HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT, EAST PROSPECT ROAD SERVICE FACILITY - ODP & APU - 44-08/A - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGAngelina Sanchez -Sprague - PSD Plans for School Bus Warehouse on E. Prospect Page 2
buses? Then there is the possible "spill" of the fuel as you fill a bus fuel tank to add to them. We depend
on our water wells to irrigate of vegetable gardens and fruit trees in addition to our lawns. How will your "
waste -water" effect our wells? How will your "wastewater" affect our septic systems, which we readily
maintain for the comfort of living in our rural area?
Before making your final decision on locating these facilities on the north side of East Prospect between I
25 and County Road 5, the above concerns along with those others have provided are some that we
homeowners would appreciate you considering and answering. We, the homeowners surrounding this
planned development look forward to and will appreciate your supplying answers to our concerns.
/s/ Ada Viola West
A. Viola West
1717 Meadowaire Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - PSD Plans for School Bus Warehouse on E. Prospect Page 1
From: ada west <vwest00@msn.com>
To: sstruve@psdschools.org; ASanchezSprague@fcgov.com; operations@psdschools.org;
mortega@psdschools.org; kevinh@psdschools.org; jsarchet@psdschools.org; ...
Date: Friday, February 06, 2009 9:34:21 AM
Subject: PSD Plans for School Bus Warehouse on E. Prospect
Date: February 5, 2009
TO: Members of the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, the Poudre School District Board of
Education, Jerry Wilson, Poudre School District Superintendent, Jim Sarchet, Assistant Superintendent of
Business Services, Kevin Hahn, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools, Manny Ortega,
Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, Bill Franzen, Dept. Head of Operations, Michael
Spearnak, Dept. Head of Planning, Design and Construction
RE: PSD Plans for School Bus Warehouse on E. Prospect
As a resident homeowner in the Homestead Estates subdivision on the southwest corner of East Prospect
and County Road 5, following are some of my concerns. My concern is not only for the preservation of our
local environment, but also for the safety and well being of many others who could be impacted by the
addition of such a facility as is being planned for the acreage owned by the Poudre School District.
Before building such a facility as this one, have you explored other options, e.g., the property with your
sign on it west of Anheiser Busch at the end of Timberline Road? Wouldn't this provide you with less
traveled roadways than Prospect Road and henceforth be safer for the PSD School buses to enter and
exit?
Considering the already heavy traffic on East Prospect Road, the two-lane bridge over 1-25, and the
narrow bridge over the ditch (which is either missing or damaged much of the time as a result of being hit)
between the Colorado Visitor Information Center and the entrance to the Rest Area, it would seem that
there were better options than in the midst of an already established residential area.
There is the fact that CDOT considers the bridge over 1-25 inadequate, as well as the one over the Lake
Canal Ditch, and have no plans or funds available for doing any construction either now or in the distant
future. Added to this is the afore -mentioned narrow bridge east Prospect,
Anyone who travels East Prospect from before 7:00 a.m. to after 8:00 a.m. knows that the northbound exit
ramp off 1-25 has a traffic line from the beginning of the exit all the way north to the stoplight. During these
times traffic is already "bumper -to -bumper" from the 1-25 overpass all the way in to where East Prospect
expands to four lanes west of the Poudre River Bridge.
Currently there are four traffic lights from where buses would be entering East Prospect, westbound
toward the Poudre River Bridge — do we want/need any more?
Anyone attempting to make a left turn from westbound East Prospect onto southbound 1-25 often causes
traffic to back up on the bridge over 1-25 due to the heavy eastbound traffic, whether they are turning south
toward 1-25 or continuing on east. Under current circumstances, there is no room to make a left -turn lane
at this point. The same thing is true of the eastbound traffic attempting to turn north onto 1-25.
In addition to the air pollution we receive in this area from 1-25, how much more will your massive quantity
of buses and the additional traffic for your employees add to this?
We who have lived in the Homestead Estates since before our streets were paved know about the
concern for water run-off from rain. Since the ditch company on the south boundary of our area denied us
the option of our street run-off in their ditch, we had to absorb the added expense of an alternative form of
disposal. How do you plan on disposing of the water and chemicals you will have from washing the school
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague PSD/Larimer County Joint Service Facility Page 2
sites. The PDS should look into the expansion of its existing facilities or the use some other site more
centrally located within the district.
Sincerely,
Jill E.Handwerk
1733 Meadowaire Dr.
Fort Collins,Co 80525
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - PSD/Larimer County Joirit Service Facility - - - — - Page 1
From: "PETE WEBER" <weberhand@q.com>
To: sstruve@psdschools.org; ASanchezSprague@fcgov.com; mspearna@psdschools.org;
operations@psdschools.org; mortega@psdschools.org; kevinh@psdschools.org; ...
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 8:35:36 AM
Subject: PSD/Larimer County Joint Service Facility
To: Members of the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, the Poudre School District Board of
Education, Jerry Wilson, Poudre School District Superintendent, Jim Sarchet, Assistant Superintendent of
Business Services, Kevin Hahn, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools, Manny Ortega,
Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, Bill Franzen, Dept. Head of Operations, Michael
Spearnak, Dept. Head of Planning, Design and Construction
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed warehouse, bus depot and facilities maintenance
project proposed for the East Prospect at CR 5 PSD property. I live at 1733 Meadowaire, approximately
0.10 mile from the site. This development will have a drastic negative effect on this rural neighborhood,
and I encourage you to explore other options for your warehouse and maintenance facilities. My specific
concerns are:
Land use incompatibility
This site is surrounded on three sides by residential estate and custom residential housing. The 1st phase
of this project is the warehouse, which is not currently a permitted use in Urban Estates zones. The
"addition of a permitted use" process may easily provide a way to allow it, but again, it is not an
appropriate land use, given the surrounding residential land uses. Further this type of use will substantially
reduce the value of property in the surrounding neighborhoods, which in turn will result in a lower level of
tax revenue to the district from these areas.
Traffic and Inadequate Infrastructure Concerns
The interchange at 1-25 and Prospect is rated as "functionally obsolete" by CDOT, yet PDS proposes to
route 60% or more of its buses through the intersection on a daily basis throughout the school year. The
North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (one of 15 Regional Transportation Planning
groups formed by CDOT) did not include Prospect (which is a County road), or the interchange in any tier
of it's study as a planned improvement project through the year 2035. The Traffic Impact Study done for
the District has stated without improvements to the interchange, there would be "major capacity failures at
all intersections at the interchange" at buildout. In addition the bridge over the Lake Canal Ditch, as well
as Prospect Road itself are rated by CDOT as inadequate in size and road structure. Significant and
expensive improvements would be required. There are no funding sources to pay for the improvements to
the interchange now or in the foreseeable future, and Prospect Road improvements are pay as you go,
and may not cover the cost of improvements to the Lake Canal Ditch bridge. In light of this, the proposed
PDS development at this site is short sited and irresponsible, and sets a bad example for a public
institution.
Environmental Impact
The structures in this facility and their use will pollute and disturb the environment with respect to air
quality, visual (vistas and light), groundwater, wildlife habitat, and noise. As an asthma sufferer, living just
downwind of 90 idling buses is not acceptable. Berms and landscaping will not be effective in mitigating
air, light and noise pollution. Further, we (the property owners in this area) have not been made aware of
any Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) that have been done for this project, and ask for results of the
EIS if it has been done. If one has not been done, it is imperative to have one completed prior to any
approval/recommendation by the Planning Staff or the P&Z Board.
In conclusion, I ask that the Planning Staff and the P&Z Board uphold the ideal of 'residential estate'
zoning, and not turn this site into an industrial park with warehouses, fueling stations, bus depots and
warehouses. This type of use if better suited to property surrounded by other similar uses, not residential
David and Ahn VanDyne
1622 Carefree Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Phone: 493-8629
Fort Collins Planning & Zoning JAN 14 2009
300 W. Laporte Av.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
January 13, 2009
Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members:
We are dismayed to learn about the proposed Poudre School District / Larimer County Joint
Service Facility to be constructed at about 4500 E. Prospect Rd. This is an industrial type of land
use that is inappropriately sited among three existing rural residential/equestrian neighborhoods
in Larimer County. A fourth quite upscale subdivision is being built on the east side. Go to
Google Maps to view our developments from above.
The traffic congestion at the Prospect and 1-25 interchange is already bad during the morning
rush hour. 90 school buses, large trucks, and Larimer Road and Bridge vehicles will make this
the next Highway 392 debacle. Just this morning, northbound exiting cars were backed up all the
way down to the 1-25 through lanes. How will Poudre Schools, the City of Fort Collins, Larimer
County, and CDOT mitigate the much worse congestion that the JSF will cause? It is
unreasonable to believe that the developer of the White property on the northeast corner of the
interchange will fully fund the rebuilding of the overpass. From what source will the interchange
improvement funds coming from during the severe recession/depression we have just entered?
Has an environmental impact study yet been performed on this site? School buses and the
parked Larimer Road and Bridge maintenance vehicles will drip oil, grease, and antifreeze all
over their roads and parking lots. Where will the storm waters laden with petrochemicals be
drained? Will it not flow either into the irrigation ditch, or into detention ponds that will seep down
into our freely flowing well water aquifer which is only about 15 feet below the surface? There is
no other natural drainage from this property. How many other properties will be environmentally
destroyed by chemicals flushed from the Joint Service Facility if Boxelder Creek should flood
across the site? Do you know that the creek is blocked from flowing freely under 1-25, so that
flooding will not wash out the grossly inadequate Prospect Street bridge west of the 1-25
interchange?
Please do not recommend that construction may proceed on the Joint Service Project.
Sincerely,
Ahn VanDyn
12/8/08
To the Boards of P & Z and PSD:
I am writing to you about the proposed Larimer County/Poudre School District industrial development
on Prospect Road at County Road 5.
The infrastructure is not in place for this development and because of that, this project will cause a
downgrading of the quality of life to the neighborhoods around the site.
Prospect Road, east of I-25 is a 2-lane country road unsuited for the increase in traffic that this
development would bring. Prospect Road west of I-25 is barely able to handle present traffic even
without the additional traffic from this project. It is still a 2-lane road even after months of construction
west of Summit View. How can Prospect Road possibly handle the 2000 plus motor trips the traffic
study projects. Reality says Prospect will be a 2-lane road for a very longtime.
The interchange at I-25 and Prospect Road has become dysfunctional already with the rest stop moving
from I-25 to the Welcome Center on Prospect. The installation of 2 uncoordinated traffic lights just
makes the situation more intolerable. It is very rare that you get through both lights on one cycle and
traffic is stacked up all the way over the bridge with big trucks trying to get to the rest stop and
passenger cars with people trying to use Prospect Road to get somewhere. The interchange is nowhere
near ready to handle the large vehicles and traffic that the project would throw at it.
