Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS - Regular MeetingSeptember 21, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission Supplemental Documents Packet pg. 1 September 21, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission Supplemental Documents Item 4 – CFC Municipal Court Office Ligh ng Updates Packet pg. 2 1 Katie Claypool From:Arlo Schumann Sent:Thursday, September 21, 2023 2:39 PM To:Em Myler; Katie Claypool Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] CFC Municipal Court Office Lighting Updates #MA230019 Categories:P&Z Original Message From:Crystal Peterson crystalpeterson59@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday,September 21,2023 8:37 AM To:Arlo Schumann aschumann@fcgov.com> Subject:EXTERNAL]CFC Municipal Court Office Lighng Updates MA230019 Mr Schumann, We have a condo in Penny Flats,204 Maple St unit 206.Our condo is located directly across the street from the proposed lighng.We have two requests to keep the lighng from impacng us too much.The rst request is that the lights have shields to block the lighng from illuminang our condo.The second request is to add more trees in front of the lighng, along the south side of the sidewalk on Maple St. I have le two messages,on 9/12 and 9/20,with Em Myler stang these requests and also asking for a call back so I know she received the messages.As of today I have not received a call back.I realize the meeng is tonight.We are out of town and will not be able to aend the meeng or parcipate on Zoom. Thank you for your me and thank you in advance for making sure our requests are voiced. Sincerely, Crystal and Ross Peterson ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 3 September 21, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission Supplemental Documents Item 5 – Bloom Filing Four Packet pg. 4 From:Ryan McBreen To:Kai Kleer Cc:Dave Derbes; jpayne@studiopba.com; Mallory Redmon Subject:[EXTERNAL] Bloom Filing Four - P&Z Architectural Revisions Date:Tuesday, September 19, 2023 2:16:16 PM Attachments:image001.png Importance:High Kai – As a follow up to the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing this past Friday please find in the body below our response to the architecture comments received from Commissioners as well as updated architectural exhibits in the following link: Bloom Flg 4 - Arch Hearing Update Please let us know if you have any questions or need anything else. We will plan to be prepared to discuss on Thursday as well, if needed. Comment: We would like the colors on buildings 10 & 11 (Building C) to be differentiated further. Response: Please see attached exhibits reflecting the proposed changes to the colors on buildings 10 and 11, as requested by Planning & Zoning Commission members. Comment: Concern about building B2 and D2 being too similar and not meeting the standards within 3.8.30 (f) (as revised per the Mulberry & Greenfields PUD Master Plan) F) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings. 1) Yards Along Single- and Two-Family Residential Development adjacent to the Mulberry & Greenfields Master Plan area. Buffer yards shall be provided along the property line of abutting existing single- and two-family dwellings or building compatibility standards shall apply. Minimum buffer yard depth shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Not applicable. 2) Yards Along Single- and Two-Family Residential Development within Mulberry & Greenfields Master Plan area. For multi-family buildings over three stories, buffer yards shall be provided along the property line of abutting existing single- and two-family dwellings or building compatibility standards shall apply Minimum depth shall be twenty- five (25) feet. This standard does not apply when located across a street (public or private) or when sharing an alley. Not applicable. 3) Variation Among Buildings. For any development containing at least three (3) and not more than five (5) buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices), there shall be at least two (2) distinctly different building designs. For any such development containing more than five (5) buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices), there shall be at least three 3) distinctly different building designs. This standard requires 3 distinct building designs, Bloom Filing Four proposes 4 distinct building designs. (A, B, C, & D) For all developments, there shall be no similar buildings placed next to each other along a street, street-like private drive or major walkway spine. Building designs shall be considered similar unless Packet pg. 5 they vary significantly in footprint size and shape or building elevations, including modifying the architectural style of the buildings, (e.g., prairie, craftsman, etc.) or