HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 1/14/2020 - Memorandum From Delynn Coldiron Re: Items Relating To Montava Planned Unit Development Master Plan And Overlay Additional Public Comment Received - Packet #3From: Ernie Cummins
To: City Leaders
Subject: Montava Development
Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:21:42 PM
Rarely do I agree with Gary Wockner but I have to wholeheartedly support his
opinion as printed today in the Coloradoan. We SHOULD NOT SUBSIDIZE THE
DEVELOPER OF MONTAVA. Not only will it penalize current users of water from
Fort Collins Utilities but also contribute to a terrific traffic glut in the
inadequate street facilities in Northeast For Collins.
Ernie Cummins
970-282-7742
egcfmc@centurylink.net
From: Francie Scalley
To: City Leaders
Subject: Montava development
Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 3:14:13 PM
Fort Collins City Council,
As a resident of Larimer county, I am very concerned about Montava development.
I have attended several meetings with Max Moss and each time I’ve heard a carnival barker. He said at the last
meeting that grandmothers would be ride their bikes with with their grandchildren on Country Club Road to
Montava development because it will be such a great place, really? No one in their right mind would ride on the
road with the projected traffic.
He refused to answer questions about the roads the development will use to bring in the building supplies and
equipment to build the sight and questions and or solutions how thousands of additional residences will compromise
roads and neighborhoods and now, water issues.
Max Moss and his Texas company are taking advantage of the residents in this
community with their sweet heart water deal, ignoring residents who are good stewards of the area and pay taxes in
the millions.
Why is this company entitled to exploit this area with such lack of forethought of how detrimental it is financially
and environmentally?
Once the development is built, Max Moss and his crew will move on and we will be left to deal with poor choices
and bad consequences.
Mary Frances Scalley
Sent from my iPad
From: HOWARD CARTER5i
To: City Leaders
Subject: No to Max Moss
Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 3:48:17 PM
We had our home built in the storybook subdivision in 2004, and in that time we have
not had any city services: such as Police patrols, Street sweeping, Etc.
If you are not sure we are part of Fort Collins, how are the additional 1,000 acres
going to be served????
Has Max Moss produced any qualifications and finances for the council to review???
Who is this guy????
The current infrastructure is at it's Max Moss already!!!!!
Howard Carter 4841316
From: jean carter
To: City Leaders
Subject: Montava
Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 3:28:06 PM
Hello, My name is Jean Carter and I live in the Storybook subdivision.
I am amazed by Max Moss and his requests for the City of Fort Collins Water
because he can not afford Elco Water.
I am amazed by Max Moss and his requests for higher taxes on the homes that they
will be building, taxes which will be funneled back to him to help finance this Massive
Development, I understand these taxes will remain in place for 40 years. No One
should be given this type of financial aid. They say there will be affordable housing in
this new development for people that need lower price points to gain access to the
housing market, the higher taxes will force these homes to be much less on every
level to keep them in the "affordable" price range. All of us know that the taxes on our
homes become a part of the monthly payment that we make for the privilege of living
in the homes that we choose to buy.
This is a greedy, needy developer that does not belong in his profession. I feel very
"used" by these proposals.
I encourage you to say no to Max Moss and the Montava development.
Thank you,
Jean Carter
970 484 1316
From: Nancy Nevill-Dunn
To: City Leaders
Subject: Montava development and Water
Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:15:37 PM
It is my opinion that if developers can't afford to supply water to the areas they want to
develop they can't afford to develop. Our city should not subsidize a developers water needs.
Sincerely,
Nancy Nevill-Dunn
From: Richard Wendroff
To: City Leaders
Subject: Montava
Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 3:26:23 PM
City Council members,
There were two columns in the Coloradoan today regarding Montava. One for and one against. The one
for makes no substantial arguments about the benefit of Montava to the City. I wonder how fast the
developer who professes his love for our City will head back to Texas if his plea for subsidized water is
turned down. The anti Montava column, on the other hand is based upon fact. Why should the City
make an exception so that a developer has cheaper water, a scarce resource.
I encourage you to vote no. BTW, I do not live near Montava but do love Fort Collins.
Respectfully,
Richard Wendroff
1215 Zinnia Way, Fort Collins, CO 80525
From: Emily Gorgol
To: Delynn Coldiron
Subject: Fw: Montava and Affordable Housing
Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 3:34:24 PM
Thank you,
Emily Gorgol
Pronouns: She, Her, Hers
City of Fort Collins
Councilmember, District 6
970-556-4748
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public
disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will
be visible in an online archive, unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the
email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or from Council will
remain private under CORA.
From: Roger Hoffmann <rogerh8808@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:32 PM
To: Emily Gorgol <egorgol@fcgov.com>
Subject: Montava and Affordable Housing
Dear Ms. Gorgol,
I’m writing in regards to the Montava development proposal.
There are certainly a number of issues of concern to the City, it’s residents and leaders, that stem
from its location, timing and scale, along with unwise use of a Metro District; but as you are
apparently a fellow advocate for Affordable Housing, I thought I’d address most of my remarks to
you here to that topic.
Indeed, it appears that the project is being pitched as a way to achieve “affordable housing”. While
I’m entirely in alignment with the goal, (having myself served for roughly 3 years on Loveland’s
Affordable Housing Commission), I want to make clear my informed opinion that this is NOT the way
to go about addressing it.
In fact, the Affordable Housing Commission of which I was part, though strongly represented by
local real estate interests, came to a strong consensus on a package of solutions which were
necessary in order to meet our goals of both preventing a widening of the affordability gap and also
of gradually closing that gap. Among these was the recommendation to adjust City development
code to include “Inclusionary Zoning” policy, with a requirement that would pertain to ALL housing
development projects.
This would be a requirement of every development application (over a certain threshold unit
number) that a certain % of units developed (I believe we recommended a minimum of 10%)
would be affordable to those at or below 70% (I think) of area median income (AMI); and that these
would be deed-restricted (for a minimum of 25 years, with some exceptions for flexibility), to protect
the City’s interests and investments, such as any fee waivers or delayed impact fee charges, etc .
Though only part of our recommendation was ever implemented (leading to insufficient closing of
the gap much as we had predicted), communities that have faced this affordability problem have
already achieved some success by it.
Fort Collins could easily adopt this policy, which ensures equitability, distributes affordable units
throughout the City, neutralizes “NIMBY” reactions to “low income housing”, and also, perhaps
equally importantly, does away with the need for the City to give massive subsidies to development
and/or trade off on other City goals.
Also, importantly, it does not then encourage sprawl and premature development of land, such as is
the case with Montava. An important principle of affordability is that housing isn’t affordable if
transportation costs are too high- and automobile costs are significant. Leaving the cost of
transportation out of the definition of affordable housing favors development where land is cheap
but the transportation system is built around the private automobile. And we should understand
that, notwithstanding the hopes and intentions that this development will be its own community, it
will be significantly auto-dependent. Indeed, it is predictable, following other such developments
along the Front Range, it will be marketed as “Minutes from Old Town but on N.Colorado’s main
street (I-25)” ; specifically targeted to an auto-driving populace. Even the project’s own
Transportation Impact Study notes the significant number of vehicle trips / day that are expected.
The nexus between land use planning, transportation, environmental protection, costs of housing
and other social justice needs makes this a complicated topic to be sure; worthy of perhaps its own
study. From my own lengthy history of research and advocacy, there is no need for the City to trade
off sound planning principles, its own financial security and standards (Adequate Public Facilities /
compact urban growth, etc.) , environmental protection, etc., in order to achieve a goal which can
be achieved without such trade-offs.
~Roger Hoffmann
970.631.8808