The bridge east of I-25 on Prospect Road that goes over the Lake Canal Ditch already is shaken by the
big trucks that cross over it now and to improve or replace that bridge will require Fort Collins to invest
up to $750,000 — maybe more. The bridge on County Road 5 that crosses the Lake Canal Ditch is also
inadequate for the traffic the project would create. Then there is another bridge on County Road 5 that
crosses over the Poudre Inlet directly outside the project that would also need to be replaced. Poudre
School District does not plan to make, or finance, any of these improvements.
The flood plain of Box Elder Creek east of I-25 would be impacted by the development and the berms
that are planned to surround the site. If there were a flood of Box Elder Creek the water would then be
channeled into the housing developments around the project site.
The Poudre Inlet runs along the south side of the property and will unfortunately be the recipient of
ground water pollution from the site and will carry it to the Timnath Reservoir.
The surrounding area the development will adversely impact is now zoned residential or agriculture and
has homes on acreages. An industrial development such as this one is totally out of place in this
neighborhood. The neighborhood should not be insulted by the traffic, noise, exhaust smells, air
pollution, ground water pollution and visual pollution. The site is a bad choice.
In conclusion, the project is inappropriate without a great deal of infrastructure improvement and
should be in an' already industrialized area such as Harmony Road or Vine Drive and not in a residential
neighborhood such as East Prospect.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Barbara Troxell
12/7/08
Dear Members of the Poudre School District Board and the Planning and Zoning Board,
This letter is in response to the proposed project called the Poudre School
District/Larimer County Joint Service Facility located east of I-25 and north of East
Prospect Road.
Residents of our neighborhood were invited to a neighborhood meeting on November
18`" 2008 to inform us that the Poudre School District was proposing a joint industrial
development with the County on the western side of this site and a future school on the
eastern side.
When the City, annexed this property in 1990, it was zoned RLD, or Low Density Rural.
Since then, the zoning was re -termed Urban Estates District. Currently flat farmland, it is
a dogleg property sandwiched between rural county neighborhoods. The proposed
industrial development is simply not compatible with the surrounding rural county
neighborhoods. The environmental impact of building lighting, diesel emissions and
engine noise will adversely affect the established rural lifestyle that surrounds the
property.
The development, as proposed by the Poudre School District, requires significant
infrastructure improvements. Normally, those improvements would be paid for by the
developer, however, it is our understanding that Poudre School District would not be
responsible for much of these costs. What remains is the critical question: Who will pay
for this needed improvement, particularly to the Prospect Road/I-25 interchange?
The Prospect Road Bridge over I-25 is rated by CDOT as "functionally obsolete" at its
current level of use. According to the described use of the facilities, most of the traffic
generated will be going to or over the interstate. Adding the traffic associated with this
type of development will further congest the intersection and create significant safety
issues. The impact of all phases of the proposed project must be considered in the
planning process. Prudent planning would require the infrastructure to be in place before
development occurs.
We will continue to be involved in the development process of our rural county
neighborhood design because we place a high value on the quality of our environment
and our safety, as well as that of our neighbors.
Sincerely,
Edie and Randy Stout
1801 Meadowaire Drive
Fort Collins
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - Planned Development Page-3-1
facility in this location because they have the land. They do not care
that this land is not currently zoned for this use nor has this type use
been planned for this property, they just want to save a few bucks
rather that acquire property in an area which is set aside for
industrial use. It is further evident that they do not aspire to any
higher responsibility to our community in that they are not planning to
improve access to the facility from any direction and are planning for
alignments which will have a high impact on surrounding neighborhoods
and are planning the cheapest landscaping options that they can think
of.
There are many areas in the county that are planned and zoned for
industry, the type of use outlined in this proposal. A bit of creative
thinking by the parties responsible for this plan could go a long way
towards placing this facility in an area, which is more suited to this
type of industrial activity, rather than placing it in an area, which
has been planned for years as a low -density residential area.
Please exercise good judgment as you make recommendations and funding
decisions on this proposed development. We urge you to find another
property for this facility that is appropriate and fitting for its
zoning and respectful of surrounding neighborhoods.
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - Planned Development Page_2
(Current), and Timnath Future Land Use Plan (Map, shown as Ft. Collins
Urban Growth Area) are classified as low density or very low density
housing.
I attended the neighborhood meeting and I was appalled at what was being
proposed. I do not know all the details but I see many issues that need
to be addressed. I am not in favor of something as ugly and inefficient
as this proposed plan. This land is not zoned for use as outlined in the
proposed plan. This plan includes a lot of asphalt, fuel tanks,
increased noise, and air pollution, along with an 8-foot berm along
Prospect. The current zoning for this type of industry according to all
the maps I could find is east of this area close along 1-25.
1 am in favor of allowing a school on property as a proper use of that
land following ideas, which have been laid down in land use plans for
many years. Most schools, if not all, are well designed to be part of
the community. This proposed industrial park needs to adhere to the same
concept in that it needs to be located in an area that is planned and
zoned for industry and has the infrastructure to support industrial
uses.
With the extra development in this area, Prospect and County Road 5 are
exceeding their "cow town road" limitations. An example of this can be
seen along Prospect west of the 1-25 interchange. The small canal bridge
was not improved when the road was rebuilt. Increased traffic due to
road improvements further west and a rest stop being built near the
interchange have taken a toll on this bridge. It has been smashed up so
often that the guard rails are no longer being replaced because they
will just get smashed up again. With no plans to improve Prospect to
allow access to this industrial park I can see that the road east of
1-25 will be in just as bad a shape. I wonder how many school buses will
need to be fished out of the canal each year. At the meetings that I
attended, I got the impression that the proposed plan is not going to do
anything to improve the canal bridges, the 1-25 interchange, Prospect or
County Road 5.
Another concern is the alignment of an access road to the industrial
park with Meadowaire. Meadowaire is a narrow, 25 MPH road, which was not
built for heavy truck traffic. Because of the alignment with access
roads to the industrial park, heavy school busses and other maintenance
vehicles will naturally use Meadowaire Drive for access to CR5
Southbound. It is much easier to go straight and make one right turn
rather than make two tight turns, one onto Prospect East and another
onto CR5 South. Even if drivers are banned from doing this when driving
public vehicles, I can see them speeding through my neighborhood when
driving their private vehicles to and from work.
The plan as presented calls for an eight foot berm to hide the
development from the surrounding residential areas. I personally have
always found these berms to be ugly additions to any property. It seems
to me as if the property owner is trying to substitute a quick cheap
pile of dirt rather than spending the money to properly design and
landscape the interior development.
As it stands, my husband and I are opposed to this plan. It is quite
easy to see that the school district and county have merely planned this
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - Planned Development __Page_!
From: "Larry Smith" <LarryS@FiberLok.com>
To: ASanchezSprague@fcgov.com
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:21:27 AM
Subject: Planned Development
Hello Ms. Sanchez -Sprague,
The following is a letter concerning a proposed development located near
my neighborhood.
I would appreciate it if you would please forward this to the members of
the planning and zoning board.
Thank you,
Larry and Vicki Smith
Larry & Vicki Smith
1924 Meadowaire Drive
Fort Collins CO 80525
(970)484-4810
Ihsvas@msn.com
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
PO Box 580,
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
December 9, 2008
Dear Board Members,
My husband and I have a house on Meadowaire Drive in Homestead Estates
where we have lived for the last seventeen years. We are still
considered one of the newcomers in this subdivision because the turnover
in the neighborhood has been minimal. Homestead Estates is made up of
one -acre lots and keeps the feeling of being "rural." Over the years, we
have seen Kitchell Estates, Timnath Meadows and now Seratoga Estates
built, all low density housing areas. So basically we have $300,000 to
$500,000+ rural homes in an area which under current zoning maps
including the Ft. Collins 1-25 subarea plan map, Ft. Collins Zoning Map
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - Poudre School DistricULarimer County Service Facility i Page 1
From: <DennyS9733@aol.com>
To: ASanchezSprague@fcgov.com
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 8:03:34 AM
Subject: Poudre School District/Larimer County Service Facility
To Whom It May Concern:
We are opposed to the proposals in our neighborhood. It is far too
industrial in nature and inappropriate for a developing residential area. We object
to the traffic congestion and diesel fumes that we would be subject to.
The construction noise and pollution we have experienced in the past few
years we knew were temporary. What is proposed would be constant and ongoing.
This is inappropriate for our neighborhood and should be positioned off the
Mulberry and 125 interchange with other large equipment parking.
Dennis and Doni Sanders
1623 Carefree Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
**************A Good Credit Score is 700. or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/l 00000075x 1215855013x 1201028747/ao I?red i r=http://www. freecred itrepor
t.com/pm/default. aspx?sc=668072%26h mpg I D=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)
CC: Berts9733@aol.com
No Text
Timnath Meadows Estates, Homestead Estates and the individual homes along East Prospect Road.
Contained in the listing of permitted uses for the industrial district (1) are such entries as transit facilities
with or without outdoor repair and storage, transport terminals (truck terminals, public works yards,
container storage), warehouse and distribution facility, outdoor storage facilities, vehicle major repair,
servicing and maintenance establishments, offices, financial services and clinics. These entries are close
or very similar in use and nature to the components of the industrial portion of the proposed PSD
project. You will not find any of these entries in the urban estates district (U-E) district at the other end
of the zoning spectrum. It would not be appropriate or allowed for a private entity such as Shamrock
Transportation to build a facility of this nature in a (U-E) is district and it would be no more appropriate
for a public entity to do so. In addition, if the entirety of the proposed PSD project is sanctioned, rules
dictate that the Land Use Code must be amended for the approved additional permitted uses in all (U-
E) districts. This could lead to future conflict as well as provide inconsistency across the other land use
districts that are progressively more urban in nature.
An honorable solution would be for PSD to research and purchase a more appropriate site for this
project or use a parcel that they already own. Speaking as a private citizen, I have reached my limit of
frustration with public and private entities which proceed with planning and operating on a "because we
can" attitude.
Based on the guidance provided by the land use code as a whole, the transportation portion of the
proposed PSD development is incompatible and inappropriate for the U-E district. I further object to the
proposed "addition of permitted use" request based on the same reasons.
