Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE (HOFFMAN) - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 31-95 - REPORTS - CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONJune 8, 1995 Stephen Olt City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Olt: I am sending you the information about the Northern Larimer County Land Use Symposium to which I referred during the neighborhood meeting concerning the Hoffman P.U.D. on May 31, 1995. The actual document produced is 43 pages so I have only photocopied what I feel to be the most relevant section, in addition to some introductory pages. While much of the symposium actually dealt with methods of resolving conflict surrounding development in N. Larimer Co., the 75 participants did arrive at a series of long- term recommendations of a general nature. My greatest concern at this point is that a more effective communication between both the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County is needed. This symposium was conducted by the County, but there were several City officials present, including Greg Byrne -- Fort Collins City Planner and Gina Janett--Fort Collins City Councilwoman. In addition, the participants were drawn from both inside and outside the city limits. I feel that a development such as the Hoffman PUD--given its unusual location and relationship to rural areas --absolutely must involve input and attention from BOTH the City and the County, or the conflict that already exists will increase and further polarization of the community will result. Some of the major points of consensus for the symposium included preserving the rural character of N. Larimer Co., encouraging infill near developed areas in the core of the city, arresting leap -frog development, creating transitional density zones from urban to rural areas, and ensuring that development was compatible with already existing communities and neighborhoods. Therefore, I was quite distressed at the neighborhood meeting to find a development proposal such as the Hoffman PUD presented, which seems in direct conflict with many of these recommendations. If ,you would like to know more about the symposium I suggest you either contact those city officials I have mentioned or the facilitator of the symposium, Maggie Carter, listed on the title page. In addition, I sincerely hope that you, or any other city official involved with the Hoffman PUD, would establish and maintain communication with county officials, and be sensitive to the concerns of Larimer County residents. � nce. M. Kathleen Kilkelly 920 Inverness Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 493-7958 Based upon the incompatibility and the increase in traffic I urge all of you to oppose this plan and attend the upcoming neighborhood meeting scheduled for sometime in July. Also please write and call the following: Steve Olt -Planner in charge Current Planning Dept. 281 No. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, Co. 80522 Janet Duval County Commissioner P.O. Box 1190 Ft. Collins, CO. 80522 Planning and Zoning Board c/o Current Planning Dept. P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, Co. 80522 The 1st P&Z meeting should be in August. Please plan to attend. This letter is going to all of the people on the mailing list furnished to me by the Planning Dept. plus most of the residences on Gregory Rd. and Abbotsford. I know I've missed some so ask your neighbor to make sure they are informed. This letter is also going to those 3 entities listed above. The Goodale's position is that we are not opposed to anyone's right to develop their land and would support an acreage development of 1 to 5 acre tracts. 1 (', Cyr/`/ 1 Rick and-)dzathy Goodale 701 Gregory Rd. Ft. Collins, Co. 80524 482-8652 June 28, 1995 Dear Neighbor, I am enclosing a copy of a proposed residential development plan that if approved by the City of FTC would have a substantial negative impact on us. . The plan involves the development of 182 single family units on 67 acres. The density is over 3 units per acre. A higher density is found on the west end adjacent to Co. Rd. 13 and a lower density on the east side adjacent to Serramonte Highlands. I drove this entire area including Gregory Rd., Abbotsford Rd., Richards Lake Rd., Inverness, Co. Rd. 13, Serremonte Highlands, Douglas Rd., Kenyon Dr., Highland Dr. and Juanita Ln. and the east side of Terry Lake Rd. I counted a total of approximately 220 residences. An additional 182 houses would represent an 83% increase. Our neighborhood is a rural neighborhood consisting primarily of small acreages and farms. Lifestyles and activities include farming, 4- H projects, horse boarding, small cattle and sheep operations. This proposal is a high density urban development of probably 4 or 5 times the existing density and because of this we feel it is not compatible. The City recently adopted a new ordinance which requires a development to have a minimum density of 3 units per acre. This ordinance may make sense for in -fill projects however, if applied in the fringe areas such as our's, will have the effect of eliminating an already established rural neighborhood and forcing it to become just another small lot urban subdivision. Our whole town can then look the same. This high density development would also cause a big increase in traffic. Each residence generates (or takes) an average of 10 auto trips per day. This development would add 1820 trips on our roads every day. It appears that there are two access points, one on to Co. Rd. 13 and the other into Serramonte. It is obvious that none of us want to see a large traffic increase on what are rural, residential -and country roads. Abbotsford, Inverness and Co. Rd. 13 are gravel roads better suited for walking, biking and a few pick-ups. Gregory Rd. is a narrow 2-lane county road with a residential feel and a 30 mph speed limit with no bike lane. These roads are not built to safely handle a doubling of traffic use. I'm sure all of you in Serramonte never considered the possibility of this kind of increase in traffic on your residential streets. The developer might try to convince the City that the majority of traffic would go onto Douglas Rd., however, if a map is studied, it is apparent that the shortest route to most of the City is CO. RD. 13 to Inverness to Abbotsford to Gregory or out through Serrmonte on to CO. RD. 11 and then south to Country Club Rd. July 10, 1995 Mr. Steve Olt -Planner in charge Current Planning Dept. 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Olt: I am writing to oppose the Richards Lake PUD residential development plan. Presently, this area is a rural neighborhood consisting primarily of small acreages and farms. The new ordinance that the City recently adopted which requires a development to have a minimum of 3 units per acre is not realistic for this proposed development. This ordinance may have a place for in -fill projects, however, if applied to fringe areas such as ours, it will have the effect of eliminating an already established rural neighborhood and force it to become just another small -lot urban subdivision. This high -density development would cause a big increase in traffic. We have already witnessed a tremendous increase in traffic during the 27 years that we have lived on Gregory Road. In addition, Gregory Road is a narrow 2-lane county road, very similar to a residential street, with a 30-mph speed limit and no bike lane. Abbotsford, Inverness, and County Road 13 are. gravel roads better suited for walking, biking, etc., and limited traffic as they are presently being used. The developer may try to convince the City that the majority of traffic would use Douglas Road. If a map is studied, however, it is obvious that the shortest route to most of the City is County Road 13, Inverness, Abbotsford to Gregory Road or on Serrmonte to County Road 11 and then south to Country Club Road. I urge that this proposed development be denied as submitted. However, this acreage may be suitable for development of 1 to 5 acre tracts. Sincerely, Charley and Hilda Townsend 638 Gregory Road . Fort Collins, CO 80524 Buckeye Ranch West 3724 N. County Rd. 13 • Fbrt Collins, Colorado 80524 • (303) 224-2501 July 17, 1995 Dear Steve Olt, My family is concerned about the new subdivision now called Hoffman PUD proposed on the southeast side of Douglas Road and County Road 13 , surrounding Richard's Lake on the north edge of Ft. Collins. We live within 500 yards of the proposed subdivision. This area is annexed into the city, 85 acres with a proposed density of 3 units per acre, in accordance with a recent ordinance adopted by the Ft. Collins city council. There would be approximately 257 lots with 264 residences in this new subdivision.. Currently the surrounding neighborhood is mostly small rural acreage's, from 1 - 10 acres w;th arm animals ( horses, cows, shccp, llamas' ,farmland with hay and corn crops, horse boarding ranches, several home business' including a childcare center, a garden nursery , a carriage shop , several construction business' The surrounding dirt County roads are used for horseback riding, jogging, dog walking, horsecart driving and bike riding. The added pressure of almost doubling the traffic on these roads will eliminate all these activities not to mention the need to pave and widen the dirt roads and add a traffic light at the intersection, of County Rd 13 and Douglas Road. We are concerned about the introduction of suburban residents that may not be able to adapt to our rural environment, forcing the existing land owners to move or change their lifestyle. My family is already at odds with our neighbor of 8 years, who decided that the house