HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM (CSU) ZONING - 56-98/A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (7)rezoning, especially the criteria that the zoning by compatible with existing
uses. The Board believed that the NC, MMN, and LMN zoning were compatible
with the residential developments directly to the south (LMN, RL) and to the
west (R). But what about the zoning compatibility with the agricultural
properties to the north and northwest? How compatible are the requested
zones with agriculture? Why shouldn't the property be rezoned agricultural?
I've lived here for 8 years, and I've watched the character of the area change
dramatically (for the worst) along the Timberline corridor. I've watched farms
along Timberline, from Harmony to Drake, disappear one field at a time,
replaced by acres of cookie -cutter housing developments, convenience stores,
and gas stations. I've watched beautiful, mature cottonwoods chopped down to
widen the road and make way for apartments. And I've seen property taxes go
up and farmers get pushed out.
I urge the Planning and Zoning Board to really look at the effect development
has already had on the character of our city, and the effects it will have in the
future. Every time a developer converts agricultural, ranch, or open space to a
housing tract or business, what do we gain? We gain the ability to drive to a new
convenience store, eat at a new chain restaurant, go to a new movie theater, or
shop at.a new mall; and of course, we get the traffic congestion to go with all
that driving around. Even when we widen roads, they soon they fill up with more
traffic. In short, all this growth and development just allows us to go more
places and buy more stuff. Is that what quality of life is all about? I don't think
so!_
Ask most people why they moved here, and they will say that it was the
proximity to the mountains, open space, clean air, good schools, low crime, and
little traffic. However, if we continue to develop every square acre of
agricultural, ranch, or open space, those reasons will no longer exist. And that is
why I wish that the Board had deliberated longer before making a decision on
the zoning of the Rigden Farm properties. Increasing a developer's profit
margin is not the best reason for reasoning, especially when it so radically
changes the agricultural character of an area.
I hope that members of the Board can personally visit the proposed
development sight and attempt to visualize the area with more than 1,100 homes
and a commercial center. I think you will see that a development in that area
will ruin the character of the area forever!
Sincerely,
Martha Roden
MARTHA RODEN
1967 MASSACHUSETTS ST.
FT. COLLWS, CO 80525
(970) 225-2572 AFC j
Dear Planning and Zoning Board,
I recently had the opportunity to attend a Planning & Zoning meeting (my first)
regarding the request by a developer to zone the Rigden Farm/Spring Creek
Farm properties as NC, MMN, and LMN, and to zone/rezone the Rigden
Farm/CSU property as LMN and RC. After a lengthy presentation by the
developer and a number of comments from the attending public (including my
own), the Planning & Zoning Board asked many questions, discussed a variety of
issues, and made the decision to approve the request.
The Board's approval left me somewhat concerned. I do not have a problem with
the concept of rezoning, and I understand that the City Plan is NOT cast in
concrete — it is a living document. What I do have trouble with is the fact that
the zoning/rezoning occurred specifically to provide a developer with the profit
margin that he needed. Why do I say this? Because of the circumstances
surrounding the request for the LMN and RC rezoning of CSU's property. The
developer wanted to take 100 acres zoned UE, convert 20 acres to RC and the
other 80 to.LMC. Converting a portion of an area zoned for urgan estates to
open land sounds good to me (UE to RC), but converting a portion of that same
property to LMC sounds not so good — it sounds more crowded. I believe that
the idea of UE was to provide a lower density buffer between more densely
populated areas and open land. Now we'll have LMC right up against RC without
any buffer/transition zone.
When the Board asked why the UE zoning had to be changed to LMC, the
developer said that he couldn't get the necessary number of homes on the
property if the zoning did not change. Specifically, a lower density of homes
would not be economical. The developer went on to say that although LMC allows
5-12 units per acre, his 80 acre LMC development would only have 2.32 units per
acre. One member of the Board (Mr. Davidson) asked the developer if he would
be willing to convert more of the original 100 acres to RC (perhaps 40-50 acres
instead of 20 acres). Mr. Davidson felt that the larger number of RC acres
might compensate for the proposed higher density development (LMC) on the
adjoining acres. The developer was not willing to do that because of his profit
margin concerns.
I continued to listen to the bartering back and forth between developer and
Board ("if you do this, we'll do that") and I thought about the parameters for