The proposed PSD project would also exacerbate the strained traffic and infrastructure strain that
already exists. Although the traffic study for this project reports acceptable LOS figures for existing
conditions, and uses an accepted methodology, I feel the peak time parameter does not represent
actual conditions. As a result, the LOS figures are effectively diluted and appear acceptable. However,
during actual a.m. and p.m. peak times, the actual LOS figures would likely reach unacceptable
measures.
Please give my input serious consideration in your deliberations. I look forward to speaking with you
directly regarding both issues described in this letter at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting on
February 19.
With best regards,
Barry S. Nichols
1601 Meadowaire Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
970.484.4990
February 5, 2009
Dear Members of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
I am a 28-year voting resident of Homestead Estates Subdivision which is located directly south of the
proposed Poudre School District/Larimer County Joint Use Campus. As a long time resident of the area, I
was an active participant in the process surrounding the Galatia Annexation and the proposed Galatia
Development of 1991. 1 was in support of the Low Density Planned Residential Zoning that was
established in that era and the subsequent Urban Estates (U-E ) Zoning established in 1997.
I wish to voice an adamant objection to the Poudre School District (PSD) project mentioned above for
two primary but not exclusive reasons:
1. Approximately two thirds of the project is industrial in nature and therefore incompatible in
reference to the purpose and intent of the U-E District.
2. The overall traffic associated with the project will contribute to anticipated and documented
LOS failures in the area, as well as traffic safety concerns.
The proponents of the proposed project cite the U-E permitted use for "Public Facility" and the
subcategory "Transportation systems or facilities" as their primary justification for allowing the
transportation portion of the development. They further reason that the warehouse and office
buildings, being sought as an "addition of permitted use", should be allowed due to compatibility with
the transportation facility portion.
A review of the Fort Collins Land Use Code reveals that there are twenty eight districts, two of which are
designated as reserved. There exists an apparent progression from the most rural and restricted use
districts such as the rural lands(R-U-L) and urban estates (U-E), to the most urban and least restricted
use districts such as employment (E) and industrial (1). It is notable that "Public Facility" is a permitted
use in all districts.
The working definition of Public Facilities includes no less than eleven general categories which do not
list a breakdown of specific examples. The Public Facilities designation undoubtedly contains a great
deal of variability as to type, purpose, size etc. It is my belief that the authors of the Land Use Code did
not intend to imply that any manifestation of any public facility whatsoever be allowed in any district.
It is my contention that there is an appropriate place for each public facility within the Land Use Code
and that this is best determined by referencing the descriptions of purpose and the examples provided
within the individual zoning districts. A review of the U-E as well as the (E) and (1) districts reveals a
sharp contrast in purpose, intent and the examples provided. I specifically request that each Planning
and Zoning Board member review the contents of these districts in the Land Use Code before a decision
is made on this action.
The industrial portion of the proposed PSD project is large in scope, extending over 60 acres and
sandwiched between the existing rural low density subdivisions of Kitchell Estates, Serratoga Falls,
If the District goes forward with the development of even the short-term phase and then the
interchange is not re -constructed, what the District will have is a 98-acre parcel of land with a
warehouse in the middle of it, still with a huge irrigation ditch encumbering the land use for any
developer and an inadequate infrastructure to allow for effective transportation to and from Fort
Collins, and the Interstate.
The School District may be hard pressed to sell or find other good uses for this potentially valuable
land. Surely there is leasable, vacant warehouse space in favorable locations that would meet the
District's needs until a more suitable project site without the difficulties associated with the
Prospect site could be found. It would be poor planning to break ground on phase 1 of this project
without the critical infrastructure plans solidly in place and with the funding ensured.
A second, but certainly not lesser, compelling issue is the inconsistency of the project's intended
land use with the existing Urban Estates zoning. In 1990, this land was zoned RLP, Low Density
Planned Residential, and then re -named U-E in 1997, when the City Plan was adopted, to ensure
compatibility with the existing rural residential neighborhoods. In a letter to us at the time of the
Galatia Annexation process, Mayor Susan Kirkpatrick said that the resulting zoning of RLP
"reflected a decision by City Council to maintain and enhance the area's overall quality of
life ... and that there is a need to address the important issue of congruent land use."
The UGA agreement specifically states that new residential development "shall mitigate potential
negative impacts on adjacent existing residential development by maintaining the character and
density of existing development along common boundaries." These were reassuring words when
we were only concerned with the level of density in potential residential development.
We believe that the planning values and principles that put this zoning in place still exist today.
The fact that PSD is able to put these facilities here because of the special entity status does not
lessen their inappropriateness. They do not belong in our back yard, or anyone's residential back
yard. Based on conversations we have had with planners and the rules that govern zoning
regulations, we believe that no commercial developer would be permitted to put any of these
proposed industrial facilities on this parcel of land.
The residential neighborhoods that existed at the time of this parcel's rezoning still exist today.
The highly industrial nature of all of the land uses in the PSD/Larimer County proposal is
completely inappropriate and inconsistent with the existing land uses.
The School District should be a respectful neighbor and find more compatible uses for this site, or
sell all or part of the property and purchase a parcel that will meet its needs that is not surrounded
by existing residences.
There may, indeed, be some appealing factors related to the use of this land for PSD's purposes.
We sincerely hope we have provided other important viewpoints and information as both Boards
consider this project.
We will welcome the opportunity to be present and to participate at the meetings in which the
project will be discussed. We would also be happy to provide any clarification or other information
regarding our statements if it would be helpful.
Sincerely,
Cheri and Barry Nichols
1601 Meadowaire Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
970.484.4990
For example
According to the analysis of the TIS, the interchange would have to be re -constructed by the mid-
term phase of the proposal (slated as "by the year 2015") to allow for functional use of the facility
by PSD and Larimer County. The impact isn't just the extra traffic generated by the workers getting
to and from the facility to work.
The functional use of the entire facility would require heavy use in and out of the site, and over
(and back over again) the interchange by large vehicles, heavy equipment and buses. This is
evident since 50 out of 52 PSD schools (96.2%) and 2546 square miles out of 2,634 square miles
(96.6%) of Larimer County land exist on the west or opposite side of the Interstate from the facility
which, of course, is located east of the Interstate. Utilizing Hwy 14 and Harmony Road via CR 5 as
additional routes to the west are poor alternatives, as they are already over -stressed with traffic.
If the interchange were not to be completed before the mid-term phase of the facility is built,
its re -construction would severely disrupt, if not completely incapacitate the use of the
interchange for at least a significant portion of the construction phase, which would not be
short. It is unrealistic for this plan to assume the interchange would be done by 2015, cited
as the target for the mid —term phase.
As the project engineer for the North 1-25 Corridor Environmental Impact Study, Mr. Long Nguyen,
said, this is not just a matter of building a road or re-constructing/expanding an average
interchange... there is "significant earth to be moved" to accommodate the future widening of 1-25.
Even more significantly, there have been no definitive solutions offered in response to our citing
the interchange (which is rated as "functionally obsolete" at its current level of use) as a critical
problem that needs to be addressed with very limited funding options and at an astronomical cost.
The possible formation of a special tax district by landowners to the north on both sides of the
interstate has been mentioned. There are numerous significant pitfalls and barriers related to this
solution and Board members need to know that efforts to market and develop this land have been
going on for many years. The parcels are still vacant, and the critically challenged state of our
economy does not support the premise that this is a realistic plan to address the $30 — 45 million
estimated to reconstruct the interchange.
There are no public funds available at any level of government and none are projected to be
available in the next 20-30 years, according to CDOT and City officials, to improve the Prospect
Interchange. It is considered to be of lower priority than other north 1-25 interchanges that are also
without available funds.
Following through with the problem analysis, we come directly back to the conclusions of the
District's own TIS: the mid-term phase functional use assumes the reconstruction of the interstate.
PSD officials that are considering funding decisions need to know, as we all do, where this money
will come from. Without a solid plan in place, continuing with the development process is
extremely risky at best, even breaking ground on the short-term phase, building the solitary
warehouse.
The analyses that are done by engineering and planning professionals, such as the TIS, are
designed to comprehensively evaluate appropriateness of a project based on adequacy and
feasibility of its technical and functional aspects. We believe that this project merits deeper
digging, as well as a broader, common-sense view to detect and expose some of the significant
nuances about the area's infrastructure issues, the land parcel's geography, the proposed project's
function, existing zoning, the lack of available funding, and how these factors inter -relate.
The data may miss the forest for the trees, and we believe that is exactly what is happening.
December 15, 2008
To: The City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, and
The Poudre School District Board of Education
Re: The East Prospect Road Poudre School District/Larimer County Joint Development
As 28-year residents at 1601 Meadowaire Drive, we have participated over the years in formal
discussions, giving input about development proposals in our area. When development has been
proposed, it has always been vitally important to us to support land uses consistent with the
existing rural residential neighborhoods.
The zoning designation of PSD's parcel is Urban Estates District, or U-E. It is surrounded to the
north, south and east by established and developing rural residential properties, Homestead
Estates, Kitchell Estates, and Serratoga Falls. Three other neighborhoods, Timnath Meadows
Estates, the Clydesdale developments and Sunflower are located very nearby.
On November 18th, we attended a meeting where we learned for the first time about the details of
a proposed development on the land owned by Poudre School District (PSD) east of 1-25 on
Prospect Rd. As local residents, and for numerous reasons, we strongly oppose the industrial
nature of this development. We further believe that for significant reasons which we will outline,
this is not a favorable site for PSD. For PSD Board members, we have attached the site plan. In
order to have a full understanding of the issues that need to be considered, it is imperative to see
the entire plan and imagine the complex in the midst of what does not show up well on the map:
established neighborhoods bordering to the north and south and a very high end residential
development in progress to the east.
Since the November 18th meeting, many residents of the surrounding neighborhoods have
organized, conducted meetings, made phone calls, and engaged in research, educating ourselves
about the pertinent issues and how to participate in the formal development review process. At our
request, Ted Shepard, of the Fort Collins Planning Department, has set up a 2nd Neighborhood
Meeting with Ed Holder, Construction Manager for PSD, Eric Bracke, the consultant who did the
Traffic Impact Study (TIS), and Joe Olson, the Fort Collins Traffic Engineer who reviewed the TIS.
We very much appreciate the accessibility, information and cooperation of the officials involved.
Through many inquiries, we have learned of the "special entity" status of PSD which, as a
Colorado school district, is governed on many levels by Colorado state statute. We understand
that it is not actually necessary for the PSD Construction Manager to receive approval or
recommendation for this development by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Yet, it is in the best interest of the School District, as well as the citizens, for the review process to
provide expertise, and an objective, critical review of the details of the proposal. It is incumbent
upon both Boards to really examine the key elements of this particular piece of land, and
demonstrate good judgment in decisions, as there are some potentially critical flaws in the project.
