density as we approach the foothills. This
development would be better suited east of town.
The neighborhood was allowed one meeting at the first iteration of the plan. The plan has now been resubmitted 6
times with no further contact with the neighborhood.
Neighbors would like to see these new plans.
There are animal crossings through this area that have been brought to your attention by neighbors, yet while it appears
some accommodation has been made for birds and small animal crossings, the largest crossing has been ignored. From
Taft, through the first field and through the first ditch is a MAJOR deer crossing. This is nowhere in the plan I have seen
yet I know you have been made aware of it.
These are the issues I ask you to consider:
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 28
Packet pg. 89
2
*Your past promise to us to keep our area semi rural and low density.
*That wildlife passage issues be thoroughly accommodated.
*That neighbors be sent copies of the development plan and all changes made to it
*That the proposed density of the Sanctuary Development be reduced to fit more closely with the surrounding
environment.
Thank you for your time,
Shelley D. Neth
529 N Impala Dr
Ft Collins, 80521
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 28
Packet pg. 90
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Thursday, June 17, 2021 6:43 AM
To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary Field
Categories:P&Z
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Valerie Walker <valwalker@kw.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2021 11:12 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary Field
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
I live near Overland and Vine. I only want well made single family units and space between properties. This area is quiet
and rural with a city feel. This project will congest everything in our peaceful area. Only 50‐75 Single Family homes with
practical floor plans and not scrape of the barrel materials
Thank you
Valerie Walker
‐‐
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 29
Packet pg. 91
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Katharine Claypool
Sent:Thursday, June 17, 2021 9:51 AM
To:Alyssa Stephens
Subject:RE: Message from PISCULICH ANTHO (9209156852)
Categories:P&Z
This is a voicemail from Annthony (Tony) Pisculich who lives on Vine regarding Sanctuary on the Green. His concerns: 1)
Number of units proposed and how that will affect the road on Taft/Laporte and up to Vine and 2) How the project
follows the NW Suburbia plan.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Katharine (Katie) Claypool
Customer Service Rep II
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
City of Fort Collins
kclaypool@fcgov.com
970‐416‐4350
From: Alyssa Stephens <astephens@fcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 7:47 AM
To: Katharine Claypool <kclaypool@fcgov.com>; Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Subject: FW: Message from PISCULICH ANTHO (9209156852)
FYI—still not sure if we are summarizing or playing at the hearing…….
Alyssa Stephens MA
Neighborhood Development Liaison
City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services
Submit a public comment| Track Development Proposals
From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <unityconnection@netcomm‐chw‐cuc1.fcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 7:52 AM
To: astephens@netcomm‐chw‐cuc1.fcgov.com
Subject: Message from PISCULICH ANTHO (9209156852)
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 30
Packet pg. 92
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Thursday, June 17, 2021 3:27 PM
To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] 6.17.2021 P&Z Comments - PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green
Categories:P&Z
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Brian Wolf <brianwolf77@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 17, 2021 2:36 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 6.17.2021 P&Z Comments ‐ PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
Hello,
I am a resident of Fort Collins and live in the neighborhood adjacent to the above noted property. I cannot attend the
meeting on 6/17, but wanted to send a quick note of objection to the developer's plans and to encourage the City to
take into account population density in our part of the City and the negative effects it will have on our City's people,
property, and environment.
First, there are currently no multifamily housing units north of Laporte. Many residents of our neighborhood moved to
this area, and paid a premium for our homes, in order to live in a neighborhood of single‐family
housing. Adding multifamily housing to our neighborhood changes the feel of our corner of the City and will have a
negative impact on the homes many of us have as our largest asset. The current residents will be financially harmed to
the benefit of the developer's investors. This is simply unfair.
Second, the density proposed will be harmful to our area. Adding 1,000 residents will increase traffic along our roads,
placing residents' safety at risk, add students to our full schools, and generally increase disturbances in our
neighborhoods (e.g., pet waste). I believe the current housing shortage has more to do with corporations and short‐
term rentals buying available housing to rent out than it has to do with housing stock available. There are other
solutions than cramming more people into an area, and the City should focus on those solutions.
Third, I believe that many aspects of this development are in violation of the Northwest Subarea Plan jointly agreed by
the City and County in 2006. This could pose a legal issue for the City, and our tax dollars should not have to defend
from suits that could be prevented by proper planning.
Fourth, the property is in a flood plain. The proposed mitigation of 3‐story units will be detrimental to views and the
overall feel of this neighborhood. Floods cannot be completely mitigated, putting the properties at risk.
I encourage the City to please take seriously the issues raised by the current residents of this neighborhood. We have
ONE chance to do this right. Please do right by us.
Sincerely,
Brian Wolf
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 31
Packet pg. 93
2
2308 Bellwether Lane
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 31
Packet pg. 94
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Thursday, June 17, 2021 3:28 PM
To:Katharine Claypool; Development Review Comments
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] "6.17.2021 P&Z Comments - PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green"
Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Chris Weeks <chrweeks@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 17, 2021 1:35 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] "6.17.2021 P&Z Comments ‐ PDP #190003 Sanctuary on the Green"
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc:
Good Afternoon,
I'm writing in regards to the planned development called "sanctuary on the Green" that will be located at the Northeast
corner of Taft and Laporte avenues. I live directly adjacent to this piece of land, and oppose it in it's current state. I
know this will be approved at some point, but hopefully the City planners will realize that this is in direct conflict with
the NW Subarea plan and will have the developer modify the plan accordingly. The high density of this plan will ruin not
only the small neighborhood feel of this area, but will also affect many natural areas, and the wildlife that resides
within. Secondly, they plan to join both their community and the Irish neighborhood with an "emergency" road for fire
trucks. My concern is that this road will just be used as a main route for many people and endanger the many children
that play and go to school at Irish elementary. Also this would have a negative effect on the road condition itself and
since our neighborhood is literally responsible for the upkeep of the road due to the County and Developer making a
"deal" this extra traffic would cause extra wear and tear on the road at our expense. Thank you for your consideration.