he built 15 years ago doesn't look nice sitting next to our horse ranch that has been in this location for 70 years. This area has already had several other neighbor conflicts over property use concerning hunting, water rights, numbers of farm animals and farm buildings and dog kennels. What happens when there are several hundred more home owners who don't care for the country sounds -and smells. We acknowledge the right of the land owner to sell or develop his property. But we would like to see a proposal that will respect our current rural lifestyles and allow all of us to enjoy that special area of Larimer County that is north east Ft. Collins. Sincerely, Emmet, Joyce and Sarah Smith Mal, *17vm July 24, 1995 Dear neighbor: Perhaps by this time you've heard about the Hoffman PUD proposed for our area. I attended the neighborhood meeting on May 31, 1995 about this proposed development, and later, met with both city and county planners. In addition, I saw the proposed plan submitted to the City of Fort Collins on June 19, 1995. Another neighborhood meeting is scheduled for July 27, and the proposal is due to come before the Planning and Zoning Board for review on August 21, 1995. There are a number of items in this development proposal which caused considerable concern to me, and to, others as well. Therefore, I'm contacting you to express my concerns, and also to hear your views. After meeting with city and county officials, I feel that we would have a greater chance of positively influencing the outcome of this development proposal if we can get together and express our concerns as a neighborhood community. In order to do this, I've enclosed the draft of a letter I intend to send to Jim Sell Design, Inc., Richard's Lake Development Co., Stephen Olt -city planner, Janet Duval -county commissioner, Jim Disney -county commissioner, and Gina Janett-city council. I would appreciate your input and comments, with the hope that we could come up with a very short statement that many people would find acceptable and sighn to show their support. The opportunity for expressing our concerns will soon pass unless we act quickly, so please take the time to respond. In fact, I'm hoping to be able to present something at the next neighborhood meeting scheduled for July 27, if possible. Thanks for your time, and I hope.to hear from you.. If you would like to talk .with me .about the' grbprsed development .please feel free to give me a call. Kathleen Kilkelly 920 Inverness Rd. Ft. Collins, CO 80524' 493-7958 PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON JULY 27 AT 7 PM AT THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 300 LA PORTE AVE r access planned from the south when the existing Richard's Lake Master plan is developed". This appears to be a lot of "ifs" and "whens" with the result that the only access for approximately 2,000 trips/day will be Co.Rd. 13 !! (based on the city formula of 10 trips/day/household). To make matters worse, those of us living on Inverness Rd., Abbotsford Rd., Richard's Lake Rd. and Gregory Rd. already know that the preferred route will be our roads, regardless of the good intentions of the developers. The questions relating to traffic flow to the north have been a continuing struggle for both the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. Issues such as the railroad crossings, and the proposed bypass are still unresolved, and this development only complicates an already existing problem. Environmental issues are another concern that directly relate to density. A great deal of pressure has been put upon wildlife habitat around Fort Collins because of growth and development. The area proposed for development currently serves an abundant and active population of fox, coyotes, deer, pheasants, waterfowl, and large raptors. The existing cover, food and water, including wetland areas, could not help but be negatively affected by the proposed development. After reviewing the development plan, I did not feel that adequate provisions have been made to protect or preserve this habitat. In fact, the developer proposed to acquire "environmentally sensitive lands adjacent to Richard's Lake and Long Pond for public use." To make a neighborhood open space park, complete with a parking lot out of these areas would definitely lead to their destruction and loss. The developer also infers that the proposed design supports the Land Use Policies Plan (Policy 92- "Adequate public access to the City's Lakes") when neither Richard's Lake nor Long's Pond belong to the City of Fort Collins. Perhaps it is most important to note that I am not opposed to the right of an individual to develop their property but would hope that my own personal property rights could also be respected. I have chosen this location for my home because I can pursue the type of lifestyle and activities which are of value to me. The demand for my type of property -basically rural yet close to city facilities -is in high demand. This is exactly what many who come to Colorado and Fort Collins seek. If the city approves another typical urban planned unit development such as the Hoffman proposal, this choice would be eliminated and both my quality of life and the economic value of my property would suffer. However, if the proposed density levels can more closely approach those already existing in the area, I feel I would welcome this development as an integrated part of my neighborhood community. Sincerely, •' M. Kathleen Kilkkell 920 Inverness Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 a July 24, 1995 Stephen Olt, City Planner 281 N. College Ave P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Stephen: I am writing to express my concern regarding the Hoffman PUD, submitted to the City of Fort Collins on July 19, 1995. I attended the neighborhood meeting of May 31, 1995 and have met with both city and county planners to discuss the proposed development plan. Although the development is planned for land annexed by the City of Fort Collins, its prominent rural location should require review by Larimer County as well. While I have many concerns about this proposal, I will only deal with some of the major issues. My primary concern is the creation of an urban density, which, I feel, is incompatible with the existing primarily rural community. I live in an established neighborhood of at least 20 years, with a majority of residences being 3 to 12 acres and rural in nature. Commercial and personal activities of the area include farming, greenhouses, 4-H projects, horse boarding and training, and small cattle, sheep and llama operations. I do not see how the proposed development densities could be compatible with this community. Duplexes on 50X110' lots, with an approximate 83% increase in population of urban character would definitely threaten personal lifestyles, activities and private enterprises that currently exist in this community. In fact, after reviewing the proposed development plan, it becomes evident that the final density levels would be even greater than those indicated when the future multi- family housing planned for Tracts D and C is included. The Fort Collins area has already experienced considerable conflict and polarization over development issues, and the density levels proposed for the Hoffman PUD would only add to the problem. I have seen enough "leap -frog" development occur here, and if the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County are serious about managing and directing growth, now is the time to stand by their expressed agreement to prioritize policies such as urban infill, transition and buffer zones, and respect the character and density of existing communities. Directly related to the density issue would be an increase in traffic. Our county roads in the area would not be able to accommodate the increased burden of this development. The existing roads are now used for activities such as walking and jogging with children and dogs, biking, and riding and driving horses. In addition, large, cumbersome, slow -moving agricultural equipment and vehicles serving the oil facilities in the area may not be compatible with the massive increase of predominantly urban commuters. The development proposal states that the "primary access will initially be from Co.Rd. 13 on the west with a future times pulling out of my driveway. Visibility is impaired for both those turning and myself backing out of my driveway. 3. Concerned about the impact of tremendous increase of vehicles and congestion on air pollution from the dirt roads in the area and pollution from the vehicles themselves. There is resident deer, foxes, coyotes, raptors in the area and concerned about loosing those amenities. In summary, the proposed development is way out of character for the surrounding area and provides no benefits to the existing neighborhood. It is instead a huge negative impact on the neighborhood. Scaling down the project to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood would minimize such impacts and maintain the character of the NE part of Ft. Collins. Thank You in advance for your consideration! S' rell o Mel S. Mehl July 26, 1995 2808 Abbotsford Rd. Ft. Collins, CO 80524 Steve Olt, City Planner Current Planning Dept. P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Mr. Olt: I'm writing to express my views and concerns regarding the Hoffrnan/Richard's Lake PUD. I appreciate the two page information sheet you have sent me. I have three main concerns as follows: 1. Development density is far higher than is characteristic of the surrounding neighborhood. The current land use is rural with parcels in the one to many acres in size with a variety of low impact uses. The proposed development is of a high density subdivision scale that is incompatible with the area. I moved to this location in March, after living on Taft Hill Rd near Laporte Ave. for 16 years , to escape the traffic, congestion, noise etc. that comes with living near a highly developed area. Yes, a development proposal of this density does not make me too happy. I understand about personal rights and one's right to be able to do what they should with their own property, but also responsibility comes with that right. I would not be in opposition if the development was scaled down to reflect the surrounding current landuse. Low density areas such as this part of NE Fort Collins are rare and we should look at trying to maintain rather than decrease such areas. 