At our 1st Neighborhood Meeting, and in subsequent conversations with officials, when we have
asked questions related to what seem to us like such obvious serious problems in the project, the
issues have been dismissed with vague responses that did not address the problems at all. These
vague responses are not acceptable to us, and should not be acceptable to either Board that will
be considering whether or not to recommend, approve or fund the project. We will continue to ask
for responses to these questions and for the seriousness of the issues to be acknowledged and
addressed.
To:
Fort Collins City Government
Planning and Zoning Dept.
PO Box 580,
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
From:
Keith Malsom
2001 Meadowaire DR.
Fort Collins, CO.80525
RE: Proposed school bus depot on E. Prospect Rd.
Dear Board Members,
12/10/2008
I attended the neighborhood meeting and I was surprised at what was being proposed. I am not in favor
of something as ugly as this proposed plan. This land is not zoned for use as outlined in the proposed
plan. This plan includes a lot of asphalt, fuel tanks, increased noise, and air pollution. The current zoning
for this type of industry according to all the maps I could find is east of this area, closer to 1-25.
The area for the proposed bus depot, which under current zoning maps including the Ft. Collins 1-25
subarea plan map, Ft. Collins Zoning Map (Current), and Timnath Future Land Use Plan (Map, shown as
Ft. Collins Urban Growth Area) are classified as low density or very low density housing. I consider this
plan better suited for an industrial area.
The alignment of Meadowaire and access to the bus depot is of major concern to our neighborhood. With
the increased school bus traffic that will inevitably cause traffic backups at Prospect and CR5 people will
look for alternate routes to CR5. They'll take Meadowaire DR. This is a 25mph street, but you know
they'll be going much faster. Even with the increased development east of 125 in the last few years I have
noticed a marked increase in the number of vehicles using Meadowaire DR. as an alternate route from
Prospect to CR5. I'm sure this proposed plan would increase our traffic considerably more. If this plan
goes forward, please consider changing the entry roads, possibly to the frontage road along 125.
Please look for an alternate, more appropriate location for a school bus depot, fueling and repair station.
Seek industrial zoned areas.
Sincerely,
Keith Malsom
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - Proposed PDS/Larimer County E Prospect Rd. Development Page 1
From: Donna Lusby <rudi5dog@yahoo.com>
To: ASanchezSprague@fcgov.com; sstruve@psdschools.org; rudi5dog@yahoo.com.
Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 8:52:33 AM
Subject: Proposed PDS/Larimer County E Prospect Rd. Development
To:
Poudre School District Board of Education Members
Planning and Zoning Board Members
From:
Donna Lusby
2001 Meadowaire Drive
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
If you were buying a house for your family would you prefer to be adjacent to an open space area, a low -
density housing development, or a bus depot?
If the bus depot would be your last choice, I suspect you know why I'm writing this letter. I live at 2001
Meadowaire Drive. We all have acre lots with modest homes. There is minimal light pollution and a nice
rural/family feel to the area.
A school bus depot with a minimum of 4 trips a day for 90 buses, their drivers and other stuff you planned
for the proposed development would be a major disturbance to this are. A bus depot is appropriate for an
industial area, perhaps west of 125 near the Livestock Auction area. The site you propose to build on
should remain low -density housing (although I would love to see an open space area).
What reasons support my preference:
1. the infrastructure of bridges and interstate overpass is inadequate for a bus fleet
2. a bus depot is not compatable with housing developments and zoning reinforces this perspective... the
area is zoned for low -density housing.
3. pollution... light, noise, particulate, etc. is undesirable, unhealthy and unsafe for families in the area
Please look for an alternate, more appropriate location for a school bus depot, fueling and repair station.
Seek industrial zoned areas. Re-evaluate whether or not the current location can be modified at less cost.
I look forward to your genuinely thoughtful consideration of the development proposal and the needs of
our community. It is the purpose of the Planning a Zoning Board to protect the community from
inappropriate development and it should be a concern of the school board as well.
Sincerely,
Donna Lusby
CC: Ihsvas@msn.com; K_Malsom@yahoo.com
Aaron and Angela LeClair
1728 Carefree Dr.
Fort Collins, Colo. 80525
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Av.
Fort Collins, Colo 80524
January 13, 2009
Dear members of the Planning & Zoning Board:
o (�rrPT
JAN 14 2009 D
We understand that Poudre School District needs improved warehouse and bus
parking facilities, but the Poudre School District / Larimer County Joint Service
Facility is an inappropriate industrial -type use of land surrounded by 95 homes —
many of which have horses in the well established neighborhoods. The land is
zoned Urban Estates, not Industrial. Keep the industrial areas as industrial, and
keep residential areas as residences.
The traffic congestion will become intolerable when 90 PSD buses and Larimer
County Road & Bridge road maintenance vehicles bog down the Prospect Road
traffic flow over the interchange, which is heavy during rush hour. Already, in the
morning, traffic is backed up down onto the interstate highway at times. The
overpass is inadequate to handle the many additional large buses, road graders,
and front end loaders from the proposed JSF site.
How can the Traffic Impact Study assume that only 60% of the JSF traffic will use
the interchange when more than 95% of PSD schools and Larimer County land is
located west of 1-25? Isn't there a warehouse site on the west side of 1-25 that
PSD could use or build upon instead?
Please, do not recommend that the Joint Service Facility may proceed with
construction.
Sincerely,
Aaron LeClair
Angelina_Sanchez-Sprague-_1-25/Prospect Proposed Development
Prospect Road Infrastructure, bridges and ditches - Reference
should be made to the previous paragraph that discusses the structural
integrity and available funding relating to not only the 1-25 interchange,
but also Prospect Road, County Road 5 as well as any and all bridges and
canals in the areas surrounding the development.
As stewards of the public good, we ask that you strongly consider if
building this project:
1) Is the Best use and appropriate use of the land?
2) Provides a Direct Public Benefit?
3) Puts public resources to the best possible use?
This type of facility would create a massive burden on the delicate balance
of community and environment. We implore the District to find another more
appropriate site for this project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kristine S. Laine, RPAR
4823 Kitchell Way
Fort Collins, CO 80524
CC: Cherix1@aol.com
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - 1-25/Prospect Proposed Development _ Page 2
facility at this location would be catastrophic. Using the land for its
original intended use and zoning is appropriate. What is being proposed is
not. The follow list represents a 'birds -eye -view' of the negative impact
any other use for this land would bring forth:
Land Use Incompatibility - Warehouses and office buildings are
not permitted uses in the Urban Estate zone. These are NOT appropriate
uses, given the surrounding residential land uses.
Economic Conditions - At the Northern Colorado Business Reports
Economic Forecast at UNC on Thursday, January 15th , it was stated thatjob
growth will be flat, unemployment will be up and construction will continue
to lag. At the recent meetings in Timnath, we were informed that there are
budgetary constraints relating to this development as well as any road,
bridge and landscape funds. We urge the Planning and Schools Boards, as
well as Administration to be mindful and responsible in their
decision -making on this issue.
PSD
Page 2
Environmental Impact - The proposed facility and use thereof
will pollute and disturb the environment with respect to: Air Quality,
(Emissions from vehicles, trucks and equipment) Vistas (Mountain views to
the West and South), Groundwater, (Emissions from vehicles, trucks and
equipment) Wildlife Habitat (Geese, Fox and Coyotes) and Noise (Cars, Buses,
Large Commercial Equipment). Adding Landscape and Building Berms will not
be effective in mitigating the affects of such a large-scale, industrial
facility. Again, in this economic climate, funds relating to'Landscaping'
are likely to be pushed to the bottom of the pile.
Traffic and Inadequate Infrastructure - According to CDOT, the
interchange at 1-25 has been deemed "Functionally Obsolete". In addition,
the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization does not include
Prospect or the 1-25 interchange in any tier of its study as a planned
improvement project through the year 2035. It should also be noted that The
Traffic Impact Study done for the District stated that without improvement
to the interchange, there would be'major capacity failures at all
intersections at the interchange'. Please refer to my comments relating to
Economic Conditions. We were told there are no funds available for this
area.
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - 1-25/Prospect Proposed Development Page 1
From: "Kris Laine" <krisandsteve762@msn.com>
To: sstruve@psdschools.org; ASanchezSprague@fcgov.com; mspearna@psdschools.org;
operations@psdschools.org; mortega@psdschools.org; kevinh@psdschools.org; ...
Date: Monday, January 19, 2009 8:01:23 AM
Subject: 1-25/Prospect Proposed Development
To: Members of the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, the
Poudre School District Board of Education, Jerry Wilson, Poudre School
District Superintendent, Jim Sarchet, Assistant Superintendent of Business
Services, Kevin Hahn, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools,
Manny Ortega, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, Bill Franzen,
Dept. Head of Operations, Michael Spearnak, Dept. Head of Planning, Design
and Construction
Kristine and Stephen Laine
4823 Kitchell Way
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-416-5707
January 19, 2009
We are residents of 4823 Kitchell Way. The property directly to the south
of our residence is the 100 acre site that is being proposed for
development. It is our understanding that The Poudre School District owns
this land and has for quite some time. We have enjoyed the farming that
takes place each season and feel that sense of 'Days gone by' as we wave to
the Farmer on his tractor. We are also enjoying the many, many Geese, Fox
and Coyotes that have settled in and around this property.
We have known that this land is zoned for a school, and eventually one would
be built, when the need arises. Having recently attending some Town Hall
meetings in Timnath, we were surprised and shocked to hear that a
Maintenance Facility, Bus Barn, Fueling Station and like buildings were
being proposed at this site. While the meetings were setup to 'inform' the
residents of the pending development, I walked away feeling surprised,
frustrated and concerned.
Building a facility of this type on land surrounded by residential
communities is completely out of place. The negative impact of such
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - Fw: Oppose Industrial Nature of Facility Proposed on East Prospect! -Page 2;
The Traffic Impact Study done for the District has stated without improvements to the interchange, there
would be "major capacity failures at all intersections at the interchange". There are currently capacity
failures daily since the Colorado Visitor Center was built on the West side of the interchange. That alone
brings a huge increase in semi -trucks and other traffic. I see it everyday since I actually live in the area
and use Prospect!!!
NO FUNDING SOURCES EXIST WHICH WILL BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THE INTERCHANGE TO BE
RECONSTRUCTED OVER THE NEAR AND DISTANT FUTURE. Example: 1-25 & Highway 34 has not
has any improvement despite the huge volume of new retail spaces on both the East and West sides of
that interchange.