other elements, possibly including but not limited to modifying the roofline, materials or color blocking. Buildings B2 and D vary significantly in both footprint size and shape, with B being nearly 100’ longer and comprising a footprint size of more than 2 times the size. (B2 17,285 sf versus 6,125 – 8,260 sf for D buildings ) Please see included exhibits clearly detailing the difference in footprint size and shape. Building designs shall be further distinguished by including unique architectural elevations and unique entrance features within a coordinated overall theme of roof forms, massing proportions and other characteristics. Such variation among buildings shall not consist solely of different combinations of the same building features. The buildings inherently have unique architectural elevations and features as well. Building B2 has 4 common building entry points along the street sides of the building, extended patios at the ground floor for some of the central units and recessed porches for all of the other units with a common corridor behind at the first floor. Building D2 however, has entry stairs at the exterior from the street level, extended porches at the ground floor corner units, and extended porches for the central units. It also has direct unit entry access points all along the street level for tenants of this building. The way the roofs work also differs greatly between buildings. Building B2 has mostly hipped roofs throughout, where Building D2 has soaring angled roofs at all of the elements along the street level. Since Buildings B2 and D2 occur next to each other along Bellamy, we have also changed the color scheme of Building D2 to be different than that of B2 to help differentiate them even more. Please see updated exhibits for further detail. 4) Variation of Color. Each multi-family building shall feature a palette of muted colors, earth tone colors, natural colors found in surrounding landscape or colors consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. For a multiple structure development containing at least forty 40) and not more than fifty-six (56) dwelling units, there shall be at least two (2) distinct color schemes used on structures throughout the development. For any such development containing more than fifty-six (56) dwelling units, there shall be at least three (3) distinct color schemes used on structures throughout the development. For all developments, there shall be no more than two (2) similarly colored structures placed next to each other along a street or major walkway spine. Currently proposed are 4 color schemes throughout. As noted above, and as requested, the colors on the two Building C buildings next to each other have been modified. Additionally, the colors between Building B2 and D2 next to each other along Bellamy have been modified to create further differentiation as well. Please see updated exhibits for further detail. 5) Entrances. Entrances shall be made clearly visible from the streets and public areas through the use of architectural elements and landscaping. Unique, identifiable, and clearly visible entrances have been provided on all building types. 6) Roofs. Roof lines may be either sloped, flat or curved, but must include at least two (2) of the following elements: a) The primary roof line shall be articulated through a variation or terracing in height, detailing and/or change in massing. Packet pg. 6 b) Secondary roofs shall transition over entrances, porches, garages, dormers, towers or other architectural projections. c) Offsets in roof planes shall be a minimum of two (2) feet in the vertical plane. d) Termination at the top of flat roof parapets shall be articulated by design details and/or changes in materials and color. e) Rooftop equipment shall be hidden from view by incorporating equipment screens of compatible design and materials. Proposed roof lines are unique to all building types A, B, C and D, as mentioned above the differences between B2 and D2 are significant as well. All mechanical equipment is proposed to be roof mounted. 7) Facades and Walls. Each multi-family dwelling shall be articulated with projections, recesses, covered doorways, balconies, covered box or bay windows and/or other similar features, dividing large facades and walls into human-scaled proportions similar to the adjacent single- or two-family dwellings, and shall not have repetitive, undifferentiated wall planes. Building facades shall be articulated with horizontal and/or vertical elements that break up blank walls of forty (40) feet or longer. Facade articulation may be accomplished by offsetting the floor plan, recessing or projection of design elements, change in materials and/or change in contrasting colors. Projections shall fall within setback requirements. The facades and walls are very different between these two buildings (B2 and D2) – the porches on D2 are projected out with a brick element framing them as opposed to B2 which has brick elements on the main building and recessed patios. 