HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOMA ANNEXATION & ZONING - 53-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (7)Neighborhood Information Meetinq
Project:
Meeting Location:
Date:1- 1 S3
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Name
Address
Zip
Phone
Email
to
receive a
copy of
meeting
summary
(via email)
S, rs
3 d n
SOS 2 Zl
97Cj
�{ G
&7S2
�� g196
'
�► �
24
B�Z�
wit
Neighborhood Information Meeting
Project:
Meeting Location:
Date:
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Name
Address
Zip
Phone
Email
to
receive a
copy of
meeting
summary
(via "email)
'
I�c)O 1�
25.2y
90
q93-,20y0
I n
6-LL j SNA1 J2�f,
1605 S �.�RAMO � �E D 2
�D S z Y
�l 3 - n y
al', vu-mc re a � r i ; .
wi
vlA�l
VIM
Proje(
Meetii
Date:
Neighborhood Information Meeting
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
t
reolve a .,
copy of
teeefiing
Name-
Mdress
ip
Phone
Em it
summary
vWayematq
v
le o o zn v-e 'n
805a `�
a /s3
a �r� �J,ns a•
cf ✓
3? ✓�/ Zb i
3I S C' S .�'71-gq
l el vc 6 ri .
col
�osl�(
`1 �1�k5�Co
ci
e,�,(,4Qcor.o
"vo lQ,o to
SOS).y
qq5--96z3
6�osA�,osAeMSN,CL
U C � t'd l
9 0 J 2 �
y7.2 - I7`i
� c I \ G�
��^✓f U
` TE v - ' 145.14 K
oft Lr, �>v vb,
- ?
0V
E LFN9 k olla�J
��
-7 Ia (,{yvt
,✓/�
/Cool ,�pvvlr�oe�/r /✓/)r,
gK;q
�7/-%`/0�/
®
�i'ivnvi 2GvGd7ov1a 4P lc
,>uc F�
1411
Neighborhood Information Meeting
Project:
Meeting Location:
Date:
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
to
receive a
copy of
meeting
Name
Address
Zip
Phone
Email
summary
(via email)
n
l ZZS L. �� t its T'
c�S�S24
- /3- 0 /f
r bl rv� i wranC Ms7?.C'
�f
I-, 601K
h �
`✓
„ "
ZICC
Ylt.arU
3 9/ d. L04111
80S2-Lj
Ll 8l/'%S3
IVI 7Y /�� .�J +3i�J1
✓
1?
wee w-A -4/17
Jon Turner R E C E I V E D
Hillside/Crystal Cove Development, LLC APR 1 2006
8020 South County Road 5, #200
Windsor, CO 80528 CURRENT PLANNING
Dear Mr. Turner,
We are writing to you concerning the Boma Development, comprising approximately 80 acres at the SW
corner of Douglas Road and NCoRd 11, and located NE of Fort Collins. On April 5, 2006 a
Neighborhood Meeting was held with residents of the area. Residents from two adjacent County
Subdivisions (Serramonte Highlands and Cherrywood Acres), as well as other Larimer County residents
without a HOA (represented by the NorthEast Neighborhood Coalition) were in attendance. Since its
beginning, over 10 years ago, the NorthEast Neighborhood Coalition has worked to protect and preserve
the rural lifestyle and character of our area. In addition, we have made efforts to educate and involve
residents on issues such as land use, planning and development. Our aim is to maintain a quality of life
that is becoming more difficult for many in our area to enjoy.
We would like to encourage Hillside Development to respect the existing county subdivisions and
properties by making an effort to design this project to be compatible with rural -style residences.
Some methods for achieving this include:
1. Considering lower densities (by not using the maximum allowable density, or possibly re -zoning
to RUL);
2. Configuring development either as large lots or truly clustered, whichever is preferred by the
neighbors;
3. Creating mixed, modest architectural styles, not McMansions or Cookie Cutter developments;
4. Providing adequate buffers for existing residences;
5. Keeping a more rural feel with reduced street standards and lighting (RUL or variances);
6. Creating open space that is connected by corridors for the benefit of wildlife;
7. Protecting natural features such as mature trees and wetlands; and,
8. Providing trails for recreation, including pedestrians/bicycles/equestrians.
Additionally, we would also like to suggest that Hillside Development review the work currently being
done by the City of Ft. Collins (Advance Planning) and Larimer County with residents in the NW
Subarea Plan. I believe that our residents here in the NE share many of the same preferences and
comments made by residents of the NW area.
And finally, we would ask you to allow a working group of neighbors to meet regularly with you, or
your planning consultant, throughout the development process, to provide input and feedback.