Please find another site for this project such as Mountain Vista Drive (CR 50). Build a school on east
Prospect.
Thanks,
Jo Lynn Kuhn
4615 Kitchell Way
Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 482-7883
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague Fw: Oppose Industrial Nature of Facility_Proposed on East Prospect!
From: "KENNETH JO KUHN" <TUTTERDAG@msn.com>
To: ASanchezSprague@fcgov.com
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:09:04 AM
Subject: Fw: Oppose Industrial Nature of Facility Proposed on East Prospect!
----- Original Message -----
From: KENNETH JO KUHN<mailto:TUTTERDAG@MSN.COM>
To: sstruve@psdschools.org<mailto:sstruve@psdschools.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:07 AM
Subject: Oppose Industrial Nature of Facility Proposed on East Prospect!
I am a retired Poudre High School teacher, and I support building a school on the 100 acre property
behind me on East Prospect and County Road 5. However, a bus garage, fueling station, warehouse, and
Larimer County trucks, etc. would have a drastic, negative impact on the environment and property values
of the surrounding homeowners. The industrial nature of this facility may need to be built, but I oppose
this site.
I implore the District to find another, more appropriate site for this project and for the City and District
planning staff and boards to uphold the intent of all zoning and land use guides of the last 30 or more
years that have designated this property for uses that respect and ensure transition with the residential
areas around it.
The site is surrounded by existing and developing residential neighborhoods. The land use code
technically allows public facilities (all the structures other than the warehouses and office buildings) on any
site in the Zoning by District Matrix. Despite this, on this site, we maintain that they are not appropriate
due to the rural setting of its surroundings. The very 1st phase of the project is the warehouse, which is
not currently a permitted use in Urban Estates zone. The "addition of a permitted use" process may easily
provide a way to allow it, but again, it is not an appropriate land use, given the surrounding residential
land uses. In addition to not being allowed in this Urban Estates zone, here are my other concerns:
A. Environmental Impact
The structure in this facility and their use will pollute and disturb the environment with respect to air
quality, visual (vistas and light), groundwater, wildlife habitat, and noise.
B. Traffic and Inadequate Infrastructure Concerns
The interchange at 1-25 and Prospect is rated as "functionally obsolete" by CDOT. What are CDOT's
viewpoints and concerns? They should be sought and heeded.
The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (one of 15 Regional Transportation Planning
groups formed by CDOT) did not include Prospect (which is a County road), or the interchange in any tier
of it's study as a planned improvement project through the year 2035.
N� c�
o d ha r-e '
UI
OL OLD
OLD
// 6 Y.0 .
1 �/ /h Cvi(�V/%U� idS
� CL C-
S� v A
a 1-.
JO y
(D
S ll Y
dl2,s 2 �YU G4S
�Y�
�-
01/0 s,7(,r�J . l
S 15
IN G, d
c,j , 1 )
OL
n ,roso-e c OL
L I
l uI 6/Sc� �es7/ro��cl
I S
C,
now_
h -r k l�
6 �.. h,Q ✓S a v �-- lLe.l-e_ CTv S
� � d-ti� O ✓u O�rd� `�
�1-e--
�--
[nJ e
bLi
No Text
I.Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - Zoning_for PSD irresponsible Ragell
From: David Jump <unstuck@mesa networks.net>
To: ASanchezSprague@fcgov.com
Date: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:10:05 PM
Subject: Zoning for PSD irresponsible
To Members of the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
The proposed PSD faculty on the corner of Prospect and Country-5 is
irresponsible because the infrastructure will not be improved prior to
the building of the first phase of the PSD warehouse. Because the rest
area is located north of this interchange there are a higher number of
semi trucks crossing at this intersection. With the limited room of only
two lanes and no bike lanes on the overpass a semi truck making a left
turn on Prospect has to hug as close as possible to the concrete girders
on the overpass bridge and even then the trucks back tires comes close
to a car that is stopped at the traffic light on Prospect.
We realize that Fort Collins, Larimer County and CDOT have no money to
upgrade this intersection. But because buses are like semi trucks this
makes a dangerous intersection even more dangerous. The economy is in
recession and Governor Bill Ritter is having to make massive cut to the
state budget and the probability of this intersection being upgrade from
it "functionally obsolete" status is highly improbable at best The
traffic study on its own says that if the intersection is not upgrade in
six years there will be many massive failures. We implore you to not
authorize the building of these faculties and ask you to wait until a
later date when the infrastructure has been improved. We personally are
not against the idea just the implantation and lack of foresight on this
project.
Sincerely,
David Jump and Ginger Jump
1617 Carriage Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525-9701
FV,J20�1
1.
3 2009
'L
],/I, o Ct - ^'d e-,XAZl dWe7vo-i'C' r
6400,� Cool. —
if
Non -Subdivision Properties on East Prospect (south side)
Parcel Number
87222-00-014
$199,970
87222-00-012
$428,400
87222-00-011
$370,500
87222-00-010
$256.300
87222-00-018
$294.500
87222-00-015
$377,600
87222-00-019
$226,600
87222-00-021
$225,300
87222-07-701
$121,420
87222-07-702
$306.990
Average:
$280,758
Median:
$276,400
Total:
$007,580
(Included in Grand Total Actual Value on page 1)
Far East Prospect Home Values.xls Page 2 of 2
Far East Prospect Road Homeowners Actual Values November 30, 2008
"Actual Values" obtained from Larimer County Assessor Property Records
Homestead Estates
Kitchell Estates
Timnath Meadows Estates
Parcel Numbers
Parcel Numbers
Parcel
Numbers
87221-05-xxx
87150-06-xxx
87230-08-xxx
001
$281,600
001
$565,300
001
$575,100
002
_
$292,600
002
$436,800
002
$360,400
003
$322,400
003
$414,100
003
$362,100
004
$259,900
004
$680,100
004
$525,400
005
$293,600
005
$502,300
005
$439,700
006
$370,100
006
$539,400
006
$638,700
007
$241,800
007
$499,500
007
$471,400
008
$337,200
008
$552,200
008
$494,300
009
$338,900
009
$480,000
009
$394,100
010
$286,700
010
$403,400
010
$395,200
011
$316,900
011
$476,800
011
$439,300
012
$259,200
012
$472,200
012
$334,300
013
$305,700
013
$503,400
013
$432,500
014
$306,400
014
$709,900
014
$436,600
015
$290,000
015
$487,400
015
$372,100
016
$278,600
016
$534,300
016
$360,900
017
$341,800
017
$344,900
018
$300,500
018
$450,300
019
$273,100
019
$443,600
020
$294,400
020
$434,100
021
$246,300
022
$266,200
023
$267,500
024
$370,900
025
$263,100
Immediately Adjacent to Project
026
$323,700
027
$288,800
Affected by Project Noise/Traffic
028
$260,500
029
$291,200
030
$322,000
031
$298,900
032
$404,300
033
$35,670
034
$321,500
035
$250,700
036
$358,000
037
$308,600
038
$298,800
039
$337,200
040
$436,800
041
null
042
$278,600
043
$315,600
044
$254,600
045
$275,000
046
$277,000
047
$255,800
048
$284,900
Average:
$295,395
$516,069
$435,250
Median:
$277,800 j
$50Q900 1
$435,350
Total:
$13,883,570
$8,257000
$8,705,000
Grand. Total Actual Value:
$33,653,250 (Includes values
from page 2 below)
Assessed Value(0.0796):
$2,678,799
PSD Annual Tax Revenue
(0.0482):
$129,118
Far East Prospect Home Values.xls Page 1 of 2
The soil in the general vicinity is about 3 feet deep. Below the surface soil are alluvial
gravels and loose rock to a 50-60 foot depth which are in -filled with copious quantities of
ground water from the Boxelder Creek and Poudre River watersheds.
Ed Lesh, owner of Lesh Well Drilling, described the area from Wellington to Windsor as
a large lake filled with gravel. Farmers depend heavily upon this supply of water to
irrigate their fields. We residential/equestrian property owners also depend upon our
adjudicated well water rights to maintain our properties in a viable state.
If a liquefied chemical, road salt, or petrochemical spill were allowed to reach the
aquifer, it would rapidly flow through the loose gravel for large distances. This cannot
be allowed to occur!
In closing, we 90 property owners feel as if Poudre School District and Larimer County
scoff in disrespect toward our properties in which we have invested significant quantities
of cash and sweat equity.
While the JSF may meet the letter of the zoning law, to place this industrial -type of
activity in the middle of three mature residential/equestrian properties defies the spirit of
zoning law. The JSF will be a grossly inappropriate land use plan at this site.
Finally, if for no other reason than money is easy to measure, you may wish to view the
attached Excel spreadsheet which details the Larimer County Assessor's Actual Value of
each of our —90 properties, our cumulative $33,653,250 property value, our $2,678,799
Assessed Value, and our annual $129,118 revenue contribution to Poudre School District
— about $1435 per year per owner.
We do not debate the need for the JSF. We strongly recognize that the academically
excellent Poudre School District and Larimer County need improved warehousing and
maintenance facilities that are closer to I-25 and their Denver -based suppliers and
vendors. However, we believe that a site located west of 1-25 will cause significantly less
traffic congestion, especially if several streets and roads are nearby to quickly disperse
the bus traffic. Are no suitable locations available in the East Mulberry/Airpark
industrial parks?
Please, the Poudre School Distict / Larimer County Joint Service Facility should
NOT be recommended for approval.
With great respect for your difficult responsibilities,
Jim and Debbie Hebbeln
Page 3 of 3
The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) assumes that the interchange will be replaced by 2015.
• Where will the $25-30M funding come from? Neither the City, nor County, nor
CDOT, nor PSD have funds for improvement of the interchange.
• How can the owner of the White property — alone — possibly assume the great
expense to replace this interchange?
• Even if funding was available, normal CDOT construction intervals (design, contract,
build) would just barely complete the project by 2015 when PSD envisions
completing Phase 2 which includes the bus parking.
The TIS assumes that 60% of the JSF-generated trip ends will use the interchange and
that 40% will travel eastbound to the Timnath Main Street intersection (formerly known
as Larimer County Road 5). There are no other intersections serving this site.
• Only 2 of the 52 PSD schools (4%) are located east of I-25.
• About 90 of the total 2601 square miles (also 4%) of Larimer County are located east
of I-25.
• How can the TIS assume that only 60% of the JSF traffic will use the interchange
when 96% of PSD and Larimer County are located on the opposite side of I-25?
The TIS measured the traffic "turning movements" in August and October 2008.
• At that time, gasoline cost $4/gallon and Colorado Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
was curtailed by 4-5% from the levels of September 2007.
