HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK RANCH - PDP - 14-05 - REPORTS - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (5)— 3 — June 9, 2005
that makes sense. We do not believe that this specific project is right for this piece of land.
Given that, The City may see it differently. In that case, we do not think the requests we are
making are extreme versus what we are giving up in exchange for the project moving
forward.
This project seems to be indirect opposition to what the taxpayers envisioned when they
voted to fund development of horse trails along horse properties. The increase in the
number of vehicles will spook horses, which, in turn, threatens the health and safety of the
animals and their riders.
Barbara and I would also like to know if traffic issues have been studied or at the very least
addressed. We would like to point out that the proposed development is very close to the
already congested intersection of Drake Rd. and Taft Hill Rd. We estimate that the eighty-
eight units will most likely have two cars per unit. Left turns made off Hull Street onto Taft
will be difficult if not impossible during most times of the day. Is the city going to control
traffic with another light so close to an existing one? Alternatively, will cars make right turns
only and add to the volume on Drake? We believe it is imperative that these issues be given
considerable attention before this project is allowed to move forward.
Barbara has forwarded pictures of our property and the surrounding area for your use and
to pass along to the reviewing person. We hope they convey the natural beauty and give you
a sense of what we are loosing to that person.
Once again, thank you for your understanding and patience. Please call either Barbara or
myself with any questions or concerns you may have. Our home number is 970-223-1440.
My cell phone number is 970-227-4418.
Sincerely,
Gregory D. Heffington Barbara L. Heffington
P.S. I will not be able to attend the hearing scheduled for June 16. My business requires that
I be out of town that evening. I have tried to get someone else from the company to cover
the commitment so that I could attend the hearing, but there is no one available. Please do
not take my absence as an indication of lack of concern for the outcome of the meeting. I
am very concerned.
— 2 — June 9, 2005
property. In the current design, the units on the West side of the project will have their
garage doors facing the proposed street regardless of how far back the front of those units
are from the property line. We will argue that reducing the setback; will have no effect on
the visual impact of the proposed homes. We contend that since new town -home residents
are looking out onto an open field the impact to those owners will be non-existent. The real
impact is to our space on the East side of the property. During our conversation, you clearly
indicated that you see the logic of this argument. You also indicated that you would not
necessarily oppose a change in the setback requirement to make it a more balanced (i.e.
equal) setback on both sides of the project. When I spoke with the Applicant on this issue,
she huffed and indicated while she agreed said, "I wish the city would just make up their
minds and stop changing these things after they made such a firm stand to begin with".
Once again, the Applicant cited "the enormous cost these changes incur and how I really do
not understand what these changes entail". I indicated that I believe The City to be acting
the best interest of the compatibility and did not know how we would feel at the onset of
the initial proposal. Now that comments are in and perspectives are being measured, the city
is trying to find middle ground. I do not think the Applicant sees it that way.
Second, those items upon which we agree:
1. Irrigation Water: The Developer will locate the siphon valve for the Pleasant Valley
Lake and Canal lateral ditch on our property so that we can control the flow and destination
of the water from the lateral ditch. The siphon will be at the high point on our property
with the drain flow diverted to the north down the lane from the back pasture to the front.
It will consist of a twelve -inch line from the beginning to end as well as the drain to the
north pasture. Additionally, they agreed that the homeowners association would be
responsible to maintaining a free flowing line through the development to the top of the
siphon.
2. Safety: The Developer will line the existing tree -rail PVC fence with wire mesh to
protect children and pets from entering the property and encountering the unpredictable
behavior of our horses. Additionally, they will post appropriate signage to warn
homeowners and guest of the danger in encounters with the horses, thereby attempting to
reduce liability.
3. Aesthetics and Privacy: The Developer will provide buffer landscaping sufficient
to reduce the ability of our new neighbors to look directly into our windows. (It is amazing
how much we take for granted that no one knows of our comings and goings and at least
twenty property owners immediately to our West will now see when we leave and when we
arrive back home any given moment in time. Let alone that fact that two story units with
heights over 32 feet, we will have no view of the mountains any longer.) The buffer
landscaping will need to be planted on our property since there is no room for the
landscaping on the development property according to the Applicant.
In the end, we believe the project does not fit with the existing pristine look and feel of the
surroundings. It imposes significant, negative impact to our life style and frankly our
property value. The residents living around this area like the open landscape the agricultural
setting affords them. We understand The City's desires to infill and develop existing land
already in the city limits versus continued expansion to those limits without regard to infill
Gregory D. Heffington
1821 West Drake Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
1-970-223-1440
June 9, 2005
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Community Planning and Environmental Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
(Via Email at tshepard e.fcgovcom)
Re: Proposed, Spring Creek Ranch Development Project, 2010 Hull Street
Dear Mr. Shepard;
Foremost, Barbara and I would like to express our appreciation for your patience with us
regarding our concerns over the Spring Creek Ranch Development Project. As you know
this is very difficult for us in that we have owned this property for over 25 years. We have
experienced many changes around us and will lose a significant amount of privacy and
ambience if this project goes through. Again, thank you for spending time with us and
visiting the property so you could get a better perspective our concerns and loss.
The intent of this letter is to follow-up and formally identifies those items that we have
raised in discussion with the Developer via the Applicant, Linda Ripley, and per our
discussion this morning.
First, the remaining challenges:
1. Initially, the project design had the detention pond on the North East corner of the
project envelope. The revised plan showed it moved to the North West corner. When we
asked the Applicant, why they moved it, she indicated that it was because in the original
location lots 1-4 would encroach on the 100-foot wildlife buffer zone. Subsequent
discussion with The City left us with the impression the buffer issue could be modified
based on other concessions and neighborhood compatibility. The Applicant agrees that is
the case. However, she held the relocation of the units and holding pond over our head as a
give back on their part if we would "just stay home the night of the hearing". Citing
potential out of pocket expenses between $6,000 to 8,000, the developer would agree to
spend the money to make changes if we do not challenge the project. It feels a little like
black mail. Barbara and I believe it is a reasonable request regardless of whether or not the
project goes through. The developer keeps the number of units he wants, the city gets the
detention pond on the downhill side of the property, the wildlife have adequate room to
pass the project and we maintain a little more privacy than we would enjoy otherwise.
2. Location of the East side versus West side setbacks and pedestrian spine we believe
to be a little arbitrary. No one appreciates the intent of The Code more than we do. We
understand The Code exists to remove the unattractive visual of driving down a street and
seeing nothing but garage doors facing the street and provide an attractive pedestrian access
for homeowners arriving on foot. The project does not have a street on the West side of the