2. The existing road network will not support the tremendous increase in traffic that will result from this development. Even with County Rd. 13 being proposed as the major access route, most people will travel south on Abbotsford Rd. as it's the shortest access to Lemay. I had not realized, until I move here, that Lemay Ave. is the major travel route from the south part of town, such as from the shopping areas on South College Ave. and Harmony Ave., to the NE part of town and Wellington. So I really do not believe that folks will use County Rd. 13 as much as is suggested. Abbortsford Rd. is a rural, mostly a narrow, gravel road with two 90 degree turns. The intersection of Gregory Rd. and Abbotsford Rd is very unsafe. It's not a true perpendicular intersection, but angles to the east. Folks driving east on Gregorgy Rd., making a left turn to Abbortsford Rd. do not have room to safely turn and pass a vehicle stopped on Abbortsford Rd. as the waiting vehicle is stopped inside the intersection. They need to give the right -a -way to the stopped vehicle, but instead rather than passing the waiting vehicle and turn left, they turn before it, going down the wrong side of the street for 50 feet. It's very confusing and unsafe. I live on the east side of the intersection and my driveway is about 50 feet north of the intersection. With the right turn from Gregory Rd. to Abborstford being gradual and not sharp as it would at with a right angle intersection folks do not slow down to make the turn. I've been almost, literally wasted a couple of reconsider the high -density development plan by keeping the tracts to 1 to 5 acres, and to respect the rights and wishes of the county's residents at the same time. An additional concern is presented by potential limitations in the existing school capacity in the area; the present capacity is likely to be exceeded by these proposed developments, only to result in higher property taxes for the county's residents. We all hope that our voices would be heard and our wishes seriously considered. Thank your for your time and attention. incerely, Aar tnnoPa l o rge P 2832 Abbotsford Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Tel.: 484-4921 cc: Stephen Olt ✓ Planning and Zoning Board Ms. Janet Duval'. County Commissioner P.O.Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 July 27, 1995. Dear Ms. Duvall: The subject of this letter is the proposed Hoffman PUD dgyelop- ment, and the serious concerns the project has given riseAin our neighborhood. I can safely say that my views on the subject are shared with most residents in our area, as numerous calls, letters, signature -collecting, and meetings, official or otherwise, can already testify. Allow me to enumerate these concerns. One is the increase in traffic. From the proposed Hoffman development part of the traffic toward town would flow either through County Rd. 11 and on to Country Club Rd. and Lindenmeyer, the other part through Inverness, Abbotsford, and Gregory Roads, culminating at the "bottle -neck" of Andersonville and the railroad crossing, and further south on Lemay. Traffic from the north-east moves either through North College or through Lemay, roads that are already overloaded, if you also take traffic on Highway 1 (Terry Lake area) into consideration. On observing the Hoffman project plan, we find proposed green areas, spaces which could be used later for connecting roads between Inverness and the (proposed) Blue Heron Way, despite promises to the contrary from developers. Such a connection would further encourage additional residents to exit the subdivisions toward the west, instead toward the south-east. To further complicate matters, yet another high - density development is being contemplated south of Richards Lake (75 to 200 residential units) which would have a serious additional impact on the already existing traffic problem, and, consequently, must be considered together with the Hoffman development. As a consequence to the increase in traffic, the quality of life of over two hundred residents out here would be drastically changed. Moving to this area did not happen by accident for these residents. We all had chosen it with a tranquil life in mind, away from the noise and bustle of town and as close to nature as possible. (There is an abundance of diverse wildlife in our area which would also suffer, as a consequence.) We are asking you as our county commissioner: do we have the right to keep what we had worked and paid for and wish to preserve? We are not opposed to the rights of others to live where they want or to develop their land; we are only asking the planners to July 30, 1995 Ms. Janet Duval County Commissioner P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Ms. Duval, I recently read Mr. Steve Olt's announcement dated May 24, 1995 regarding a proposed high density development north of Richards Lake. Currently I am not a resident of Fort Collins. However, I am writing this letter because I grew up in Fort Collins, specifically the Richards Lake/Long Pond area and since my parents own 4 1/2 acres, I feel I have an interest in the development of this area. I realize that growth is considered "progress" and is inevitable, however, growth must be well planned. I feel a high density development in this rural area would not only have a negative impact on the quality of life, but would also greatly impact the wildlife. People in this rural area purchased acreage in order to see open fields, farm, own livestock, live in a more rural setting and avoid the high traffic associated with high density developments. It seems to me that this proposal is not taking into consideration the existing neighborhoods and property owners. I hope that you would consider this position and support it before the City of Fort Collins. Perhaps the residents of this area would support an acreage development of 1 to 5 acre tracts. Sincerely, ulie Nagy Kenney cc: ""4 Steve Olt Planner -in -charge Current Planning Department 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Planning and Zoning Board c/o Current Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 e ;1 We are not opposed to anyone's right to develop his/her land, however, we definitely are opposed to this high density development. We would support an acreage development of 1 to 5 acre tracts. We sincerely hope that you will consider our position and support it before the City of Fort Collins. 2.�- g /ka�i Julius and Emilia Nagy 728 Gregory Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 482-6429 /cc: Steve Olt Planner -in -charge Current Planning Department 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Planning and Zoning Board c/o Current Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 I/ July 30, 1995 Ms. Janet Duval County Commissioner P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Ms. Duval, We read with considerable interest, Mr. Steve Olt's announcement dated May 24, 1995 regarding a proposed high density development north of Richards Lake. As we inquired about the details of this development our interest turned into amazement and total dismay. What is happening to Fort Collins and the nice neighborly town we have known since 1961? We moved to Gregory Road in 1967. In those days ±he=e was light .neighborhood traffic on the narrow two land county road. However, today one can hardly cross the road to get to the mailbox/ Knowing tiic drea gi.iiic weir, we do not. doubt /liar a cvrisidefauie puriiofi of the increased traffic resulting from this high density development k could mote through Abbotsford Road and Gregory Road. Thus, increasing traffic to new heights. Our neighborhood is still a rural type, consisting primarily of small acreage's and farms. People who moved out here desire this kind of living. They enjoy bicycling, horseback riding, walking and/or engage in small cattle and sheep operations. We moved out here because we like this kind of lifestyle. According to my information the City of Fort Collins recently adopted a new ordinance requiring a minimum density of three (3) units per acre. Obviously this new ordinance makes sense for new developments east and south of Fort Collins where the infrastructure, e.g. roads, can be developed to accommodate high density developments. It makes no sense whatsoever in an already established rural area where such a high density development as proposed would create a considerable decrease in the quality of everyday living for the already existing neighborhoods. August 1, 1995 Kathleen Kilkelly 920 Inverness Road Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Kathleen, I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your concerns about the proposed Hoffman P.U.D. that was submitted to the City on June 19, 1995 for review. This residential project would be located on property that was annexed into the City with the Country Club North Second Annexation in January, 1984 and the Jewett