• Hasn't the TIS under -counted the historical volume of traffic at this interchange?
• Shouldn't the TIS also have counted the quantity of trucks in the traffic mix?
Have Poudre Schools and Larimer County performed an Environmental Impact Study?
It appears that many acres of roads and parking lots are proposed on which to park the
school buses and Road and Bridge maintenance/construction vehicles. The buses run
stop -and -go day after day, and construction equipment is notoriously oily/greasy. Will
you concede that these vehicles always will be dripping some sort of petrochemical onto
the pavement?
• Where will the oily anti -freeze laden storm water runoff flow?
• There is no natural drainage from this site. Storm water has traditionally flowed from
the agricultural field into the New Cache La Poudre Reservoir Inlet Canal parallel to
Prospect Road and into Timnath Reservoir. This canal often flows even in Winter.
• How will PSD/Larimer County propose to contain this polluted outflow?
• Will all roads, parking lots, and garages, from the onset, be concrete paved with
sealed concrete curb and gutter to guide to storm water to purification facilities?
• The JSF plat shows Detention Ponds. Will the JSF simply route the chemical laden
storm water — without treatment — to the detention ponds?
• Will the JSF allow storm water runoff to stand in the detention ponds — to flow down
onto our valuable aquifer?
0
Page 2 of 3
Jim and Debbie Hebbeln
1647 Enchantment Drive
(southeast corner of East Prospect Road and Timnath Main Street)
Fort Collins, CO 80525-9778
JimHebbelnamsn.com
H:970-224-2012
W: 970-491-1014
Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
January 13, 2009
Dear Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board members:
Is this a picture of the troublesome 1-25 Exit 262 at Colorado Highway 392 with cars
dangerously queued down the exit ramp and out onto the highway? No.
This is northbound Exit 268 at Prospect St., January 20,p�and CSU classes aren't yet
in session. When the students return next week, it will become worse, especially on
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday when more classes are scheduled.
Therefore, we 90 residents who live adjacent to the most eastern portion of Fort Collins
implore you not to recommend the Poudre School District / Larimer County Joint
Service Facility (JSF) project at about 4700 E. Prospect Road — east of I-25.
The addition of the proposed 90 school buses, large delivery trucks, Larimer County
Road and Bridge motor graders, trucks, and front end loaders will further degrade the
Level of Service at the I-25/Prospect interchange, as well as westward on two-lane
Prospect Street for two miles to the first major intersection at Timberline Road.
Page 1 of 3
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - PSD/Larimer County JSF Page 3,
uses that respect and ensure transition with the residential areas
surrounding it. Please respect that zoning as it is "URBAN ESTATE".
Once again, WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS DEVELOPMENT!!
Sincerely,
Bruce, Barb & Ryan Farrell
1701 Meadowaire Drive
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
CC: cnichols@healthdistrict.org; Cherixl@aol.com
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - PSD/Larimer County JSF — Page 2
in this area
* Bald Eagles, Golden Eagles, Red Tailed Hawks, amongst numerous other
raptors use this area to feed and nest.
* The prairie jumping mice (protected in the State of CO) will all be
negatively impacted.
* NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY HAS BEEN COMPLETED FOR THIS SITE.
* We moved to this area for the wildlife and lack of noise, which will
be compromised for a thoughtlessly planned project.
* EPA standards to be met for the bus facility and Road Crew facility.
Impact studies have not been recorded for these entities.
The Boxelder Flood plain and Watershed will both be affected
negatively by this project.
* The aquifer's that run under all our properties would be damaged
beyond repair from the groundwater drainage, oil/gas leakage, storm water
drainage, and sewage..
* Our property floods with every torrential downpour, and most
basements flood in this area, due to the high water table.
Traffic and Inadequate Infrastructure concerns
* The interchange at 1-25 and Prospect road is rated as functionally
obsolete by CDOT. The overpass shakes when you are stopped on top waiting
for traffic at the stoplights. How long before we have another bridge
collapse such as the bridges in Denver or Minneapolis. When will CDOT have
the funds to improve this interchange?
* The planning organization has not listed this interchange
improvements until sometime after 2035!
* The traffic impact study which was completed for this project states
that without improvements to the interchange, there would be MAJOR CAPACITY
FAILURES AT ALL INTERSECTIONS and AT THE INTERCHANGE.
* Prospect Road currently cannot withstand any increase in traffic
The bridge over the Lake Canal Ditch and Prospect are rated by CDOT
as inadequate in size and structure.
* Significant expensive road improvements would be required, for which
there are no funds!
* Movement of the ditch along Prospect Road causes concerns as the the
effect on the water flow and pollution as well as expense to move the ditch.
We implore the district to find another, more appropriate site for this
project and for the City of Fort Collins (the Choice City), and District
Planning staff and boards to uphold the intent of all zoning ands land use
guides over the last 3o or more years that have designated this property for
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - PSb/Larimer County JSF _ Page_1
From: "Farrells" <bbrfarrell@msn.com>
To: DLeavitt@fcgov.com; sstruve@psdschools.org; ASanchezSprague@fcgov.com;
mspearna@psdschools.org; operations@psdschools.org; mortega@psdschools.org; ...
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009 9:00:39 PM
Subject: PSD/Larimer County JSF
To all members of the Planning & Zoning Committee:
We live on Meadowaire Drive due South of your proposed development.
WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
* We oppose this site for many reasons as listed in detail below, we
support a facility of this nature, to be developed elsewhere.
* We encourage PSD to consider one of the numerous other land options
that it already currently owns
* This facility will have a negative impact on the environment and our
property values
Land use incompatibility
* This site is surrounded by existing and developing residential
neighborhoods. The land use code technically allows public facilities but
NOT WAREHOUSES OR OFFICE BUILDINGS. These are not appropriate due to the
rural setting of its surroundings.
* the 1 st phase of this project is just the warehouse, which is NOT
currently permitted in an Urban Estates zone. We specifically moved to
this area for the rural setting. If Fort Collins really is the CHOICE CITY,
we would have a say in what is developed in our surrounding residential land
use areas.
* The project manager, Mr. Holder, has stated the the district DOES
NOT HAVE THE FUNDS (2.5 MILLION) required to complete even the 1st phase of
this project. In these uncertain economic times, why would they even
consider the start of a vast project without any funds being acquired first.
* All of the above mentioned concerns will be greatly complicated by
the recent and sure to be long-term downturn of the economy. The District
and County are both entities that will require bond issues for their
completion. Any project that does not have current funding are in jeopardy
of being completed. Given this reality, starting on this project will be
irresponsible.
Environmental impact
* The air quality, vistas, light quality, groundwater, wildlife
habitat will all be impacted immensely by this project.
* The numerous nesting birds and raptors that call this area home will
all be affected negatively.
The Fox, Coyote, Mountain Lion dens will all be negatively impacted
fQ�ws
January, 12, 2009�
To: Members of the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, the Poudre School District
Board of Education, Jerry Wilson, Poudre School District Superintendent, Jim Sarchet, Assistant
Superintendent of Business Services, Kevin Hahn, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent of
Elementary Schools, Manny Ortega, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, Bill
Franzen, Dept. Head of Operations, Michael Spearnak, Dept. Head of Planning, Design and
Construction
Re: Proposed PSD/Larimer County Joint Service Facility
We have lived in the Homestead Estates subdivision since January 1972. We moved to this area
37 years ago, specifically for the safe living conditions including clean air and land available for
organic gardening. We realize growth is coming our way. The proposed facility will have a
drastic negative impact on everything we deem to be a safe environment for life, including air,
noise, groundwater, wildlife habitat and established paths of various birds and animals. The
proposed facility is not appropriate due to the rural setting of its surroundings.
The traffic at 1-25 and Prospect has been greatly increased with the elimination of 2 rest areas on
1-25, moving them to Prospect West of 1-25. The numerous tourists, commuters, and trucks
having to navigate their turns on this obsolete structure are dangerous! The huge trucks slow
and greatly impede the flow of traffic causing many near accidents due to the narrow areas they
must navigate with their extended loads. The extreme number of buses, no less than 90 that will
be added to this equation will be increasing the danger to all involved. They will be on a schedule
crossing this interchange no less than 4 times per day. They will also have to navigate their large
size over and around various canal and ditch bridges in this area. Each one of these have
needed repairs arfd now upgrades to the repairs that have not been put into effect for the entire
37 years we have lived here. There have been many promises of the repairs of these as well as
the 1-25 and Prospect interchange being upgraded. There has never been the money available
and with the research that has been done, it is still not available and not likely to happen in the
near future.
What has happened to our'Choice' City? There are only 3 avenues to access Fort Collins from
the East. Is Harmony the only one to be considered as needing to be beautiful? Are you not
looking ahead for what is and will be representing Fort Collins? 1-25 and Prospect is NOW the
first representation to many tourists that are now using it due to the 2 rest areas being relocated
behind the Information Center, West of 1-25 on Prospect. The proposed project will be an
eyesore seen from I-25 as a representation of our'Choice' City. The addition of the bus traffic on
the outdated interchange is also an extreme traffic impediment, showing people a completely
different aspect of what our City is. They won't be seeing Harmony or the rest of our'Choice'
City.
We would greatly advise you to move this project to an area where there is a safe way to get the
buses to the majority of the schools that are located West of 1-25, and is not thrust in the middle
of surrounding residential neighborhoods. Let's keep our'Choice' City represented as it should
be.
Sincerely,
Patricia and Lesley Forbes
1617 Meadowaire Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - P & Z Board Letter.doc Page 2
significant costs as will the Interstate and Prospect Road interchange to make
them meet the projected needs of the proposed facilities. There are also
questions regarding the noise and potential water and air pollution of parking and
maintaining school buses and fleet trucks in the area. All of these issues will
require large expenditures of funds to address and correct. From the
Neighborhood meeting, it appears that the Poudre School District is not prepared
to address all of these issues, but just wants to put in a warehouse at this time.
To simply put in the warehouse with existing funds and delay addressing all of
the issues until later is shortsighted and will only lead to problems for both the
School District, Larimer County, and the surrounding neighborhoods.
It would seem to me that if the Poudre School District only needs warehouse
space at this time, it would be more appropriate to look for a long-term lease on
current commercial warehouse space rather than build a warehouse on the
proposed site. Warehouse space should be available at very reasonable prices
in the current economic market, and a long-term lease would allow the Poudre
School District and Larimer County time to fully assess their future needs and
funding options. I would suspect that the School District with time could find a
more appropriate use of the property in question.