8) Colors and Materials. Colors of nonmasonry materials shall be varied from structure to structure to differentiate between buildings and provide variety and individuality. Colors and materials shall be integrated to visually reduce the scale of the buildings by contrasting trim, by contrasting shades or by distinguishing one (1) section or architectural element from another. Bright colors, if used, shall be reserved for accent and trim. The colors and materials have been varied currently between B2 and D2 which are next to each other along Bellamy. D2 and D are also across the street from each other along Bellamy and those two color / material schemes are now unique as well. Ryan F. McBreen Principal 244 North College Avenue, #165 | Fort Collins, CO 80524 P 970.409.3414 | D 970.315.7933 | M 303.562.4427 This email communication is confidential and is solely for the use of the intended recipients. Any use or dissemination of this transmission by anyone other than the intended recipients or their duly authorized agent(s) is strictly prohibited. The sender and Norris Design will not accept any responsibility for viruses (if any) associated with this email or its possible attachments. Packet pg. 7 Section Public Benefit Compliance Status 1.Affordable Housing PBA obligations related to affordable housing are not applicable to Bloom Filing 4 NA 2.Critical On site and Off stie Public Infrastructure PBA obligations related to Critical On site and Off site infrastructure are not applicable to Bloom Filing 4 NA 3.High Quality Smart Growth Elements 3(i) PBA obligations related to increased density are not applicable to Bloom Filing 4 as the underlying zoning for this site is MMN NA 3(ii) Bloom Filing 4 is in compliance and is contributing to the master developer PBA requirement to provide alley access to dwelling units. 100%of units in Bloom Filing 4 are accessed from internal parking areas and access drives.None of the units within Bloom Filing 4 are accessed directly from adjacent public streets In Progress 3(III) Filing 4 is in compliance as utility services are being extend to serve Filing 4. Additionally,it is understood that the raw water dedication for Bloom Filing 4 must be satisfied prior to construction of Filing 4 In Progress 3(iv) Enhanced pedestrian crossings are being provided within Bloom Filing 4 In Progress 3(v) Bloom Filing 4 will be providing only that portion of the central pedestrian oriented spine that is located on the Bloom Filing 4 site.All other segments of the pedestrian spine are not applicable to Bloom Filing 4 In Progress 3(vi) Obligations related to bicycle paths are not applicable to Bloom Filing 4 NA 3(vii) Obligations related to an east west greenway are not applicable to Bloom Filing 4 NA 3(viii) PBA obligations related to mixed use design are not applicable to Bloom Filing 4 NA 4.Environmental Sustainability 4.a Solar Photovoltaic Energy Obligations related to Solar Photovoltaic Energy are not applicable to Bloom Filing 4 NA 4.b Water Conservation through Non potable Irrigation System Bloom Filing 4 will be providing only the on site non potable irrigation system,which will tie into a community wide non potable irrigation system that is being provided by the master developer as part of the Bloom PUD In Progress 4.c Sustainable Landscape Design The landscape design for Bloom Filing 4 will be in compliance with the landscaping direction set forth in the approved Bloom PUD and PBA,and is in alignment with previously approved filings In Progress 4.d Enhanced Community Resiliency 4.d(i) Obligations related to stormwater outfalls to the Cooper Slough are not applicable to Bloom Filing 4 NA 4.d(ii) Obligations related to the Lake Canal are not applicable to Bloom Filing 4 NA 4.d(iii) The landscape plan for Bloom Filing 4 will be in compliance with the Pollinator Master Plan as approved as part of the Bloom PUD In Progress ITEM 5, APPLICANTS PBA ANALYSIS Packet pg. 8 A2 A1A2 B1 B2 B1 B2 D C C 1 #2 7 #8 #10 #11 9 D2 6#3 #4 #5 NOTE: BUILDING COLOR SCHEME REPRESENTED GRAPHICALLY VIA COLOR HERE. 1 2 345 COPYRIGHT © 2023 STUDIO PBA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED3D VIEWS 9/18/23 BLOOM APARTMENTS FORT COLLINS 5 BELLAMY VIEW 5 - BUILDING D2 1 BELLAMY VIEW 1 - BUILDING B2 AND D2 3 BELLAMY VIEW 3 - BUILDING B2 4 BELLAMY VIEW 4 - BUILDING D2 2 BELLAMY VIEW 2 - ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY UNIT TH-1 CORNER UNIT TH-1 UNIT TH-1 CORNER 32'-8"10'-10"15'-1" 8'-0" 66'-7" 38'- 6"36'-0" 38'-6"112'-11" PROJECTED PATIOS ABOVE GROUND LEVEL