Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTH TAFT HILL 7TH ANNEXATION & ZONING - 38-02 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (3)2. Where would a Moore Lane extension go? What would a connection accomplish? After millions of dollars spent to dissect the bike trail, to go through the wetlands, then over Spring Creek, through existing farms and outbuildings, Moore Lane would dead-end at Silver Oaks Subdivision(which it already does). THERE IS NO WAY for Moore lane to connect with Horsetooth without tearing up Silver Oaks. The traffic would have to turn left on Moffatt and go east to exit on Taft Hill Road. What would have been accomplished with all those millions? The Overland Trail extension was defeated several years ago after fierce opposition, but the city seems to still be looking for a "western beltway" (all the way from LaPorte to Horsetooth and eventually to County Road 38E (Harmony). Where Overland Trail dead -ends now, if a road extension were again to be considered, there would be no wetlands to go through, no Spring Creek, no houses, no buildings in order to connect with Horsetooth. If the city thinks Moore Lane would be a substitute Overland Trail beltway, they had better think again. It simply can't be put all the way through to Horsetooth. 3. Besides enormous sums of money, a developer would have to fight a lengthy battle with environmental concerns and regulations (flood plain, etc.) in the immediate area of the bike trail. How could it possibly be worth it to him if the connected road led nowhere? 4. Why would the city spend huge sums and years to create a beautiful rural bicycle trail, totally apart from traffic, only to dissect and destroy this trail - for no good reason? The nearby recent bicycle tunnel under Taft Hill Road completes the entire Spring Creek Trail. It is a wonderful gift to be able to cross the entire city without traffic. 5. Cameron Gloss is a very good city employee. He is thorough and patient to answer questions. After the neighborhood meeting last autumn, he sent every affected citizen a summary. He made a good presentation to you at the meeting Jan 16 (that is his job). But you commissioners simply cannot picture what he is describing without seeing it personally. I realize you can't go to every site personally which is being discussed and decided upon. But this is a big annexation you are dealing with here, and verbal descriptions and photos simply do not make clear what is involved. It was evident from the comments most of you made that you really didn't get the picture or understand what he was talking about. Sorry these comments are long. But I think they will take you less time than a speech. Is there a way to file this letter for future perusal when decisions are being made concerning how the land and roads will be used or developed in this annexation? Thank you, The Butlers, 2503 Tucker Ct. To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Flo Butler, 2503 Tucker Ct. RECEIVED Fort Collins, 80526 Subject: Annexation Meeting, Jan. 16, 2003 Date: February 5, 2003 CURRENT PANNING Sirs and Ladies: It was instructive to attend the Planning and Zoning meeting, Jan 16. I have never been to one in the 10 years we have lived here. I stayed four hours but did not speak. So I would like to write my comments now. The meeting was a perfect example of a proforma decision. If the Angel Gabriel, himself, had plead with you ( trumpet in hand) to NOT annex the property south of the bicycle trail over to Taft Hill Rd on the east, you would have yawned your way through his impassioned comments and then voted YES anyway. That's a proforma decision - minds already made up. The most intelligent and important comment all evening went as follows (paraphrased): "99.99% of the citizens of Fort Collins don't know and don't care about this annexation decision. It affects them not in the least. Even if they knew about it, they couldn't care less. Yet the persons who ARE enormously affected, whose lives will be changed, are hastily listened to and then ignored." When the one courageous Commissioner voted against the annexation, she used that comment as her reason. "Nobody else knows or cares except the people directly involved and they DON'T want to be annexed, so I don't see any reason to vote YES. The words "may", "should", "must", "shall" were bandied about. The state wants the cities to "aggressively pursue" annexation of enclaves, but it is NOT a law ( there is no clause that says annexation MUST or SHALL happen). So, shouldn't the city in question be able to act according to the needs and wishes of the people directly involved. There was NO OTHER apparent reason given for annexation (Jan 16) except the words "aggressively pursue." Since the annexation has now been decided, against the involved people's wishes (the City Council will speed it right through - proforma again), I'd like to make a few points concerning what decisions might or will be made involving the annexed land. We were asked not to dwell on anything else but the annexation at this particular meeting and were told that we would have "plenty of time and voice" to bring up concerns later. Of course, that is a joke. If there ever was a time to bring up these matters, it was BEFORE the annexation. 1. I live (city land) where the Moore Lane cul de sac butts right up against the Spring Creek bicycle trail. Jim Manion (developer) built a bridge from the cul de sac right down to the trail. One of the comments made at the meeting was about the large amount of PEOPLE traffic on this street and cul de sac - going to and coming from the trail. I decided to sit on my deck (warm winter Saturday) and make a rough count. In two hours, there were 52 people whizzing by on the bike trail and 34 people funneling into it from Moore Lane. The street was full of walkers, kids on rollerblades and bikes, joggers, dog -walkers, parents pushing strollers and pulling burly trailers behind their bikes - all feeding into the trail. If the two ends of Moore lane are connected (over, under, through the bike trail?) how many kids would we lose to the through traffic.