Sincerely yours,
Richard L. Dunn
5021 Kitchell Way
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - P & Z Board Letter.doc Page 1
December 14, 2008
P& Z Board Members
Dear Members:
My name is Richard Dunn and I live in Kitchell Estates at 5021 Kitchell Way. My
wife and I have lived at this location since 1989, and we have thoroughly enjoyed
the neighborhood and the views of the mountains from our home. We were here
when the current school board property on the north side of East Prospect was
annexed into the city at the urging of a developer who wanted to put high density
housing in the 100 acres between Kitchell Estates and Homestead Estates. We
worked with the City Planning Board and finally appealed to the City
Commissioners who agreed with us to zone the property surrounding Kitchell
Estates as Urban Estates so as to provide a buffer between us and the industrial
and commercial areas near the Interstate and frontage roads.
Apparently, the Urban Estates was not what the developer wanted and we
learned later that the Poudre School District had purchased this property for
potential use as a school. We fully understand that the School District can
purchase land and build a school in any zoning designation, and we were not
that concerned about a school being built on the property as it would still provide
some open space and fit in well with the surrounding residential areas.
However, on November 18, 2008, we were informed at the Neighborhood
Information Meeting held at the Timnath school that the Poudre School District
had decided to build material warehouses, office buildings, fleet maintenance
buildings, covered parking for school buses, and a fueling station for their use as
well as parking and fleet maintenance and storage for the Road and Bridge
Department of Larimer County.
I have reviewed the Fort Collins zoning regulations and nowhere did I find a
reference to the construction of warehouses and fleet maintenance and storage
facilities in the Urban Estates zoning designation. These belong more to the
Industrial zoning category which is located nearer the Interstate and along the
frontage road. Therefore, I believe that the construction of these types of
buildings and facilities are totally inappropriate for the property in question.
In addition to not fitting into the area, there are major issues with traffic into the
proposed site from large trucks, school buses, and office personnel. East
Prospect Road is not a major road and will need considerable improvements at
To: Members of the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, the Poudre School District
Board of Education, Jerry Wilson, Poudre School District Superintendent of Elementary Schools,
Manny Ortega, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, Bill Franzen, Dept. Head of
Operations, Michael Speamak, Dept. Head of Planning, Design and Construction,
My family lives in the neighborhood situated at the SouthEast corner of Prospect and County Rd.
5. We moved here because we enjoy the open land, away from the noise, congestion, and lights
in the city; it is a peaceful place to raise our kids. We support the fact that you may need to
expand, but we oppose the chosen site, and want to see the School District explore other options.
We take great pride in our homes, and have paid a higher price to have land and open spaces, and
now this site will ony drive down the already spiraling economy. There are four neighborhoods
that are negatively impacted by this development, one at each corner of Prospect and Co. Rd. 5.
Besides the grand negative impact on the values of our homes, the city has created a gridlock
situation by only creating one lane on Prospect Rd. all the way to nearly Timberline, so now our
commutes to schools and jobs will take even longer then the usual inconvenience of backed -up
traffic on Prospect heading into Fort Collins because we will be competing with buses and school
district employees; I can't imagine sitting longer on Prospect Rd. with diesel busses spewing
exhaust fumes into my car with my children. This is a health hazard. I believe the district find a
more appropriate site for easy flowing traffic, because for all the neighborhoods and community
to have to share one lane will be a fire and pollution hazard in addition to decreasing our property
values and quality of life.
The irrigation ditch is another concern for further pollution, and a grand expense to move it. In
this economic downturn the city or state are lacking the funds to correct the bottleneck traffic
problem by widening roads, and this project is costing so much money to complete, it may be
hanging for sometime before completion.
This land use is incompatible with the surrounding homes. My family would like to see the
district find an appropriate site for their use, and allow and respect this land site to be used for
zoning that blends with the surrounding existing and developing upscale neighborhood homes.
Thank you for your serious consideration, and I ask for wisdom and good judgement in
considering our concerns,
Greta and Kurt Dietrich
1852 Enchantment Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - Poudre School District-Larimer County Joint Service Facility Page 1
From: Sandy Cochran <sancochran@msn.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:34:33 PM
Subject: Poudre School District-Larimer County Joint Service Facility
To: Members of the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board,
the Poudre School District Board of Education,
Jerry Wilson, Poudre School District Superintendent,
Jim Sarchet, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services,
Kevin Hahn, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools,
Manny Ortega, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools,
Bill Franzen, Dept. Head of Operations,
Michael Spearnak, Dept. Head of Planning, Design and Construction
Dear Sirs,
We have lived on the North side of the proposed Poudre School
DistricULarimer County Joint Service Facility site for the past 5 years and
have fully enjoyed the rural nature of this area.
We moved in knowing full well that a school was proposed for this site. We
weighed the pros and cons and decided a school would be acceptable for this
area. We do own livestock and enjoy the open, peaceful nature of this area
plus the convenience of living near town.
We ask that the District find another, more appropriate site for this
facility project and for the City and District planning staff and boards to
uphold the intent of the Urban Estates zoning and land use guides that have
been developed for this area. These guides designated this property for uses
that respect and ensure a smooth transition with the residential area around
it. A warehouse does not fit these guidelines.
Why does Poudre School District need to construct a warehouse on this
particular property at this time with the current economic situation in the
state and the country? It would seem that a more practical approach
especially in this time with the potential of less tax revenue would be for
the School District to lease warehouse space in currently unoccupied
buildings in the Fort Collins or Larimer County area. With some
companies going out of business and others not expanding, it would seem
that sufficient warehouse space would be available for leasing at a
reasonable price, and they would be in an area already zoned for warehouses
and industrial services. We know that companies often lease space rather
than put their funds into owning their buildings. This allows them to use
their funds for other purposes.
We ask that you re -consider the placement of these facilities to a more
appropriately zoned area that can handle the industrial nature of this
project.
Please accept our thanks for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Brad and Sandy Cochran
1225 South County Road 5
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-223-9468
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - tshepard@fcgov.com; sdush@fcgoy coma_ kwaido@fcgov_.com;mengemoen@larimer_org _ Page 1
From: RICHARD DEBRA CAPE <rcape2@msn.com>
To: ASanchezSprague@fcgov.com
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009 9:03:42 AM
Subject: tshepard@fcgov.com; sdush@fcgov.com;
kwaido@fcgov.com;mengemoen@larimer.org
P & Z Board Members
Recently I attended a neighborhood meeting regarding the proposed PSD/larimer County Facility at
Prospect and County Road 5. 1 believe that there are two critical reasons that this proposal should be
denied.
First, the infrastructure does not exist to support it. The traffic study was predicated on the 1-25/Prospect
interchange, functionally obsolete and structurally deficient now, being replaced by 2015. When the PSD
Traffic Study consultant was asked what would happen if it wasn't replaced by 2015, his reply was "it
would be a mess." It appears very unlikely that this exchange will be replaced by 2015, as according to
the experts, that process would have to start now. The traffic mess and resulting danger is something that
both PSD and the rest of us would have to live with.
Second, this is a gross incongruity with prevailing land use. They are looking at putting what is essentially
a big filling station/service center among three existing neighborhoods. If it were not for their special
exception, this would not even be considered. We are not knee-jerk "NIMBY" folks. We did support the
White's proposed zoning changes, and we welcomed a school/athletic facility. There are plenty of
locations available in the community that would be suitable for such a facility, and PSD should have shown
more foresight in procuring them.
I know that you are in a difficult political position on this issue. Your recommendation, although as I
understand it not binding, will go a long way with PSD. The reason this community is the beautiful place
we all want to live in, is due in no small part to the decisions of your board. Please make the difficult
decision of denying the PSD proposal.
Richard W. Cape
4711 Kitchell Way
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-224-4663
CC: cherix1@aol.com
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - PSD-LARIMER COUNTY JOINT SERVICE FACILITY/E. PROSPECT ROAD DEVEL. Page 3
Deborah Cape
4711 Kitchell Way
Fort Collins, CO 80524
224-4663
CC: cherixl@aol.com
Angelina_ Sanchez -Sprague -_PSD-LARIMER COUNTY JOINT SERVICE FACILITY/E. PROSPECT ROAD DEVEL. Page 2
(2) Land Use Considerations
The project site is currently zoned Urban Estates. The entire length of the proposed parcel to the North
and South is bordered by residential acreages. While the warehouse and office are not permitted uses,
those pale in comparison with the incompatibility of plunking a joint maintenance facility for
heavy equipment and school bus storage ... as well as a gas station
for these
fleets ... into this project. These may pass the description matrix as "public facilities," in semantics, but
any reasonable person can see why the overall project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood
land use and clearly not transitional in nature.
We realize that as a special governmental entity, PSD has the authority to preempt current zoning. They
also have the corresponding responsibility of appropriate land use. It is my understanding that PSD will
apply for an "addition of a permitted use" to allow the warehouse to be built in this U-E zoned parcel. This
would set a precedent that any other U-E zoned land developers could request the same.
Considering the surrounding residential neighborhoods, school, athletic
and other community -oriented facilities would be entirely appropriate. The proposed heavy equipment
maintenance facilities with bus fleet storage and fueling, regardless of zoning terms such as "public
facility," is simply incompatible. I challenge each of you to consider if this would be deemed appropriate
adjacent to your
existing residential neighborhood ... and how you would feel about that.
Solutions
Questions I would ask if I were considering such a project, and before rushing forward with this proposal,
would include the following:
Is the existing warehouse facility really bursting at the seams or in unsafe disrepair at this time? How
soon does this facility really need to be replaced? Could another already existing warehouse be used to
augment the current facility as an interim measure? Could there be a warehouse more accessible to
schools on the South end of the district in a commercial or industrial area? With the economic downturn,
perhaps an empty space such as the old WalMart off Harmony and College could be used as a
warehouse.
Would another PSD site be more suitable for this project, such as the
100-acre parcel just north of Timberline and Mountain Vista? The newer I-25 Interchange at Mountain
Vista would accommodate heavy truck traffic much better and lessen the impact on nearby
neighborhoods. It has direct access to Timberline as a major artery. The maintenance/bus/fueling
facilities would be down -wind of the existing neighborhoods. It is doubtful that this site would actually be
used for 3 schools (as explained to us at the neighborhood meeting), but could accommodate this project
as well as a high school and/or middle school in the future.
Lastly, the Prospect parcel is such prime real estate for residential use, with the prospects of contributing
to the tax base for the city, why squander it for this particular project?
In summary, when various aspects of this project are enthusiastically described by the PSD planners, they
may sound plausible and relatively innocuous. However, please keep in mind that
approval of the project as it stands opens the floodgates for an entire proposal to go forward which is
grossly incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and which lacks funding for sustainable traffic
flow infrastructure. Please reject this proposal and encourage the PSD planners to seek viable
alternatives.