DIRECT UNIT ENTRY VIA STAIR GROUND LEVEL EXTENDED PATIOS AT CORNERS GROUND LEVEL DIRECT UNIT ENTRY ENTRYENTRYENTRYENTRY 38'-6"36'-0"36'-0"38'-6"148'-11"32'-10"10'- 8"15'- 1" 7'-11"66'- 6"UNIT TH-1 CORNER UNIT TH- 1 UNIT TH- 1 CORNERUNIT TH- 1 PROJECTED PATIOS ABOVE GROUND LEVEL DIRECT UNIT ENTRY VIA STAIR GROUND LEVEL EXTENDED PATIOS AT CORNERS GROUND LEVEL DIRECTUNITENTRYA2 A1A2 B1 B2 B1 B2 D C C 1 # 2 7 # 8 # 10 #11 9 D2 6# 3 #4 # 5 NOTE: BUILDING COLOR SCHEME REPRESENTED GRAPHICALLY VIA COLOR HERE.UNITB8ENTRYUNIT A1 ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY UNIT B7 UNIT B8 UNIT B7 UNIT A3 UNIT A3 UNIT A3 UNIT A3UNIT A3UNIT A3 ENTRY COMMON BUILDING ENTRY POINTS GROUND LEVEL EXTENDED PATIOS IN CENTER RECESSED GROUND LEVEL PATIOS AT CORNERS GROUND LEVEL COMMON CORRIDOR COMMON BUILDING ENTRY POINTS 258' - 11"39'-5" 22'-2"15'- 8"22'-2" 22'-2" 15'-8" 22'-2" 25'-6"9'-7"25'-0"39'-6"32'-7" 11'-10"32'-7" 77'-0"100'-3"32'-1" 11'-10"56'-4"COPYRIGHT © 2023 STUDIO PBA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDESIGN STANDARDS - VARIATION 9/18/23 BLOOM APARTMENTS FORT COLLINS FOOTPRINT VARIATION BUILDING TYPE B2 -45 UNITS BUILDING TYPE D -9 UNITS FOOTPRINT SIZE AND SHAPE 1,2, AND 3 BEDROOM UNITS 17 UNITS PER LEVEL (2-3) / 11 UNITS AT GROUND FLOOR WITH GARAGES INTERIOR CORRIDOR BUILDING SERVED BY FIVE STAIRS FOOTPRINT SIZE AND SHAPE 1 AND 2 BEDROOM UNITS 3 1BDR UNITS AT GROUND FLOOR WITH GARAGES / 6 2BDR, 2-STORY UNITS AT SECOND LEVEL INTERIOR CORRIDOR BUILDING SERVED BY FOUR STAIRS BUILDINGTYPED2 - 12 UNITS FOOTPRINT A2 A1A2 B1 B2 B1 B2 D C C 1 #2 7 #8 #10 #11 9 D2 6#3 #4 #5 NOTE: BUILDING COLOR SCHEME REPRESENTED GRAPHICALLY VIA COLOR HERE. COPYRIGHT © 2023 STUDIO PBA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDESIGN STANDARDS - VARIATION 9/18/23 BLOOM APARTMENTS FORT COLLINS 1 : 10001KEYPLAN N N.T.S. BUILDING VARIATION / COLOR BUILDING TYPE D -FRONT -SCHEME 1 BUILDING TYPE D2 -FRONT -SCHEME 2 BUILDING TYPE B -FRONT -SCHEME2BUILDINGTYPEB -SIDE 1 - SCHEME 2BUILDING TYPE D -SIDE -SCHEME 1 BUILDING TYPE D2 -SIDE -SCHEME 2 0 10'SCALE: COPYRIGHT © 2023 STUDIO PBA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDARIA WAY 3D VIEW AT BUILDING C 9/18/23 BLOOM APARTMENTS FORT COLLINS 1 VIEW 2 2 VIEW LEVEL 1 -T.O. SLAB100' -0" LEVEL 2 -T.O. SUBFLOOR110' -7 7/8" LEVEL 3 -T.O. SUBFLOOR121' -3 3/4" LEVEL 4 -T.O. SUBFLOOR131' -11 5/8" LEVEL 4 -T.O. PLATE141' -0 3/4" LEVEL 1 -T.O. SLAB100' -0" LEVEL 2 -T.O. SUBFLOOR110' -7 7/8" LEVEL 3 -T.O. SUBFLOOR121' -3 3/4" LEVEL 4 -T.O. SUBFLOOR131' -11 5/8" T.O. PARAPET146' -11 5/8" LEVEL 4 -T.O. PLATE141' -0 3/4" COPYRIGHT © 2023 STUDIO PBA, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDBUILDING TYPE C ELEVATIONS - FRONT ( ARIA WAY) 9/18/23 BLOOMAPARTMENTSFORT COLLINS 1/8" = 1'- 0"2 BUILDING CFRONT - BUILDING #10 1/8" = 1'-0"3 BULDING C FRONT - September 21, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission Supplemental Documents Item 6 – Ziegler - Corbet Packet pg. 14 1 Katie Claypool From:Development Review Comments Sent:Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:52 AM To:Katie Claypool; Ryan Mounce Subject:Fw: Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan Categories:P&Z From:Jeff Sweet jcsweet54@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday,September 11,2023 2:25 PM To:Development Review Comments devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject:EXTERNAL]Ziegler Corbett Overall Development Plan Em Myler Hello.I received a letter from your office about another meeting concerning the development south of English Ranch.I live at 3927 Carrick Rd.I will not be able to attend the meeting September 21,but it’s my hope that I can express my concerns. I am not”in favor of allowing an ingress/egress from the new development north to Paddington Rd.The increased traffic in English Ranch will have a negative effect on those of us living here. It’s my understanding that the location of a traffic light either at Paddington or the new development onto Ziegler might be decided based on your decision about a new road into English Ranch.Whatever it takes to prevent a new road being built north into English Ranch I’m in favor of. Thank you, Jeff Sweet 307 321 8966 Sent from my iPad ITEM 6, CORRESPONDENCE 1 Packet pg. 15 1 Katie Claypool From:Ryan Mounce Sent:Wednesday, September 20, 2023 1:32 PM To:Development Review Comments; Katie Claypool Cc:Sharlene Manno Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ziegler Corbett Development Plan Categories:P&Z Hi Katie Em, Forwarding this new public comment for the Ziegler Corbett item along to you as well for visibility/tracking. Thanks, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 rmounce@fcgov.com From:Jean H jeanheath129@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday,September 