Annexation in October, 1988. The property is at the periphery of the current City limits, being surrounded on three sides by properties in Larimer County. This development is, however, subject to the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Fort Collins. At this time City regulation requires that the overall average residential density be at least three dwelling units per acre (on a gross acreage basis). This requirement is set forth in Criterion A- 1.12 Residential Density of the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. The L.D. G. S. does provide four variance procedure criteria that any applicant/developer may use to request a variance from the minimum density requirement. The expressed traffic and environmental/wildlife issues are being considered as part of the City's review of the Hoffman Overall Development Plan and the Hoffman P.U.D., Preliminary submittals. The Transportation and Engineering Departments and Natural Resources Division are integral to the review of the proposed development. Because of impacts to existing county roads in the area, the Larimer County Engineering Department is also involved in the review. You are encouraged to continue to stay involved in the City's development review process. The City's Current Planning Department, (281 North College Avenue, telephone #221-6750) is your primary contact point for information on what is being proposed on any parcel of land within the City and where a development proposal might be in the review process. Sincerely, Arai Azari Mayor August 1, 1995 3604 Kenyon Drive Ft. Collins, CO 80524 Steve Olt, Planner in Charge Current Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Mr. Olt: For those of us residing within the surrounding area, the proposed Hoffman planned unit development raises such con- cerns as conflicting lifestyles, incompatible housing den- sity, increased traffic volume, and loss of more wildlife habitat. The present spatially extensive neighborhood has existed for many years. Our family has resided in the area for 21 years; several neighbors have resided here for well over 30 years. Our newest neighbor purchased an existing home in July 1995. Length of residence not withstanding, all of us have chosen to live in a more rural setting and forego urban "amenities." The Hoffman PUD directly conflicts with the existing housing and land use patterns. If purchasers of Hoffman homes wanted rural living, they certainly would not choose housing of 3 units per acre. The Hoffman PUD is a prime example of the necessity for the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County to work together and seek compromise in development when dictated. "One size" does not in reality fit all situations. Growth may be in- evitable, but city development patterns and regulations need not be instated without regard to neighboring county residents. James Sell stated at the July 27 neighborhood meeting, held at the Ft. Collins city council chambers, that a lesser den- sity was workable in the Hoffman PUD. At the very least, one would hope that the duplex housing would be changed. The present design looks like a series of Baltimore rowhouses. God forbid that the "Choice City" should take on the appear- ance of an inner city slum. Hopefully the city planners will allow a density variance for the Hoffman PUD. Additionally, the increased traffic volume needs to be carefully considered. Douglas Road may be able to accommodate more car traffic, but not without real danger to existing use (and greatly increased use) of the narrow roadside by walkers, runners, bicyclists, and horse traffic. Sincerely, 0 Lorna and Glen Weaver Finally, I beg the City Planning Department to reconsider the nature of the area and the fact that even though this development is on city -annexed property, this is NOT an urban area. To my dismay, I heard the word "urban" used several times at this meeting to describe the planned development. Keep the area rural! There really is no reason to ruin every piece of open space when the only people who will benefit are the land developers and speculators. Sincerely, <:-- accc Dori Aravis cc: Steve Olt - Planner in Charge Janet Duval - County Commissioner .Z Dori Aravis 4304 N. County Rd 13 • Ft Collins, Colorado 80524 0970-484-73671 • Fax: August 2, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board clo Current Planning Department P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Co. 80522 Gentlemen: I am one of the people who attended the neighborhood meeting about the Hoffman PUD on July 27, 1995. I must say it was very frightening to me. Frightening to realize that a person can be quietly living their life and suddenly have some bureaucratic bumbling come up with a "plan" as insane and incompatible as this monstrosity. I have lived in Colorado on the same county road and the same property since 1971. During that time, I have seen the people of Colorado vote against unchecked growth many times. In those days we had government officials who were also against growth and against ruining the beautiful environment that we enjoyed. Unfortunately times have changed. I realize that I cannot stop growth and I am not against someone being allowed to develop their property, but the density proposed by the City of Fort Collins at three units per acre will totally and utterly alter the rural nature of the area and permanently destroy the lifestyles of the residents living here. One of the biggest surprises to me at this meeting was the limited number of people, close up neighbors to the project only, that were originally informed of it's existence. I live a little less than one mile north of the proposed project. I was only informed by neighbors -- not by the City Planning Board. At the meeting, it was said that it didn't appear necessary to inform a wider distribution of people because they "wouldn't be affected". Do you actually think that there is one single family that lives anywhere within a five mile -plus area that won't be adversely affected by the addition 220 new housing units and the potential for 1,000 new residents? area's ecology. The wetlands effect local temperature and local habitat for most of the wild birds and animals in the area. It represents a critical source of water in this dry terrain. It is in general a very rich area for birds (aquatic and non aquatic), fishes, amphibians and invertebrates which are valuable in their own right but additionally serve as food for many different species. Several of the species which can be seen in these areas such as red winged blackbird, yellow winged blackbird and phalaropes are extremely dependent on such habitat and are not all that common. I would caution the planners of such developments, that heavy concentrations of people, houses, roads, cars and noise effect the ecology and habitat in many subtle ways to destroy nature. One can not allow lawns planted to the waters edge, the destruction of shrubs and bush at the waters edge and at the same time preserve habitat for many species. The edge habitat is important. Lawns are fertilized and treated with chemicals. These leach into ponds, lakes and wet areas and cause a eutropic effect turning ponds and lakes into cesspools. This destroys water for use in recreation and nature. This is starting to be seen in overbuilt areas in Fort Collins already and will be a source of frustration and embarrassment to many in the future. Green algae, bad order and environmental death of the waters results, and is difficult to remedy. We are currently fortunate in Fort Collins to have space. We must be willing to pay some cost to preserve it for esthetics, well-being of a balanced ecology, in which living creatures can thrive not just survive. The crowding in the proposed Hoffman P.U.D. does not represent good planning for the area and will ultimately be a mistake for Fort Collins, The current plans show no sensitivity to the environmental impact it will have on the quality of human and animals (including birds) it will have on the area. Some species of birds such as phalaropes and yellow winged blackbirds are not common at best and may disappear from intense competition for space and habitat by houses , roads, lawns and removal of nature shrubs and trees. We all know that we will intrude by building houses and roads but by careful attention to balance, we can allow nature to intrude into and pass through the housing projects so that we both may survive and thrive. Sincerely &W-L'o. F LI, Grahhm Kemp D.V.M., M.P.H. f 808 Inverness Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80524 8/3/95 dear Sirs I would like to comment regarding the proposed Hoffman P.U.D. I have attended the two meetings intended to provide community input on this subject, I have lived in Fort Collins since 1975 and own property in the city and county jurisdictions. I have broad experience in matters relating to health, environment, ecology and disease research. I am currently retired. The single most important problem with the proposal is the extremely high density of housing and human population it will thrust into an area that has been developing for 25 years. This area is currently quite rural and consists mainly of small acreage with single family residences. It has attracted people with diverse interests but somewhat similar life styles. The area is quiet and people live in harmony with each other and nature. We constantly have deer passing through and staying for a day or two to graze on our land. We have foxes hunting mice in our meadows and are visited by foxes, raccoons and several species of owls at night. We also have quite large populations of wild birds both local and migratory. Many build their nests