Chris Weeks
317 N. Impala Dr.
Fort Collins, Co
80521
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 32
Packet pg. 95
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Sharlene Manno
Sent:Thursday, June 17, 2021 4:03 PM
To:Development Review Comments; Katharine Claypool
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary on the Green project Written comments for Hearing today 6pm
I will add this one to the document log for the hearing.
Shar Manno
Manager, Customer Support
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
970.221.6767
smanno@fcgov.com
From: Cathleen DeSantis <desantiscathleen@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 3:43 PM
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sanctuary on the Green project Written comments for Hearing today 6pm
Hi I'm cathleen. Below are my comments on the Sanctuary on the Green project that will be at the zoning and planning
hearing today at 6pm.
I have always wanted to live here and I finally achieved my dream goal. I encourage the growth of fort collins. I
really do. It is a college town for sure but growth is important for sustainability
However I feel this plan is doing the opposite. Yes technically it’s growth but there have been multiple attempts
to get this thing passed and it is clear from past meetings that this build is about money. Not the historic
buildings that were burned to the ground, not the historic trees that will be ripped from their roots, not the deer,
birds, and other woodland creatures.
This plan does not look like anything else we have in the area. You say they are similar enough to the
surrounding areas such as Ramblewood apartments and bellwether farms. The only similarity is definition the
structure itself. Ramblewood are apartments, these will have apartments. Bellwether farms has two story
buildings, this is will have two stories.
This does not enhance the unique character of the land. This plan swallows it. There are three story buildings
which is nothing like the surrounding area. Yes we have apartments and 2 story houses but these are about a
mile away from each other. You are putting 20 three story and 26 two story houses in an area between the
two. This disrupts the flow of the land.
These new buildings are not a country feel like the The NW Subarea Plan has discussed. What really
makes this area feel country is the openness of it all. If you look at a map its buildings, houses, then open
fields, then more houses that are so old and farm house looking. This plan has houses that do not look
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 33
Packet pg. 96
2
like they are farm houses. This style of buildings feels like it should be in a newer part of fort collins like
the east and south parts of fort collins. You are trying to put something brand new in an area that has
been around for so much longer. My house is a cute 1950s style house.
I do like how the plan focuses on bicycle and pedestrian routes but with there only being two exits there
are going to be more cars in the area that already has lots of bicycles and pedestrians in it. I am worried
for the communities and possible future injuries and accidents because of the increased residency and
population. There are at least 3 schools in the area and it gets so busy in the mornings and afternoons.
I believe that the growth of the community is important and I think it’s even more important to keep the
character of the land in thought when it comes to new development. However I feel this plan is doing the
opposite. There are several points I could get into but I don’t have enough speaking time for that. This
developer’s plan has disregarded many points of The NorthWest Subarea plan. Not only does this conflict
with the low density and compatibility with existing neighborhoods, it disregards
This plan does not look like anything else we have in the area. You
say they are similar enough to the surrounding areas such as Ramblewood apartments and bellwether farms.
The only similarity is the definition of the structure itself. Ramblewood are apartments, these will have
apartments. Bellwether farms has two story buildings, this will have two stories. But these buildings do not
enhance the unique character of the land. I don’t understand how these houses have a “country feel”. To me
they look like they should be in a more urban and developed part of Fort Collins like the south east area. The
reason bellwether and ramblewood work in this area is because they are between open space and protected
views. My house is a cute 1950s style house and many houses in the area have the farm house, craftsman,
low profile style with more land around them then building which gives the country feel of the land. The
developers plan doesn’t have anything like this. These dwellings will block the hills from view. They will look so
out of place especially with the 3 stories. The NW Subarea also says “density can be up to 8 units per acre
may be appropriate in some locations, 12 if these are affordable housing, however smaller infill parcels may
only be eligible for density up to 5 units per acre”. Even though there are 41 acres, you are building on a little
less than 30 acres which bring the dwellings per acre up to 8.51 which is above the NW Subarea plan. The
Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network did a wildlife impact assessment which I think is vital to listen to
considering this and future projects. Fort Collins has the highest population in northern CO and The rate of
human population growth and residential development along the Colorado Front Range is increasing
quickly. This is pushing wildlife that relies on the unique habitats situated along the foothills into smaller,
dispersed habitat patches that remain. Because of this, habitat loss, habitat degradation, and habitat
fragmentation is likely to happen. Developing Sanctuary on the Green is eliminating an area that may provide
critical stopover habitat for migrating birds, removing a critical link in a potential movement corridor through
the urban landscape effectively isolating big game populations east to west, contaminating wetland habitats,
negatively impacting amphibians and bats, and eliminating an important food source for domestic and wild
pollinator populations. It is clear from past meetings that this build is about money. Not the historic buildings
that were burned to the ground, not the historic trees that will be ripped from their roots, not the deer, birds,
and other woodland creatures. I ask you the city of fort collins to listen to your community and reject this plan.
ITEM 3, CORRESPONDENCE 33
Packet pg. 97
ITEM 3, STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMISSION QUESTIONSPacket pg. 98
ITEM 3, STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMISSION QUESTIONSPacket pg. 99
ITEM 3, STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMISSION QUESTIONSPacket pg. 100
ITEM 3, STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMISSION QUESTIONSPacket pg. 101
ITEM 3, STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMISSION QUESTIONSPacket pg. 102
ITEM 3, STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMISSION QUESTIONSPacket pg. 103