20,2023 1:17 PM To:Sharlene Manno smanno@fcgov.com> Cc:Ryan Mounce RMounce@fcgov.com> Subject:EXTERNAL]Re:Ziegler Corbett Development Plan Dear Members of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission, I am writing to express my concern with the possible connection of the Union Park development and English Ranch on Paddington Road.As a resident of English Ranch who resides on the corner of Newgate Court and Kingsley Street,I see auto traffic on Kingsley between Paddington and Horsetooth on a daily basis.I also see the heavy pedestrian and bicycle use along Kingsley by children and adults as they go to and from Linton Elementary School and the English Ranch Park. With that connection,the drivers of the 600+units planned for Union Park would undoubtedly turn west onto Paddington and north onto Kingsley to gain access to Horsetooth,adding an unsafe level of automobile traffic to a two lane residential street. I understand that the residents of the Woodland Park Estates neighborhood see this connection as an opportunity to increase traffic on Paddington,and thus get a traffic light onto Ziegler.However,the negative and dangerous impact to English Ranch far outweighs their desire not need)for this traffic light placement. I appreciate your attention to this email,and hope the commission will decide to keep the residents of English Ranch safe by not approving the connection between Union Park and English Ranch on Paddington Road. Sincerely, Jean Heath 2649 Newgate Ct Fort Collins,CO 80525 ITEM 6, CORRESPONDENCE 2 Packet pg. 16 2 ITEM 6, CORRESPONDENCE 2 Packet pg. 17 1 Katie Claypool From:Sharlene Manno Sent:Wednesday, September 20, 2023 7:55 PM To:Development Review Comments; Katie Claypool; Em Myler Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Public Comments re MJA220004, Ziegler- Corbett ODP Major Amendment Remanded Hearing) Categories:P&Z Sent from my T Mobile 5G Device Get Outlook for Android From:Craig Latzke craig@latzke.us> Sent:Wednesday,September 20,2023 5:19:43 PM To:Sharlene Manno smanno@fcgov.com> Subject:EXTERNAL]Public Comments re MJA220004,Ziegler Corbett ODP Major Amendment Remanded Hearing) Below are my written public comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding a matter at tomorrow's hearing. Thank you commission members and staff for your time spent in service to our community. Last time this matter was in front of you it seemed staff and this commission lacked clarity regarding the degree to which connectivity standards should be enforced in cases where there is negative public feedback,and specifically for this ODP given the context of this area’s street connectivity history.It also seems noteworthy that your vote was split on this matter and that you,staff,and the public expressed misgivings about the situation and hope that a better solution could be found. City Council provided clear direction through their action at the hearing of my and Lacy’s appeal.The Major Amendment you will see tomorrow contains revisions that both reflect Council’s direction and are designed to achieve that elusive better solution. Alas,better does not mean perfect.I’ve spoken with the developer,with city staff,with my neighbors and friends in Woodland Park and English Ranch,and with others in the community in detail about different options and considerations.All of the options have trade offs.I think the option being presented to you tonight is about as good as it gets so I encourage you to approve it. Of the tradeoffs and concerns,increased traffic on streets in English Ranch is the biggest.Some of that traffic will occur regardless,as people in the new development will find cause at times to drive to destinations in the northern half of this section like Linton Elementary school and they will do that whether they have a local connection or not.What then remains of concern is cut through traffic.I believe staff's best option to mitigate this is by working to ensure that the signalized intersection at Ziegler and Paddington is constructed on a similar timeframe as the future local connection whenever that might be)so folks from this development will make use of that signalized intersection instead of cutting through English Ranch. One last thing to note:In reviewing the packet for this meeting I see that the language in the staff report and the attached city council resolution is worded less strongly than the verbal motion made and unanimously passed by the ITEM 6, CORRESPONDENCE 3 Packet pg. 18 2 City Council at the appeal hearing.To ensure that intention is conveyed to you,I am including below my personal transcript of the relevant portion of the initial and then revised)motion I heard at that hearing. Remand the matter for a P&Z rehearing with the direction to come