here. Many of us have assisted nature by plantings of trees and shrubs in dedicated areas to provide food and cover. We are in turn rewarded by the increased wildlife visits. We also have a small population of ring-necked pheasants that breed here. All that I have mentioned above exists in harmony with small farms, horse ranching, backyard gardens, greenhouses 4H children's projects, hobbyists and many different species of domestic animals and birds, all of which contribute to the well being and sanity of the community as a whole. Our local population feels safe to bicycle on the roads, to jog, to walk without concern, through the neighborhood. In short this areas has good citizens and is developing more good citizens. It is quiet and one can hear the meadow larks, the house finches and the robins sing. The Hoffman P.U.D. is designed to attract people in great numbers, with very different interests. The sheer volume of traffic generated by this development will be beyond what the present road system can safely handle. The options for directing this volume of traffic toward the city are few and are likely to impact heavily on parts of our community. The crowding of population around wetlands will have an adverse effect on habitat and the ecology, and will be an obstruction to wildlife and birds seeking water in a dry area. As mentioned, the area involved in this P.U.D. has considerable wetlands which serve as a vital backbone of this Please reconsider this development. As stated and planned, it speaks of the uncontrolled growth that has made California the state to run away from. Don't do this to Colorado! Respectfully Paul Aravis Paul Aravis 4304 North County Road 13 Ft Collins, Co. 80524 Planning and Zoning Board Go Current Planning Department] P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 August 7, 1995 Gentlemen, I moved to Ft Collins in June of 1971. At that time, Ft Collins was a small town in need of growth. On more than one occasion, I was forced to travel to Denver in order to purchase a variety of items for my home. Since 1971, Ft Collins has experience a slow but steady growth process and by approximately 1985, Ft Collins could be called the choice city in Colorado. What has happened in the past ten years is a perfect example of poor planning and little concern for our existing residents. To travel on the south side of Ft Collins is like taking a trip to Denver. The traffic is impossible and when you combine this with all the other big city problems, I am glad I live on the north side of town. Or, I should say, I was glad until I read the proposal for Hoffman Planned Unit Development. In my opinion, land development should fit into the community and not stand out. This proposal does not have a good fit in this part of Ft Collins. This is a community of acreage's. These acreage's are used for everything from horseback riding to 4-H projects. If you drive north on Highway 1 and take the Waverly road north about one mile, you will see an excellent example of the type of development that would fit well into our community. This property should be used for acreage's of 2.5 to 5.0 acres in size. The people who buy this type of property will have the same interest as those who live here now. The planning should include horses' trails and other environmentally sound design attempts. The high density planned for this land does not belong, will cause great inconvenience for all who live in the area, including those who might buy into this wrong-headed proposal in the future. DATVID M. FERRIN 3808 N. County Road #13 Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-493-9394 August 8, 1995 City Council Members The City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Subject: Hoffman PUD Because -of my work schedule I am unable to attend the public hearings on this topic. This by no means indicates that I am not concerned. Kathleen Kilkelly has written a letter of concern dated July 24, 1995 of which I have attached. I could not agree more with Ms. Kilkelly nor write a letter which would express my concerns any better. This proposal places burdens on this area which cannot be handled with the existing facilities and certainly needs very extensive thought and review. I hope the Council will postpone their decision until all matters are dealt with completely. Yours truly, David M. Ferrin August 13, 1995 Ms. Janet Duvall Larimer County Commisioner P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins,CO 80522 Dear Ms. Duvall, My parents live out on Gregory Road and shared with me Steve Olts' announce- ment dated May 24, 1995 about the proposed Hoffman P. U.D. This announcement surprised me very much considering the proposed area. I grew up in this rural area, and know that any P.U.D of this nature would completely undermine the infrastructure of the whole area. I ask that you block this proposal and any other of its' kind that is brought before you. I know that growth in Fort Collins/Larimer County is inevitable, but to allow this type of housing to be planned in an obviously rural area without the existing infastructure would greatly undermine the "rural" quality of the area. The people who live in this area have obviously chosen a rural way of life for themselves and their children. This way of life should be respected and left alone. As President Roosevelt once said and I quote, "A Nation that destroys its' land, destroys itself!" This is what I feel would happen if this proposal is allowed to pass. The infrastructure for this type of development already exists to the south and east of Fort Collins. It would be wiser to keep this type of development is these areas. I appreciate your time in reading my letter and realizing my deep concerns for the northern rural areas of Fort Collins. They must be preserved at any cost!!! Sincerely, 'CfVI M' llyL U U .9c�O�L� �� Mrs. Judy agy i August 13, 1995 Mr. Steve Olt Planner 281 N. College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Olt, Enclosed please find a copy of my letter to Ms. Duvall regarding the proposed Hoffman P.U.D.. I was shocked and dismayed to read this proposal from your department . I feel that this is a rural area and that the infrastucture necessary for a proposal of this magnitude does not exist in this area and should not be forced upon those residing in this area. The residents in this area would loose their rural way of life as well as the quality of life that they have provided for their families. The greed of some should not be allowed to undermine the quality of life for others as is obvious by this proposal. I would also like to address another issue that I feel very strongly about in this letter. I have lived in Fort Collins/Larimer County for 35 years, and I am shocked by the out -of -control growth we have experienced over the last 5 years. I feel that the time has come to say "NO" to growth, just like the residents in Boulder have had the courage to do. They have not suffered from their "no growth" policy and have managed to sustain thei r revenue base just fine. Their city has retained its' beauty and is a desirable place to live. I know many people in Boulder and they are very happy with their city plan ner/co u ncil's decisions regarding "no growth". We, too, should work to adopt this philosophy before our city is no longer the "Choice" city! Our schools are becoming increasingly overcrowded, traffic jams occur daily at all hours of the day, gang graffiti is everywhere and we inevitably must incur the cost for clean-up, our air is polluted and we too have fireplace burning restrictions, and the list can go on. i feel that the city council/planner must take charge of the growth and not allow the land developers to dictate our cities growth. Enough is enough!!! President Roosevelt once said and I quote, "A Nation that destroys its' land, destroys itself!" This can also be said for the city of Fort Collins. If growth is allowed to continue at this rate, we will no longer be the "CHOICE CITY" for anyone. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and the enclosed one to Ms. Duvall. I hope that in my obvious caring and concern for our City, I did not come across as being too harsh. I am just very concerned! Sincerely, Mrs. Judy I agy Mil We urge that this proposed development be denied as submitted. However, it is possible that.this acreage could be developed in one to five acre tracts so that it would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. sincerely, CLh�arle E. Townsend qu� � • - Hilda C. Townsend 638 Gregory Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 cc: Council Greg Byrne -Bob Blanchard (response pending) August 23, 1995 Ms. Ann Azari, Mayor AUG 2 51995 City of Fort Collins P.O. 580 CA 1 Y ?vinaVriUtr t Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mayor Azari: We are writing to express our concern regarding the Richards Lake PUD residential plan submitted to the City of Fort Collins on July 19, 1995." Presently, this area is a rural neighborhood consisting primarily of small acreages and farms. The new ordinance that the City recently adopted which requires a development to have a minimum of 3 units per acre is not realistic for this proposed development. This ordinance may have a place for in -fill projects, however, if applied to fringe areas such as ours, it will have the effect of eliminating an already established rural neighborhood and force it to become just another -small -lot urban subdivision. This high -density development would cause a big increase in traffic. We have already witnessed a tremendous increase in traffic during the 27 years that we have lived on Gregory Road. In addition, Gregory Road is a narrow 2-lane county road, very