Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL CREEK MEADOWS - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-10-29a r t r r. r. ....' ^' �lz*•w...,,r.-.. ., .,_ -..- - Wit^'+"' Post Office Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Telephone 303 484-4220 Larimer County Planning Commission Larimer County Courthouse Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 December 9, 1974 #126-74. Fossil Creek Meadow Rezoning. Description: 432 acres located east of S. College Avenue two miles south of Harmony. i ' Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: Denial of the rezoning The Board considered this proposal at its December 2, 1974 meeting. The Board felt that the scale of the proposal raises broad issues concerning general patterns of development and land use surrounding the City of Fort Collins. The discussion, therefore centered mainly on the question of whether the area should be rezoned in the first place rather than on the details of the site plan as pre- sented. In general the Board felt that if the area was unsuitable for agriculture, then the highest and best use for the land was residential development of the area at the relatively low densities already permitted under its present zoning. This would to some extent preserve the desireable rural -fringe character of the area. Establishing this land use for the area would also tend to reinforce a barrier against the sprawl of the City of Fort Collins at urban densities southward into agricultural areas, and perhap redirect this growth in other direc- tions. The Board voted unanimously to recommend denial for the following reasons: I. There is no justification to the public for the rezoning. The community at large would benefit in no way from the rezoning pro- posed. The rezoning would in fact be detrimental to the community for reasons stated below. 2. The proposal is essentially for a new town, and the present demand for additional high cost single family housing on this scale is dubious at best. - Mr: Robert L. Brunton Mar-:h 2, 1977 Page 2 I hope that you can understand the position that the County is taking in this matter and the need for retaining the present property until some of these future requirements are better known and a more concrete plan has been developed which would solve the associated problems which we know will prevail. Thank you for your concern. Sincerely, L is Brown, Jr. ounty Administrator LBJr:mh �. Wp -Al March 7. 1977 Larlmer County Comrmissioners Lar imier County Fort Collins, Co $M1 Mar Commissioner, It Is our desire to provide further information to the Larimer Count slorers as well as to the City Council of Fort Collins with respect ran90 planning as related to the Proposed first phe" of the Fossil i dows deftlopment. We wish to refer you first to our letter doted Pecomber Is, 1974, relating to the development (Ceptir attachM). The concerns expressed therein are certainly s t I I I oppiIcob Ia. May we re -phrase and re-emphasin some of them? Sub-divislons of this type which Itap-freg away from existing deveiepments and from existing schools Constitute a serious problem for the school district. There are no plans for new schools In the area and the possibility of new bond Issues for nw schools is ells. While the school district is under legal obligation to provide school services to students within its boundaries, the problems of doing so can became a serious burden to taxpayers as well uo a distinct InconvenIONCe to children and parents. in this instaoss,, thing the school district could do would be to pro - wide , schools with space. The resuit would in all pro- bablli«1 S 4:. t 1 y be shifted from one school to another as 'eight be sPIIt some sewrai schools depending an available spun se that nelgiMwrs Night not attend the same schools. Classmates sight Change from year to year. (3) Transportation Costs would be a burden to taxpayers both in terms of "Pital outlay for buses as well as added transportation Costs In the operating budget. AR 1 0 1977 `' 1 trr ll CiTY MANAGER two" X tlr 1 „ tialaoI s could saseho�r be provided in the Pees i l Croak aree"'Ual'a StIt . problems. Existing schools, to same Instances# fern dewllat" sAM11ls t, ` E would certainly be inefficient, both financially and sdwaat Iftel ly to ` M�fr scheo Is In distant arras WON N at the sear t I ma spaces More available in older schools. A for more efficient pattern of grwth would be to fill in available space for developmant in close proximity to present schools plus rejuvenation of older areas in order to who neighborhoods close to schools m rs attractive to prospective how-oening fool IIas. In G"GIuslon, even under the most faverable alrauwsUndoes It would appear that many years would to by before school services amid be brought to the fossil Crook area. If ever. In the Interim. inefflcianales, added costs and more im- portantly, incanwnlasass to ehildrM and parents would persist. Nhlls not spotificalty a part of the 046MI Caput. we are also ®once t such things as lack of sidewalks and street tights, dood and cut do problem as pier -pointed by the coawants from the fort Collins City PI r staff. While those concerns way not directly affect schools, they do rem and parents who are the wain concern of schools. We strongly t these problems be resoived before any action 1s talwn. -� Sincerely. T. C. Agee 0lrecter of pianning and Evaluation TCINn Iw Gas City COWN l I City P lann l ng 111 "Na r Larimr County planning Office i"eudre R-1 board of bloat ion S"Wintendeat CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580 FORT COLLINS COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484-4220 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER March 30, 1977 Board of Larimer County Commissioners P. 0. Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Commissioners: Re Fossil Creek Meadows PUD,-Phase One As part of its overall policy, the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board refers major County referrals impacting on the city to the City Council for additional review and comment. At its March 1, 1977, meeting the City Council considered the Fossil Creek Meadows PUD, Phase One, which was referred by the Board at its February 7 meeting. The City Council has some major reservations and concerns with the Fossil Creek Master Plan. At their meeting the Council voted unanimously to recommend to the County Commissioners that they defer further approvals of the Fossil Creek Meadows PUD until after the County Commissioners and the City Council can meet to discuss the serious ramifications of this project. Thank you for your consideration on this important matter. Sincerely, Robert L. Brunton City Manager c.c. Les Kaplan, Planning Director Verna Lewis, City Clerk ri 1 CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484-4220 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER March 31, 1977 Board of Larimer County Commissioners P. 0. Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Commissioners: On March 2, 1977, we received a letter from you concerning the proposed exchange of property between the City and the C:ouiity to facilitate parking in connection with the Downtown Redevelopment Project. We had originally introduced the possibility of trading your Mason Street lot for land of similar value on the east side of Howes Street north of Mountain Avenue. You indicated that you did not feel the exchange was in the best interest of the Larimer County employees. This proposed e-,:change was not to conven— ience the City per se, but the same businesses that pay taxes to the City and to the County. At the City Council request, this matter was discussed at both their March 15 and March 29 meetings. The Council asked that we request the County to reconsider this denial. I would be happy to sit down with you and discuss this matter in greater detail. Sincerely, Robert L. Brunton City Manager RLB:mg 100% Recycled Bond t CITY OF FORT C667W P.O. BOX 580 FORT COLLINS COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484-4220 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER March 31, 1977 Mr. Rudy Juvan, President Downtown Merchants Association 103 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Dear Rudy: I understand the DMA ha3 discussed the problem we are facing with Larimer County in connection with obtaining a parking lot in t-he downtown area. The City had proposed to exchange property with the County to facilitate parking in connection with the Downtown Redevelopment Project. This exchange would be a dollar value trade of present County property on the east side of Mason Street for a similar piece of property on the east side of Howes Street north of Mountain Avenue. Enclosed is a copy of the County's letter of March 2 with regard to this denial. Also enclosed is a copy of my letter of February 23 and Bill Holmes' letter of January 22, 1976, to the County Commissioners. When Mr. Holmes contacted the County Commissioners, we were still in the discussion stage because the project had not yet been approved. Because of this denial, we now have stopped all work on the appraisals of the two pieces of property. The City Council requested that we send this information to you in the hope that you will assist us in trying to consumate this needed program. If you desire further informatiopn on this subject, do not hesitate to call on me. Sincerely, Robert L. Brunton City Manager RLB:mb Encs. 3 100% Recycled Bond CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580 FORT COLLINS COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484-4220 OFFICE OF THE CITY MAN11 AGER March 31, 1977 Mr. Richard J. Albrecht, President Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce 225 South Meldrum Street P. O. Drawer D Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Dick: Recently the City of Fort Collins received a letter from the Board of Larimer County Commissioners rejecting our proposal for an exchange of land. This exchange of property between the City and the County was to facilitate parking in connection with the Downtown Redevelopment Project. We had proposed to trade on a dollar basis the present County parking lot on the east side of Mason Street for a similar piece of land on the east side of Howes Street north of Mountain. Enclosed is a copy of the letter of March 2 on the subject. Also enclosed are copies of my letter of February 23 and E. F. Holmes' letter of January 22 to the County. The City Council has requested that we forward this material to you with the hope that the Chamber of Commerce will take an active part in attempting to accomplish this goal. This project is not for the convenience of the City per se, but for the business community. The commercial places in this part of the city and all other parts of the city pay a great deal of taxes to the City and the County. I would be happy to discuss this further with you at your convenience. Sincerely, Robert L. Brunton, City Manager RLB:mb Encs. 3 100% Recycled Bond WILLIAM LOPEZ DISTRICT I EXT 265 NONA THAYER DISTRICT II EXT 266 DAVID C. WEITZEL DISTRICT III EXT 267 April 1, 1977 t r LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box IM, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 