HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK VILLAGE - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 26-99 - CORRESPONDENCE - LUC REQUIREMENTS (3)Steve O t - e: Spring Creek Village Page
From: Ted Shepard
To: Basil Harridan, Bob Blanchard, Clark Mapes, Dave ...
Date: 9/24/99 8:07AM
Subject: Re: Spring Creek Village
Troy, you have to go back to the 1982-1983 era when the L.D.G.S. was just adopted (1981) and
Landmark Apartments was submitted. Landmark was watershed project at the time because it put
multi -family housing where it was needed, near campus, near Bennett Elem, near parks and trails, on a
tranist route. etc. The only problem was that it was also in the Prospect Shields Neighborhood.
The issue at the time was neighborhood compatibility. The Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association
opposed the project in a BIG way. Since the L.D.G.S. was a performance zoning, impact mitigation
system, and Landmark "performed" very well, the issue became one of mitigating impacts. One of the
mitigation measures was to lower the first floor into the ground so as to create "garden -style" apartments.
Another key impact mitigation measure was that Farm Tree Road (now called Wallenberg) would not
extend to connect with Hobbit.
Over the course of time, we have learned that street connections are important. (There are several other
examples where street connections were not made that should have been made. For example: Stuart
does not connect to Riverside and Westfiled does not connect to Seneca).
That is why we wrote into the L.U.C. that street connections would be mandatory and could not be
negotiated away by Staff or P & Z board.
In the case of Spring Creek Village, I feel that the City, under the L.D.G.S., (through a legitimate, legal,
public, reveiw process) participated in a land use decision with a neighborhood that resulted in a great
project - Landmark Apartments. To go back and tell the neighborhood that we changed the Code and the
street must now go through would damage our credibility.
I think this connection is one that got away, partly because we are caught between two codes. We
learned from it, adopted a new code, and moved on. It won't happen again under the new L.U.C. The
bike and ped connections are strong which allows neighbors to access the center. Hope this helps.
>>> Troy Jones 09/22/99 11:49AM >>>
After staff review today, I got to thinking more about the modification request to eliminate the requirement
for a street connection at Spring Creek Village. I don't know if it came up, but does everyone realize the
proposed development is zoned NC? This would be eliminating the only possible street connection from
the NC zone to the surrounding neighborhood. In looking at the LUC and City Plan, there seems to be a
substantial number of places where this type of connection is specifically intended and required. If f
understand the reasons correctly, staffs was leaning toward supporting the modification requiest to
eliminate the possibility of cut -through traffic. Please see the attached fife that lists all of the City Plan and
LUC citations that ask for such a connection. I proposed that we (staff) reconsider support of granting this
modification request. Please forward any responce to this topic to all original recipiants of this e-mail
message.
Troy Jones, City Planner
Current Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
(970)221-6206