Sincerely,
Angelina Sanchez -Sprague - PSD-LARIMER COUNTY JOINT SERVICE FACILITY/E_PROSPECT ROAD DEVEL _ _FRa7g#_j11
From: Deborah Cape <dcape23@yahoo.com>
To: tsimpson@psdschools.org; eholder@psdschools.org; SDush@fcgov.com;
TSHEPARD@fcgov.com; sstruve@psdschools.org; ASanchezSprague@fcgov.com; ...
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:11:27 PM
Subject: PSD-LARIMER COUNTY JOINT SERVICE FACILITY/E. PROSPECT ROAD DEVEL.
Having attended two neighborhood meetings and'spoken w/various PSD/Larimer Co/City of FC personnel,
I have grave concerns about the short- and long-term implications for the surrounding areas involved if
this project goes forward.
My primary concerns are (1) the traffic considerations and (2) the incompatibility this facility represents
within the context of the surrounding neighborhoods as addressed below:
(1) Traffic Considerations
Current road/bridge infrastructure surrounding the Prospect/1-25 interchange cannot support the usage of
existing traffic
patterns, coupled with the
addition of large delivery trucks, heavy equipment and bus traffic proposed. The current bridge
over 1-25 is only rated
at 66% currently. There is an irrigation canal bridge on Prospect Rd. and another at the intersection of
Prospect Rd and County Rd. 5 which are functionally obsolete as rated by CDOT and will require
mitigation. There is neither funding nor a plan for upgrading any of these already deficient bridges in the
next 5 years.
No matter how you spin the traffic impact studies, the warehouse related traffic alone would be more than
the "nominal impact' reported, since statistics are based on what I believe to be faulty projections in
regards to the directional flow of approaching and departing traffic (in percentages on pg. 11 of
Transportation Impact Study), for instance. Departing trucks would not be allowed to go South on Cty. Rd.
5 due to weight restrictions through Timnath, and would find it very difficult to make a left turn onto
Mulberry/Hwy.14 to the North. In addition, there have been two fatalities in the past year alone at
the disjointed intersection of Hwy
14/Cty. Rd. 5/Camino Real. The Frontage
Rd. North and South likewise provide no easy outlet for cars and trucks back into Fort Collins or onto 1-25
Therefore, this leaves much greater than 60% of traffic using the Prospect Rd/1-25 interchange.
Traffic over the Prospect Rd/1-25 interchange is becoming steadily more problematic. Moving the Rest
Area to the Visitor Center location has significantly increased semi -truck traffic on this interchange, and
the introduction of 3 stop lights within one-half mile over this interchange has the northbound trucks
making two left-hand turns at two of the three stop lights, bringing traffic nearly to a standstill, sometimes
through several lights.
Realistically speaking, there is no funding, much less plans by the city, county, or CDOT to address any of
these traffic problems in the foreseeable future. The joint venture with Larimer County is apparently only
in the
conceptual planning stages, with no formal intergovernmental agreement
and no financial resources to expend on this development project in the
next 3-5 years.
While the safety and nuisance issues
become insurmountable for those of us in the surrounding neighborhoods who drive these roads
everyday, you folks will have moved on to your next project, leaving us to deal with the problems created
by your last one! Is that consistent with the intent of the Fort Collins•Land Use Code stating that "the local
street system of any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and
attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system"?
end. We really enjoy our view of the mountains and dark night sky —I fear this
development will forever change that.
Again we sincerely request that the entities involved in making the decisions relating to
Joint Service Facility reconsider their decision to locate it on this East Prospect location.
We thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Edward and Marjean Bender
4817 Kitchell Way
484-0736
January 11, 2009
To: Members of the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
Poudre School District Board of Education
Jerry Wilson, Poudre School District Superintendent
Jim Sarchet, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services
Kevin Hahn, Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools
Manny Ortega, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools
Bill Franzen, Department Head of Operations
Michael Speamak, Dept. Head of Planning, Design and Construction
Concerning: Plans for Joint Service Facility on East Prospect
To Whomever it may concern:
My wife and I have lived in Kitchell Estates for over 16 years and truly enjoy the beauty
and quietness of our country living. We have recently learned of the plans to construct a
Joint Service Facility immediately south of our property. We would respectfully request
that such plans be changed. I offer some following concerns to justify my request:
This site is currently bordered primarily by well established residential
neighborhoods. It would seem to be inappropriate and objectionable to place
warehouses and office buildings in the midst of these neighborhoods. I am
concerned about the negative esthetic as well as noise impact of such a
development. I am very concerned that it would reduce the property values in our
neighborhoods as well.
2. I am very concerned about traffic implications that could develop. The
interchange at I-25 and Prospect is already very inadequate. Increasing traffic in
the area will only worsen the problem. I understand there are not plans made and
not monies appropriated to improve that interchange even in the long range
governmental vision.
3. Our current national economic crisis could easily interfere with funding necessary
to complete such a project. I fear that the project may be started and inadequately
completed because of budgetary shortages. Significant expense will be required
to complete the many different phases of this project (Prospect Road
improvements, moving the water ditch, improving current bridges and building
new ones, and significant landscaping).
4. What affect this may have on the environment is unknown and is of concern.
There are numerous wells in the area —what negative effects might this cause our
groundwater? With dozens of buses housed just yards from my home —what
effect will this have on air quality and noise? We love watching the fox frolic at
the back end of our property —I fear that such wildlife watching pleasures might
As officials presented at several neighborhood meetings, the first phase of the proposed development
would be a warehouse which is not structurally conducive to surrounding buildings (houses), tree farm,
and wholesale nursery. Also, a "warehouse" is NOT currently permitted as a use in an Urban Estates
Zone. We have heard that Poudre School District does not have the funds to even complete the
warehouse, much less the entire project. It seems very irresponsible to start a project knowing full well
that the means are not available to complete it. Both Poudre School District and Larimer County will
need bond issues passed for public funding for completion of this project which could take years to
accomplish.
At least one person in our family notes a vehicle accident at least weekly between the east and west
frontage roads as we travel Prospect Road several times daily. One neighbor, a few years ago, almost had
his leg amputated in an accident in which a semi truck driver did/could not see to the west and pulled out
in front of him from the exit ramp as our neighbor came across the I-25 bridge going east. CDOT has
declared the interchange "functionally obsolete" which poses significant safety hazards. With increased
numbers of vehicles and trips on Prospect Road, we are sure to witness many more collisions weekly
instead of one or two. How many legs and lives must be severed for this inadequate situation to be
rectified? Certainly, as stated above, adding more vehicles and traffic is not the answer to reducing
property and bodily damage in our neighborhoods. Why is Prospect Road not included in planned
improvements by the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization through the year 2035? To
our knowledge, there are no funds available or designated to correct the I-25/Prospect Interchange even
though the Traffic Impact Study states, "The transportation facilities will be adequate and available to
serve this development as contained in the Larimer County urban Area Street Standards. All applicable
LOS (level of service) standards will be met since all transportation facilities are in place or will be in
place upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy." Diligent scrutiny must be given to these issues and to
allowing only the "permitted uses on zoning regulations" for the area.
In addition, the Lake Canal Ditch bridge and Prospect Road are rated by CDOT as inadequate in size and
road structure for the current use. Adding more traffic would surely hasten the deterioration of these
bridges and significant and expensive improvement would be required to be sufficient. It is proposed to
move the Lake Canal Ditch to the north edge of the property. Presently, the level of the groundwater
table is directly impacted by the water level in the ditch which has caused many of us to utilize sump
pumps if we have basements and also impacts the water level in our wells. How will moving the ditch
affect the water tables in the area?
Please seriously consider the devastation the proposed development would do to the environment,
animals, air and water quality and health of all living things in this area of Prospect Road. More
appropriate uses for the property would be low density rural housing (as that which surrounds the site) or
commercial development not involving contaminants such as fuel and toxic chemicals. A significant
number of property owners have lived over half their lifetimes in the area and would hope to live many
more years in a healthy environment.
Thank you for your dedication and commitment to find another site for this development.
Sincerely,
Deborah and Donald Bade
January 13, 2009
Mr. and Mrs. Donald Bade
1709 Meadowaire Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-224-9433
To: City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Members
Poudre School District Board of Education
Jerry Wilson, Poudre School District Superintendent
Jim Sarchet, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services
Kevin Hahn, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools
Manny Ortega, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools
Bill Franzen, Dept. Head of Operations
Michael Speamak, Dept. Head of Planning, Design and Construction
via email to jerryw@psdschools.org, jsarchet@psdschools.org,
kevinh@psdschools.org, mortega@psdschools.org,
operations@psdschools.org, mspearna@psdschools.org,
asanchersprague@fcgov.com, sstruve@psdschools.org
re: Proposed PSD Development
Dear Dr. Wilson, Mr. Sarchet, Dr. Hahn, Mr. Ortega, Mr. Franzen, Mr. Speamak, Poudre School District
Board Members and City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Members,
We have been homeowners of property at 1709 Meadowaire Drive in Homestead Estates for over 20
years and have significant concern about the devastating impact the proposed development will have on
the land, environment, traffic and safety in our area. The proposed industrial use of the property is not
compatible with the rural setting and Urban Estates zoning that has been in place for over 40 years.
The proposed development site is surrounded on three sides by low density rural residential
neighborhoods. The occupants of these homes will be negatively impacted by industrial development
with adverse noise, groundwater, wildlife, light and air pollution from many sources. The majority of
homes have underground wells used to irrigate acreages and water trees, crops and livestock. To our
knowledge, no EPA Environmental Impact Study has been performed to determine the effects this
development would have on existing wells and natural groundwater patterns or perhaps even our drinking
water. Would it still be safe to eat the vegetables from our gardens? Could our livestock safely drink the
well water as they are now? What will washing large quantities of chemicals off numerous vehicles do to
the water quality? What type of containment system would be implemented to avoid fuel and other
hazardous chemicals from leaching into the ground and water? What happens to the natural wildlife
habitat of the cranes, herons, hawks, rabbits, foxes and many other animals that currently live on the
property? We, and Poudre School District, need to understand and adhere to the applicable EPA
standards and requirements that impact this site and surrounding properties.
Every owner in the area takes great pride in maintaining a well manicured and attractive property.
Aesthetically, we have not been impressed with the follow through to landscape the transportation project
on Trilby and are skeptical to believe that landscaping would not take a backseat in priority on the
proposed development should funds run short.