into full compliance with connectivity standards and to disregard and remove the previous alternative compliance.” Remand the matter for a P&Z rehearing with the direction that upon rehearing the major amendment the P&Z commission should consider coming into compliance with connectivity standards and removing alternative compliance.” Regards, Craig Latzke 3908 Mesa Verde St,Fort Collins,CO ITEM 6, CORRESPONDENCE 3 Packet pg. 19 1 Katie Claypool From:Sharlene Manno Sent:Thursday, September 21, 2023 12:44 PM To:Development Review Comments; Katie Claypool; Em Myler Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Ziegler-Corbett Overall Development Plan Categories:P&Z Shar Manno Administration Services Manager Community Development & Neighborhood Services 970.221.6767 smanno@fcgov.com From:Tracey Ryssman tryssman@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday,September 21,2023 10:05 AM To:Sharlene Manno smanno@fcgov.com> Subject:EXTERNAL]Ziegler Corbett Overall Development Plan Regarding the Ziegler Corbett overall development plan The original plan approved allowing the developer to do a light at Hidden Pond and Ziegler should not have been overturned.Now there is no light on Ziegler to address the issue of traffic that this could have resolved The residents of English Ranch are strongly opposed to the connector onto Paddington from the new development based on increased traffic issues.We asked for no connection from the development into English Ranch. Thank you for your consideration Tracey Ryssman English Ranch HOA President ITEM 6, CORRESPONDENCE 4 Packet pg. 20 1 Katie Claypool From:Development Review Comments Sent:Thursday, September 21, 2023 3:36 PM To:Katie Claypool; Ryan Mounce Subject:Fw: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to Stub a connection from No. property boundary which may connect to Paddington Categories:P&Z From:elisabeth giessler bggiessler@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday,September 21,2023 8:42 PM To:Development Review Comments devreviewcomments@fcgov.com> Subject:EXTERNAL]Opposition to Stub a connection from No.property boundary which may connect to Paddington Hello Ms.Myler and Planning Staff, Thank you very much for the information regarding the public notice re:Ziegler Corbett Development. I am a resident/homeowner who will be impacted by the stubbing of a street with future connection to Paddington. I am opposed to the stubbing of a local street connecting Paddington to the new development and to keep the green space in its entirety. My reasons are as follows: 1.The environmental impact of a road spanning 30’35’in width/over 150’in length impacting the green space between Edmonds/Ziegler/Paddington/north of the Development for wildlife as well the usage of this area to mitigate and collect excess runoff. 2.Keeping the current of agreed no connection will align with the vision of a nature green zone between the developer and the English Ranch. 3.Future increase in traffic cars and noise)within the English Ranch. Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. Elisabeth Giessler English Ranch resident Sent from my iPad ITEM 6, CORRESPONDENCE 5 Packet pg. 21 1 Katie Claypool From:Sharlene Manno Sent:Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:51 PM To:Katie Claypool Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Ziegler-Corbett Development Shar Manno Administration Services Manager Community Development & Neighborhood Services 970.221.6767 smanno@fcgov.com From:Paul S.Sizemore psizemore@fcgov.com> Sent:Thursday,September 21,2023 5:32 PM To:Sharlene Manno smanno@fcgov.com> Subject:FW:EXTERNAL]Ziegler Corbett Development What should we do with comments coming in via email this late? PS Paul Sizemore, AICP Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue 970-224-6140 office 970-305-0212 mobile psizemore@fcgov.com From:Mary Dickey mjdikey@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday,September 21,2023 5:04 PM To:Paul S.Sizemore psizemore@fcgov.com> Subject:EXTERNAL]Ziegler Corbett Development Hello Paul, I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed stub of a local street at the northern boundary that may connect to Paddington in the future. The extension of Edmonds has been proposed twice before and taken off the city map twice.Why are we again having to vote this down now or in the future?Paddington is a community street and in my opinion cannot support added traffic.Nor do I want additional traffic right at my backyard.Bad idea!!Take it out of the city planning permanently. ITEM 6, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 22 2 Mary Jean Dickey 4050 Harrington Ct. Fort Collins mjdikey@gmail.com ITEM 6, CORRESPONDENCE 6 Packet pg. 23 Packet pg. 24 Packet pg. 25 Packet pg. 26 Packet pg. 27