similar to a residential street, with a 30-mph speed limit and no bike lane. Abbotsford, Inverness, and County Road 13 are gravel roads better suited for walking, biking, etc., and limited traffic as they are presently being used. The developer may try to convince the City that the majority of traffic would use Douglas Road. If a map is studied, however, it is obvious that the shortest route to most of the City is County Road 13, Inverness, Abbotsford to Gregory Road or on Serrmonte to County Road it and then south to Country Club Road. The proposed density for this development raises environmental issues as well. Presently, this area serves an abundant and active population of numerous wildlife species. Considerable "leap -frog" development has already occurred in the Fort Collins area. If the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County are serious about managing and directing growth, now is the time to stand by their expressed agreement to prioritize policies such as urban in -fill, transition and buffer zones, and respect the character and density of existing communities. August 29, 1995 Hilda and Charley Townsend 638 Gregory Road Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Townsend, I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your concerns about a proposed development that was submitted to the City on June 19, 1995 for review. This residential project is known as the Hoffman Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). It is located on property that was annexed into the City with the Country Club North Second Annexation in January, 1984 and the Jewett Annexation in October, 1988. The property is currently in the City and is surrounded on three sides by properties in Larimer County. This development is, however, subject to the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Fort Collins. At this time City regulation requires that the overall average residential density be at least three dwelling units per acre (in effect since 1981). This requirement is set forth in'Criterion A-1.12 Residential Density of the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System D.G.S.. The L.D.G.S. does, however, provide four variance procedure criteria that any applicant/developer may use to request a variance from the minimum density requirement. The expressed traffic and environmental/wildlife issues are being considered as part of the City's review of the Hoffman Overall Development Plan and the Hoffman P.U.D., Preliminary submittals. The Transportation and Engineering Departments and Natural Resources Division are integral to the review of the proposed development. Because of impacts to existing County roads in the area, the Larimer County Engineering Department is also involved in the review. You are encouraged to continue to stay involved in the City's development review process. The City's Current Planning Department, (281 North College Avenue, telephone #221-6750) is your primary contact point for information on what is being proposed on any parcel of land within the City and where a development proposal might be in the review process. Sincerely, Ann Azari Mayor August 28, 1995 Dear j•" ©w I am writing this letter in regards to the Hoffman PUD. I am greatly concerned about the type of development proposed here and in surrounding, lots.' This type of development is not compatible with the existing rural connun:i.ty. I don't think I have to go into detail about the real impact, these neighborhoods have on surrounding rural areas,:traffic, sewers, -waste and the ecological impact. I am not totally opposed to development in the north part of'town'•• but I do have great difficulty accepting the type of dense urban growth. that is being proposed here and north of town. My husband, Mike Catlin,who is a Ft. Collins native, and I bought our home and 5 acres on the.north end of town because we like some open space and do not appreciate the living conditions on the south end of town. Do our concerns have an impact on the decisions you make? Please keep your dense urban growth out of the north part of town. Don't let this.thriv i_ng, growing community be polluted like many other places along the front range. Take the time to consider the impact of your decisions. I think it's time to revise the intergovernmental agreement. We can work together. I appreciate your consideration in dealing with this, -matter. Thank you, Bettina Foothorap 421 E. Douglas rd.. Ft. Collins Co. I 91 Adele Dinsmore * 1605 Serramonte Drive * Ft. Collins, CO 80524 September 5, 1995 Mr. Steven Olt Current Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Olt: For the last six years I have lived in Serramonte Highlands adjoining the proposed Hoffman Planned Unit Development. I am writing you on behalf of this piece of land, as it has enriched my life every day I've lived here. The 105 acres proposed for development contain a wide variety of plant and animal communities. Along the shore of Richard's Lake the soil is poor, although the views are spectacular. This area has been used by the North Poudre Irrigation Company and left mostly in its natural state, characterized by stands of yucca, rabbitbrush and prickly pear. I have seen Red Fox, raccoon, skunk and coyote here, as well as many species of birds out in the lake. Both White-tailed and Mule Deer come here to drink and leave tracks in the sand. Where the soil is able to support a good stand of grass, the land has been used for grazing both sheep and horses. A colony of Black -Tailed Prairie Dogs has established itself in the worn out SE corner of the pasture and a badger has moved in to dine on its favorite food. There are many mice and voles - I can see the tunnels they make in the winter when the snow melts. And each spring a pair of Great Horned Owls nest in an old magpie tree to raise their young on these abundant rodents. Bald Eagles visit occasionally, setting down in a big old cottonwood tree. There are almost too many other winter birds of prey to mention. I've seen Marsh Hawks, Red Tails, Prairie Falcon, Kestrel, Ferruginous Hawks and many more. They are supported by a healthy population of song birds, pheasants and cottontails. My neighbor has seen rattle snakes on this prairie land, but I have not had the privilege. Bull snakes are more common. The wetland area in the center of the Hoffman land has seasonal visits from ducks, bitterns, herons , migrating shorebirds and white pelicans. The frogs and toads make a joyful noise each spring. Tiger Salamanders come out to breed. By August, the cattails are still green and supporting wildlife, but the standing water has dried up completely. Unfortunately, the landowner has bulldozed the pond recently, destroying the integrety of the wetland habitat for a time. At night, the stars are very bright on the Hoffman property and coyote families yip at the moon in a wild way. We can always hear the sound of the oil wells bringing up oil from the sandy shale layer one mile below us. This land is part of the oldest producing oil field west of Pennsylvania. The expansive Bentonite soil, the smell of natural gas and the sight of rigging going up to service the wells are standard features of our landscape. It has not seemed to discourage wildlife in any way. I question how compatible an urban development would be with this preexisting use of the land. I invite the Planning and Zoning Board to think of the many inhabitants of this land who can not speak for themselves when it considers turning a rural natural area into a Planned Unit Development. Please allow the the Richards Lake Development Company to reach a compromise by granting a variance to the density stipulated in Land Development Guidance System. There must be a level of density suitable for a rural area at which we can all coexist. Three dwellings to the acre is fine for a town but not for a badger. Sincerely; Adele Dinsmore Cc: Robert Wilkinson September 7, 1995 Current Planning Department: Planning and Zoning Board Re: Proposed Land Development in NE Ft Collins (Hoffman PUD, Richard's Lake PUD, Dry Creek Annexation) My personal preference would be for zero development/growth in the NE area. I chose Ft Collins based mainly on its quality of life. Growth, especially unmanaged development, can only diminish that quality for everyone; newcomer and lifelong resident. Being realistic, however, I recognize that a balance is necessary among the interests of landowners, developers and the current residents. There can be win -win decisions if careful consideration is given to all interests. Everyone's concerns, whether over incompatible land use or limited resources and infrastructure,seem rooted in population density. If you decide properly on this one issue, everything else begins to fall into place. In the NE area we already have quite a mix of property size and use; but it would seem two dwellings per acre maximum would be an acceptable compromise between the high density advocates and those who wish to maintain a totally rural environment. The current infrastructure should support the increased population pressure, the landowner/developer's rights would be recognized, and the quality of life in Ft Collins would be preserved. Thank you for your past and future representation of the interests of all Ft Collins residents. W2" R � William R. Lantz 745 Cottonwood Drive Ft Collins 80524 cc: Council Greg Byrne -Bob Blanchard September 11. 