221-2100 Mr. Robert L. Brunton City Manager City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Dear Bob: f � r L_ Y I03 doss, C�re�'�. In response to your letter of March 30, 1977, to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Fossil Creek Meadows, PUD, Phase I, the Commissioners have asked that I inform you so that you may advise the Council, that Fossil Creek Meadows, PUD has been scheduled for a hear- ing before the Board of County Commissioners at 2:00 p.m., April 4, 1977. The Commissioners would like to hear from the Council at that time and invite them to participate during this public hearing. Please convey this message to the Council, thank you. Sincerely, FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, L is B owner, Jr. dministrative Assistnat LBJr:mh �4 �G1TY MANAGER Louis Brown Jr., Administrative Assistant Ext. 280 C I T Y O F F O R T C O L L I N S MFMr)OA*fnrrM DAIT',: April 8, 1977 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Robert L. Brunton, City Manager RE. April 12 Meeting with Larimer County Commissioners The City Council requested that I send a letter to the County Commissioners requesting a deferral on the decision concerning Fossil Creek Meadows, PUD. Lucia Liley, Assistant City Attorney attended the April 4 Comnissioners' meeting. At that time the County Commissioners tabled any final action on this matter until April 18. Unfortunately, the only time ava4_lable for us to arrange a meeting between the City Council and County Comm�_ssioners prior to their April 18 meeting is on Tuesday, April 12, 1977, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Enclosed are copies of correspondence and information from the School Board regarding this project. Although this is the primary purpose of the meeting, other items might be discussed or scheduled for future meetings including the following: 1. The exchange of property for parking facilities in connection with the Downtown Redevelopment Project. (See attached) 2. Joint communication facilities. 3. Joint jail facilities. 4. There also might be some discussion on the bill submitted by the County for the fire on our Pine Ridge property. Enclosed is a memo from Art March, Jr., City Attorney giving his opinion that the bill should not be paid. RLB:mb Attachments MUM P.O. Box S80, Fort CollinsColorado 8OS22 Ph(303) 4844220 Ext. 728 C.IiY OI K)Ill COLt INS � gy+yes�m�aaa . ENGINEERING DIVISION April 8, 1981 Ms. Diane Touthill Fossil Creek Meadows Development Group c% First Western Finance 7625 West 5th Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80226 Re: Fossil Creek Larimer County, Colorado Dear Ms. Touthill: Thank you for talking to our Mr. Jim Hoff regarding your approval for City of Fort Collins survey crews crossing over and setting temporary aerial photography targets on property within the referenced subdivision. The City's storm drainage department will be mapping six sections south and east of the intersection of State Highway 68 and U.S. Highway 287 this year. This is part of an on -going program of aerial photography of drainage basins within and adjacent to the City's boundaries to better understand and control storm drainage problems in our area. The process involved for the required field work includes the following: 1. Preliminary field reconnaissance to locate existing brass caps, property pins, etc. This step will involve choosing the actual target locations and field survey work to establish horizontal and vertical control. 2. Target setting which involves placing the targets at their pre -determined locations. The target setting would be performed between one (1) and seven days prior to the actual photography. (7) 3. Photography, taken from an elevation of approximately 3000 feet. The photography is done by airplane. 4. Target removal, which includes canplete removal of the targets, leaving only a spike in the ground for further survey work. At this time any further horizontal and vertical control would be performed. 5. Final verification of field survey work. During the course of the field work every effort will be made to leave all private property undisturbed. The field crews performing the work will be two (2) or three (3) persons on foot and all work will be carried out quickly and quietly. 3. Even if the demand was to come about, development at the density and scale proposed would require urban services (schools, fire, police, etc.) which would be unavailable or which would be ex- pensive. for County taxpayers or residents of the development to provide. Experience has shown that fragmented rural high density development does not pay its own way in taxes. The County is not in the busi- ness of providing urban services. 4. The rezoning proposed would set the precedent for similar rezonings of prime agricultural land in the area. These would be unrealistic and speculative in the not -so -short run, would allow costly fragmented and partial development in the middle run, and perhaps over development and continued southward urban sprawl without adequate facilities in the long run. (For example, U.S. 287, now a main through transportation route, would become a local arterial street through the area, itself requiring a bypass.) The pattern around other. cities has been that such areas eventually incorporate to provide themselves with better services at less cost. This, of course, sets up the whole array of urban -suburban problems which characterize metropolitan areas(such as Denver). Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Sincerely, Paul A. Deibel Planning Associate PAD:ts Ms. Diane Toothilll Page Two Should you have any questions concerning any of these activities, please feel - free to contact either of the two individuals listed below. Our metro phone numbers are: 573-0444 or 572-3049, our extension is 728. Your splendid cooperation makes this program possible. Thank you! Sincerely, Maurice E. Rupel, P.E. & L.S. Assistant City Engineer - Development Robert W. Smith, P.E. Assistant City Engineer - Storm Drainage 103 Cie K~ Fb 5 S' peceriber 10, 1974 Larimer County Planning Commission Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Sirs: We wish to offer comments with respect to the proposed rezoning and application fer ,approval of a planned unit development for Fossil Creek Meadows. Thi0. s area is a pert of the Poudre R-1 school district, and the proposed development would have a severe impact on the schools. It is our estimate that the development, when completed, would generate as many as 820 students. The school district does not have schools in the area adequate to accommodate such a population. Schools in the southern part of Fort Collins are already at a near capacity!. Ever with extensive cross-town bussing (south to north), there would be serious problems in providing school services for students from the area. Transportation costs would be high, students would be faced with frequent moves from school to school in order to find space, and the area would inevitably have to be split among several schools. Even though potential school sites are shown on the master plan, the district does not, at present, have any plans for new schools in that area. Any future plans would be contingent upon a favorable bond election which, in all likeli- hood, would be difficult or impossible to pass. Even under the most favorable circumstances, it would appear that many -years would go by before school`tervices dould be brought to the area, if ever. It is our recommendation that the area not be rezoned, and that the master plan not be approved so that any future development would be at the much lower` density permitted under F-A Farming. While such development at lower density would still constitute somewhat of a problem for the schools, the impact would be much less severe. Sincerely, T. Carol Agee, Director Planning and Evaluation TCA: sJ r y MEMORANDUM TO: Les Kaplan FROM: Paul Diebel DATE: 4 February 1975 RE: Problems associated with county rezonings to higher density Some of the problems that scattered and isolated rezonings by the County to allow residential development at urban densities (2 to 3 units/acre and above) in outlying areas can be summarized to include the following: 1. Speculation. It would seem difficult to justify the "need" for additional areas of urban density residential zoning in outlying areas surrounding Ft. Collins. At present there is enough un- developed residentially zoned land with utilities available within the city limits to accomodate double the present population of Fort Collins. At present, the County planners estimate that 12% of all lots in county subdivisions are developed. There are addi- tional large areas zoned for such development but not subdivided. Rezoning an outlying parcel of land, however, automatically appreciates its value by allowing the potential for urban development without the land costs that would pertain to areas within the city itself. Vacant City land is more expensive because adequate urban services are already available. The costs of providing services to outlying areas that eventually do develop at urban densities are passed on to county tax- payers and to the eventual residents of those areas. 2. Costs of Sprawl. Where development at urban density does occur in scattered rural areas, urban services must be provided. Such services cannot be efficiently supplied to scattered areas of urban development. Taxpayers must absorb the additional costs of supplying far-flung police protection, school bussing and road improvement costs. Exper- ience has shown that fragmented rural high density development does not pay its own way in taxes. Eventual residents of such areas must also absorb the additional costs of higher utility charges, extensive automobile travel, higher fire insurance rates, etc. 3. Competition among utilities. Rural water and sanitation districts were originally set up to serve outlying nonresidential areas. Premature rezoning and development at urban densities in areas surrounding the city provide the impetus for creation and expansion of water and sewer districts in these areas. Overexpansion of district facilities causes expensive duplication of facilities with municipal utilities and over- lap of systems. The rationale for having a "utility" in the first place is to avoid such duplication of facilities. .Toy". �f atiw l f�f ble- ns, 4.�Ttie pattern of scattered rezoning and arbitrary spots of urban scale development that has begun to characterize the area between Ft. Collins and Loveland creates the precident for additional rezonings and development. The pattern around other cities has been that such areas of haphazard development eventually incorporate to provide themselves with better services at less cost. This, of course, sets up the whole array of urban -suburban problems which characterize metropolitan areas. If, on the other hand, the city eventually annexes such areas, Page 2 to: Les Kaplan 4 February 1975 it inherits problems resulting from inconsistent patterns of development and planning controls (e.g. Prospect Street between S. College and Shields, Taft Hill Road, N. College Avenue). 