We hope you will consider our requests and look forward to hearing from you. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me, Kathleen lkelly, at 493-7958. Thank you,
' )H
NorthEast Neighborhood oalitton rramon ighlands Cherrywood Acres
cc Jim Birdsall
Bud Curtiss -Ma(,a
Steve Olt
24. Comment: (Resident) We have questions about how the oil company
access road along the south side of the property is currently
being used and maintained and how that will occur in the
future. It does not appear to be used much now.
Response: (Applicant) We are proposing no changes to the oil & gas
facilities. The access roads will remain unchanged.
25. Comment: (Resident) We would consider you being more cooperative if
the development plan gave us at least 150 foot wide buffers
along the south and west sides.
26. Comment: (Resident) The City's 1,000 foot rule for notification of
affected property owners (set forth in the Land Use Code)
does not really apply in this area. It is not far enough.
At this time Kathleen Kilkelly, representing the Northeast Neighborhood
Coalition, read a prepared letter with a list of concerns about development in
this area, on this property. Copies of this letter will be provided to the
Applicant and the City.
27. Comment: (Resident) It is understood that the property owner has a
right to develop this property; however, with that
development right comes responsibilities, such as
compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.
28. Comment: (Resident) A minimum of 150 foot buffer, plus lots of
landscaping, between lots in this proposed development and
the surrounding neighbors would be a most welcome
concession from the developer.
29. Comment: (Resident) A total of 150 homes on this 80-acre property is
just too many and the conceptual development plan we see
tonight does not include/provide enough buffer to the
existing surrounding neighborhoods.
Qualification: These notes represent a best effort to record all that was
expressed by the Applicants, Residents, City Staff, and other
participants at this fastpaced neighborhood meeting.
11
19. Question: (Resident) How does this proposed development affect the
value of my property just to the north, across Douglas Road?
Answer: (City Planner) That is a question that would be better
addressed to and answered by someone like a property value
appraiser or a real estate agent.
20. Question: (Resident) What is the purpose of this meeting if this
development plan is already set in stone?
Answer: (Applicant) We, as consultants for the developers, are
listening to your comments. We can and will react to them.
(City Planner) The purpose of this meeting tonight is to give
the applicant the opportunity to present their "conceptual"
development proposal as they currently see it. They have not
yet submitted formal plans to the City for a significant
development review; however, when they do the plans must
satisfy the rules, regulations, and standards set forth in the
City's adopted Codes and Standards documents. The City
does not consider this current development plan to be "set in
stone".
21. Question: (Resident) How wide are these proposed lots?
Answer: (Applicant) The smallest lot will be 60' wide by 110' deep.
22. Question: (Resident) If the proposed RUL - Rural Lands District is
approved and adopted by City Council would you consider
designing to this District's standards?
Answer: (Applicant) We are not familiar with the RUL zoning. We are
currently zoned UE - Urban Estate and have every intention
of moving forward with a plan that will satisfy the UE
requirements.
23. Comment: (Resident) This transitional density should be no different
than Hearthfire, Serramonte Highlands, etc., developments.
5
15. Comment: (Resident) There are 4 significant impacts associated with
this proposed development:
• Migration of wildlife through the area and this property,
and how this development will affect movement.
• There is a feed lot and horses nearby in the area, which
will have a potential negative impact on the new homes
and residents in this development. This could become a
future nuisance issue.
• This development's impact on existing irrigation water in
the area.
• The nature of the future site lighting associated with this
development and the impacts it will have on a rural,
relatively dark area.
16. Comment: (Resident) Please preserve the existing trees on the property
and the nests (hawks) in them.
Response: (Applicant) This development plan is still in a state of flux
and is potentially able to change.
17. Question: (Resident) Is your layout and design considered "cluster"
development? It fragments the proposed open space, which
provides very little value.
Answer: (City Planner) Based on a preliminary review of the
conceptual plan the cluster as shown appears to meet the
clustering requirements of the Land Use Code; however, a
formal development application has not yet been made.
18. Question: (Newspaper Reporter) Is it worth losing a rural area for this
development?
Answer: (City Planner) This area has been in the City's Growth
Management Area for many years and is identified as
developable private property. It was recently annexed into
the City, through a voluntary annexation by the property
owner, and zoned UE - Urban Estate. There does not appear
to be any active agricultural use, other than potential
pasture, occurring on the property.
4
10. Question: (Resident) Will these homes be like the KB homes in
Richard's Lake or the Centex homes across Turnberry Road,
or will they be more up -scale homes?
Answer: (Applicant) The developer's plan currently is to have more
up -scale, large patio homes.
11. Question: (Resident) What will the impacts be on the current road
system in the area? The County does not have any plans to
do road improvements around here.