1995 SE'p 131995 Dear City Council Members, �� I v jv`k-+N -tQaER Please respect the concerns of the citizens of north east Ft. Collins about the proposed development plans for that area. We are not opposed to the right of owners to develop their land but feel this should be done in a manner which is compatible with the lifestyle choices made by the residents of this area. Proposals for high density neighborhoods and the resulting high traffic on arterial and access roads will severely compromise that lifestyle either directly or indirectly. People of the northeast side have chosen and made considerable investment to live in a more rural environment, drawn by gravel roads and lanes, open fields, and the opportunity to own livestock. We do not desire to emulate the development and lifestyles represented in the developments of south, south east, and south west Ft. Collins. Investigate this for yourself, move beyond the formal reports and presentations. As decision makers we invite you to drive, walk, or, better yet, ride a horse through the roads of this area. Talk with the residents to better understand the choices we have made. It is my understanding that some who will be making decisions regarding our future have not done this and are not familiar with the north east side. As representatives, it would seem this is your responsibility and our rightful expectation. Ft. Collins is a beautiful and attractive community because it offers a choice of lifestyles and living areas --because it is not an homogenous blend of housing developments, planned neighborhoods and shopping centers, and structured recreational areas. The north east side is a vital part of Ft. Collins' diversity. If Ft. Collins truly is the "Choice City," let it remain so --a city which affords'it residents a choice of lifestyles and living environments. Sincerely, All C. Kreutzer 635 Gregory Road Ft. Collins, CO 80524 September 11. 1995 Dear Mr. Olt, Please respect the concerns of the citizens of north east Ft. Collins about the proposed development plans for that area. We are not opposed to the right of owners to develop their land but feel this should be done in a manner which is compatible with the lifestyle choices: made by the residents of this area. Proposals for high density neighborhoods and the resulting high traffic on arterial and access roads will severely compromise that lifestyle either directly or indirectly. People of the northeast side have chosen and made considerable investment to live in a more rural environment, drawn by gravel roads and lanes, open fields, and the opportunity to own livestock. We do not desire to emulate the development and lifestyles represented in the developments of south, south east, and south west Ft. Collins. Investigate this for yourself, move beyond the formal reports and presentations. As decision makers we invite you to drive, walk, or, better yet, ride a horse through the,,roads of this area. Talk with the residents to better understand the choices we have made. It is my understanding that some who will be making decisions regarding our future have not done this and are not familiar with the north east side. As representatives, it would seem this is your responsibility and our rightful expectation. Ft. Collins is a beautiful and attractive community because it offers a choice of lifestyles and living areas --because it is not an homogenous blend of housing developments, planned neighborhoods and shopping centers, and structured recreational areas. The north east side is a vital part of Ft. Collins' diversity. if Ft. Collins truly is the "Choice City, " let it remain so --a city which affords it residents a choice of lifestyles and living environments. Sincerely, J. C. Kreutzer 635 Gregory Road Ft. Collins, CO 80524 cc: Council Greg Byrne Bob -Blanchard (response pending) Michael & Sandy Gantz 1340 E. County Road 54 Ft. Collins, CO. 80524 September 12,1995 City Council Members 300 Laporte Ave Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Dear City Council Members, -SEp 13 1995 We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed HOFFMAN PUD. We feel the PUD'S urban density is incompatible with the existing rural neighborhood, consisting of small acreages and farms. Existing services, such as police, fire, schools, water, sewage, and power have limited facilities and capabilities to handle such dense development. Additionally, the area proposed for development currently serves an abundant population of wildlife. This high density development would also cause a big increase in traffic on rural, residential and country roads, which are not built to safely accommodate a doubling of traffic. Natural barriers in this area ( railroad crossings, lakes and rivers ) make adequate high volume traffic corridors nearly impossible. Based on the incompatibility factors and inadequate road network, we urge you to oppose this plan in favor of one with density levels that more closely meet those already existing in this area. Sincerely, Michael & Sandy Gantz 1340 E. County Road 54 Ft. Collins, CO. 80524 September 12,1995 Mr Steve Olt City of Ft. Collins Planning Department. 281 N. College Ave Ft. Collins, CO. 80521 Dear Mr. Olt, We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed HOFFMAN PUD. We feel the PUD'S urban density is incompatible with the existing rural neighborhood, consisting of small acreages and farms. Existing services, such as police, fire, schools, water, sewage, and power have limited facilities and capabilities to handle such dense development. Additionally, the area proposed for development currently serves an abundant population of wildlife. This high density development would also cause a big increase in traffic on rural, residential and country roads, which are not built to safely accommodate a doubling of traffic. Natural barriers in this area ( railroad crossings, lakes and rivers ) make adequate high volume traffic corridors nearly impossible. Based on the incompatibility factors and inadequate road network, we urge you to oppose this plan in favor of one with density levels that more closely meet those already existing in this area. Sincerely, / J, into the right-of-way issue again. If increased hospital business is their vision, how do they propose to get the injured patron down a congested and backed up Lemay before they expire. Or is it that the city planners are putting a blind eye to these issues since Gregory and Country Club Roads are county maintained? Or maybe a deaf ear since those opposed to this density of development are county residents, not city residents. Third: Quality of life is another issue which should be addressed. From the people I've talked to in this area, nearly all moved to the Northeast side for it's rural qualities. They enjoy being able to look up at the sky at night and see stars not street lights, they enjoy walking along a country road seeing the horses and hay, not concrete and 7-eleven's. If the people of the Northeast side wanted the convenience of walking to the store, fast food restaurants and warehouse discount stores they would have moved to the south side. Let me close by reiterating that I am vehemently opposed to the density of the proposed Hoffman and Richard's Lake PUDs. I realize that with the continued influx of people to Northern Colorado development is inevitable, however it doesn't have to be the urban sprawl of the south side. As our nation pushes the idea of diversity, let the Northeast side remain different from the Clarendon Hills and other "Little California's" of the south side. Finally, don't "improve" our life style with these subdivisions and the accompanying services they will bring, WE DON'T WANT ITM Lieutenant Thomas A. and Rosemary Michel Colorado Natives and Ten year residents of the Northeast side September 13, 1995 Current Planning Dept. 281 N. College Ave P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 City Planners: I find it necessary to write to you to voice my objection to the planned development in the Northeast quadrant of Fort Collins, in particular, the Hoffman Planned Unit Development and the Richard's Lake PUD. There are a number of reasons for my objection and I will address each individually. First: The proposed density for these two developments is not compatible with the existing development of the area. Senamonte Highlands to the east incorporates 2 - 5 acre parcels and 5 -10 acre ranchetts border the proposed developments on the north and west. I believe that a president has already been set for the development of this area and the proposed density of 3 - 5 units per acre is unacceptable. It is my belief that the people currently living in this area came here for the rural life style and want it to remain so. Second: There are a number of natural barriers which restrict the amount of traffic which can safely flow through this area. There are lakes and irrigation ditches which limit the amount of new thoroughfares which can be built. There are only two exits from this area into downtown, North College and Lemay, and each of these is already stretched to maximum capacity. At the intersection of Highway #1 and North College the morning back up can be 1/4 to 1/2 mile long, requiring 2 - 3 changes of the light to pass through the intersection. I don't know about you, but it is unacceptable to me to wait through three changes of a light to pass through an intersection. The evening backup at Lemay, Vine and the Railroad tracks can stretch clear to Lincoln Ave. even after the wonderful improvement of traffic lights. Suppose funding for a Lemay overpass at Vine, and a rerouting of the intersection at Highway #1 and North College could be found, what would become of Gregory and Country Club roads, would the city purchase right-of-way from each home owner along these roads for widening and additional lanes? These roads can barely accommodate the use they currently receive. Traffic safety is another issue which should be addressed when discussing these roads. There