5. Environmental Effects. The additional automobile traffic generated by a pattern scattered urban development is consumptive of energy and adds to air polution. This pattern of development is also consumptive of scarce areas of prime agricultural land. LQHI(V)t=H/ ' .tjUN I Y r 1. ; . + : v LJ •„ i t is FORT COLLINS. COLORADO a j22 PHONE 221-2100 P.O. BOX 145E February 18, 1977 Rowland Griffeth 406 Delclair Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Dear Mr. Griffeth: On February 9, 1977 the Larimer County Planning Commission granted conditional approval of the pre- liminary Phase Plan of Phase One of Fossil Creek . Meadows. The conditions of approval are as follows: �1) A frontage road 50 feet wide must be dedicated along Highway 287. , f . • :� `�" V 2) A soils report must be submitted to the Colorado Geological Survey and a favorable response be received by the Planning Department from the survey. An P supply P updated water su 1 report must be sent to the Division of Water Resources and a favorable comment received from the Division of Water Resources. 4) A written comment from the SCS must be - submitted indicating that the culverts proposed will meet the SCS estimated flow capacities. _ 5) Pedestrian and Equestrian easements must be shown on the final phase plan with a statement that these easements would be dedicated to public use when the County % has a trai maintenance system., A statement must be added to final pl-at that no lots will have access directly of of Fossil Creek Parkway. %..-' Rowland Griffeth/page 2 _✓71 A statement must be placed on the final plat that the soils report in the Planning Office should be consulted prior to construction.,- 8 An Architectural Control Committee v !� must be established which will require yard lights on all single family lots. 9) An emergency access to the attached housing units must be designated on the final plat as an emergency ingress/egress easement.,/ Please contact the Planning Department if you have any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, A .a. is A. Stranger O&� Subdivision Administrator DAS/lr cc: Mack Adam-'Bittinger & Assoc. File C I T Y O F F 0 R T C 0 L L I N S DATN: March 1, 1977 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Robert 1.. Brunton, City Manager RE: Review of County Referral - Fossil Creek Meadows PUD: Phase One Fossil Creek Meadows PUD, Phase One, is outside the city limits. The proposal is for 124 single-family lots and 130 multi -family lots located on the east side of Highway 287 one-half mile south of Harmony Road. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this County referral at their February 7, 1977, meeting. As part of their overall new policy, the Board is referring any major Country referrals impacting on the city to Council for additional review and comments. Enclosed is an extensive memo from Les Kaplan, Planning Director, on this subject. The Planning and Zoning Board recommends that the County consider several additional items in connection with this development. Recommendation: The Administration recommends that the City Council review Fossil Creek Meadows PUD, Phase One, and if they have any additional comments, that the Administration be directed to forward these to the Larimer County Commissioners. 31 COPY TO B. -MES WILLJAM LOPEZ DISTRICT I EXT 265 NONA DISTRICTITER LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EXT 266 P.O. Box 1190 DISTRICT III DC. WEITZEL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 DISTRICT EXT 267 221-2100 669-3646 March 2, 1977 Mr. Robert L. Brunton City Manager City of Ft. Collins P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Brunton: In response to your letter of February 23, 1977, concerning the City's desire to exchange properties as identified, for the purpose of providing parking for County employees and the present County property for use by the City, I have been asked by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to advise you of the following: Larimer County does not consider the proposed transfer of properties in question to be in the best interest of Larimer County. We realize that this subject has been discussed in the past with the old Board of County Commissioners and the thinking at that time was that it would be improper to ask the Larimer County employees to inconvenience themselves by having their parking lot placed at a much farther distance from their place of work, for the sake of providing a convenience to the City. I have been asked by Commissioner Lopez and Commissioner Weit7-el to express that feeling. Following Mr. Holmes meeting with the County Commissioners in 1976, a survey was taken of the Larimer County employees and the results of that survey indicated a dis- taste for this proposed exchange of properties, and especially since it would require employees to be located much farther from their place of work. In addition to this employee desire we have discussed from time to time the possibility of Larimer County constructing a parking facility on the property we now own which, with proper plan- ning could provide adequate parking for County employees as well as a large amount of parking for the general public. This project is still in the thought stages, but with the present need for future expansion to our courthouse facility itself, we can envision that present courthouse parking may be required for future building use. Therefore, the ideal situation for Larimer County and its courts would b provide a convenient parking facility. Having the present proper is makes for an ideal site for such a parking facility. F1 n MAIL 31977 Louis Brown Jr., Administrative Assistant Ext. 280 C1TY MANAGE