Answer: (City Planner) The City Engineering Department, through
Matt Baker, is already working with recent developments,
current developments, and proposed developments to
contribute to interim/ultimate road improvements in the
northeast part of the City to accommodate existing and
projected traffic volumes. This development will have to
participate in the improvements plan.
12. Question: (Resident) What will the impacts to the schools be as they
relate to this proposed development?
Answer: (City Planner) The Poudre R-1 School District is part of the
City's development review process. They will be routed
development plans when submitted for review and will have
the opportunity to provide comments to the City. At this time
there has been no submittal to initiate development review,
so the School District is not yet involved.
13. Comment: (Resident) To the developer, please recognize your neighbors
and consider a development more in keeping with the
surrounding neighborhoods. The development plan we see
tonight does not look "transitional", it does not respect
existing views, natural resources, etc. Make it more
compatible.
14. Comment: (Resident) There are Red -Tail Hawks on a nest in a tree on
the property now.
3
3. Question: (Resident) How will the gas & oil company continue to access
and operate on this property?
Answer: (Applicant) There is an existing access road along the south
property line to their wells. We are not proposing any
additional access easements. The configuration of the wells
and access will remain unchanged.
4. Question: (Resident) Can the oil wells be considered part of the
required "open space" in the cluster development plan?
Answer: (City Planner) That question is yet to be answered as the
development plan is formalized for submittal to the City for
review.
5. Question: (Resident) What kind of guidelines have you used for
preservation of open space on the property as buffers to
existing development?
Answer: (Applicant) The City's Land Use Code has guidelines/criteria
for open space in cluster development in the Urban Estate
Zoning District.
6. Question: (Resident) There is a cul-de-sac, with homes, at the
southwest corner of your proposed development. What is the
distance from their property lines to existing development?
Answer: (Applicant) The distance as shown is approximately 50' to
100', depending on the lot.
7. Comment: (Resident) The density of this proposed development does not
meet contiguity requirements to existing developments.
8. Comment: (Resident) This development proposal is not "similar" to
existing residential development surrounding the property.
The "maximum" density allowed in the Urban Estate District
is not required for this development.
9. Comment: (Resident) Please consider larger lots, more rural residential
development, on this property.
PA
Commut.Lty Planning and Environmental ,.__vices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
PROJECT:
DATE:
APPLICANTS:
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
BOMA Property
April 5, 2006
Jim Birdsall
The Birdsall Group
Berthoud, Colorado
Bud Curtis
Northern Engineering
Fort Collins, Colorado
CITY PLANNER: Steve Olt, G1ev
Current Planning
The applicant/developer is proposing a single-family residential development
on approximately 80 acres located at the southwest corner of Turnberry Road
(County Road 11) and Douglas Road (County Road 54). The proposal is for
about 150 - 156 dwelling units, in a clustered format/layout, and preserved
open space on the property that has recently been annexed into the City of Fort
Collins. It is in the UE — Urban Estate Zoning District in the City.
................. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS, RESPONSES .................
1. Question: (Resident) What is the name of the developer?
Answer: (Applicant) The developer is the Hillside Development Group,
which does include John Turner.
2. Question: (Newspaper Reporter) What is one flaw in your development
proposal?
Answer: (Applicant) Probably that existing oil & gas wells exist on the
property and we have to design around them.
1
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
Community Planning and Environmental services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
April 12, 2006
Dear Resident,
As per your request, enclosed you will find a copy of the recorded notes
(questions, answers, comments, responses, and concerns) from the
Neighborhood Meeting held on April 5, 2006, for the proposed residential
development on the BOMA Property, located at the southwest corner of
Turnberry Road (County Road 11) and Douglas Road (County Road 54).
Please be advised that the potential developers / applicants have not yet
submitted plans to the City to initiate a development review process for
the BOMA Property. City staff will not send out letters to affected property
owners to notify them of a development proposal when it has been submitted to
the City for review. However, shortly after a submittal is made there will be a
sign posted on the property that says "Development Proposal Under Review For
This Property", with the telephone number of the Current Planning Department
(970-221-6750) to call for information. It is recommended that potentially
affected property owners call this office periodically to see if a development
request has been submitted.
I encourage you to review these questions, comments, concerns, and responses
thoroughly for completeness and accuracy. Please contact me by phone, at
970-22 1-634 1 , or by e-mail, at solt a&cgov.com, if you find discrepancies or
think that a point was not recorded. If a development proposal is submitted for
review these notes will become part of the City's file for the project and will be
provided to the ultimate decision -maker for the proposal when a public hearing
is scheduled.
I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.
Sincerely,
&fly,
*46a 6(
Stephen Olt,
City Planner
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020