are a number of hills and turns which cause natural blind spots. Gregory and Country Club roads are presently used by pedestrians, joggers and bicyclists, as auto traffic increases along these roads, the safe passage of these alternate modes becomes less likely. Do the city planners envision sidewalks, bike paths or an increase in hospital business? If sidewalks and bike paths are their view, we run September 14, 1995 Current Planning Department 281 N College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 To Whom it May Concern: I would like to take this time to express my concerns over the Hoffman PUD proposed for our area. Five years ago I moved to Colorado from a very busy area of Massachusetts. I did this because where I lived was extremely congested, heavy traffic prevailed and it was stressful, just to drive to the store. In the five years I have lived here, it is hard to believe what has happened to Fort Collins. Progress is inevitable I realize, but this brings up our area again. I purchased my home on Douglas Road because it was away from the congestion of the city and our homes were far enough away from each other so you can't reach out and touch your neighbor, The proposed developmerit is not conducive to our area because, as other people have stated, it is agricultural. I am not opposed to development, but I would like to know why the city cannot put up homes on one or 2 acre parcels which would be more suitable for this particular area. Traffic is another concern I have, not only for myself but for others on Douglas and especially those on C.R. 13, where at this time I walk and ride my horse. I hope you will take the time to review the letters people have sent and also take the time to revaluate this proposal. Thank you, Cynthia Rizzo 813 E Douglas Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 copy to: County Commissioners City Council Members "ti r it . J I y 16 � 4 w c r Jar-- . �1 �� � '.`� I •�:� _ � �_ ,"YID ' , .a V All .t� 1613 Serramonte Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 Ms. Janet Duvall e Mr. Jim Disney Mr. John Clarke ' County Commissioners P. O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 FREC C D) SEP 18 1995 Dear Ms. Duvall and Messrs. Disney and Clarke: We would like to bring to your attention the Hoffman property currently under review by the city of Fort Collins. The evening of September 9, 1995, 1 noticed, once again, that Whiting Petroleum Company had their tanker pumping oil off the ground from a leaking underground pipe. The oil spilled from the pipe covered approximately 100 ft. in both directions. I did not walk over to the area until the following morning. The oil company worked several hours pumping the mess. The pictures I took are from the following evening. This pipe has broken before (almost exactly a year ago). At the time it broke you couldn't walk outside, because the smell was so extremely noxious. The smell made my daughter and me sick to our stomachs. I called the Fire Department and reported the odor. Later they got back to me and informed us that the pipe had broken in five different places. During the 13 years we have lived in Serramonte Highlands we have been exposed to the oil well odor. Summer nights we will be awakened by the strong odor that burns our eyes. I have complained to the Health Department and the oil company many times over the past years. I honestly believe it is a health issue and not safe to breathe. We have been told that the gentleman who lives on County Road 54 has sheep who have a respiratory disease from the odor emitted from the wells. Not only do the wells smell but also I can think of one occasion when a well blew up! The wells require a great deal of maintenance. They periodically are fractured, and their equipment is loud and lit up all night. The rig stands about 70 ft. high and runs day and night. Don't you think you need to reconsider the density for this area? Who will be held liable for any damage to homes, landscaping, or, worse yet, if someone is injured or becomes ill? Would it be the city or the builder? Sincerely, Ja4yl OA' C' h recchio jes P September 20, 1995 Michael & Sandy Gantz 1340 East County Road 54 Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gantz, I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your concerns about a proposed development that was submitted to the City on June 19, 1995 for review. This residential project is known as the Hoffman Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). It is located on property that was annexed into the City with the Country Club North Second Annexation in January, 1984 and the Jewett Annexation in October, 1988. The property is currently in the City and is surrounded on three sides by properties in Larimer County. This development is, however, subject to the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Fort Collins. At this time City regulation requires that the overall average residential density be at least three dwelling units per acre (in effect since 1981). This requirement is set forth in Criterion A-1.12 Residential Density of the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System (L D.G.S.). The L.D.G.S. does, however, provide four variance procedure criteria that any applicant/developer may use to request a variance from the minimum density requirement. The expressed traffic, utilities, and environmental/wildlife issues are being considered as part of the City's review of the Hoffman Overall Development Plan and the Hoffman P.U.D., Preliminary submittals. The Transportation and Engineering Departments and Natural Resources Division are integral to the review of the proposed development. Because of impacts to existing County roads in the area, the Larimer County Engineering Department is also involved in the review. You are encouraged to continue to stay involved in the City's development review process. The City's Current Planning Department, (281 North College Avenue, telephone #221-6750) is your primary contact point for information on what is being proposed on any parcel of land within the City and where a development proposal might be in the review process. Sincerely, Ann Azari Mayor September 20, 1995 Jill C Kreutzer 635 Gregory Road Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Ms. Kreutzer, I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your concerns about proposed development in the northeast part of Fort Collins. One residential project, known as the Hoffman Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.), was submitted to the City on June 19, 1995 for review. It is located on property that was annexed into the City with the Country Club North Second Annexation in January, 1984 and the Jewett Annexation in October, 1988. The property is currently in the City and is surrounded on three sides by properties in Larimer County. This development is, however, subject to the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Fort Collins. At this time City regulation requires that the overall average residential density be at least three dwelling units per acre (in effect since 1981). This requirement is set forth in Criterion A-1.12 Residential Density of the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System D.G.S.. The L.D. G.S. does, however, provide four variance procedure criteria that any applicant/developer may use to request a variance from the minimum density requirement. The expressed traffic and density issues, related to neighborhood compatibility and lifestyles, are being considered as part of the City's review of the Hoffinan Overall Development Plan and the Hoffman P.U.D., Preliminary submittals. The Transportation and Engineering Departments and Natural Resources Division are integral to the review of the proposed development. Because of impacts to existing County roads in the area, the Larimer County Engineering Department is also involved in the review. You are encouraged to continue to stay involved in the City's development review process. The City's Current Planning Department, (281 North College Avenue, telephone #221-6750) is your primary contact point for information on what is being proposed on any parcel of land within the City and where a development proposal might be in the review process. Sincerely, Ann Azari Mayor In summary, I hope you will allow our neighborhood to be developed as a rural type area. We want to be able to continue raising our animals, riding our horses and bicycles on our dirt roads and just plain enjoying quiet country life. A development like the Hoffman/Richards Lake proposal will put a city residential area in the country. There will be complaints about the smell of our animals and the manure left by our horses on the road. There will be a considerable increase in traffic on a road system that was not designed for such an increase in use. There will be an added burden in our neighborhood schools that could required busing children to less crowded schools. We understand that people have a right to develop their land but where are our rights. After choosing this area to live in because of the type of area it is, it just doesn't seem right to not have any development be of the same type setting. I hope as you listen to the arguments in the hearing that you will wear the shoes of both sides and think about what is the best for the north side of Fort Collins and the people that live there. All areas of the city don't need to be like the rest. i ci 71 CCU M"fap-"," fr"r) NOV 131995 CITY MANAGER TO: The Planning and Zoning Board and the Ft. Collins City Council I have been attending neighborhood meetings for 3 - 4 months concerning the Hoffrnan/Richards Lake developments. The whole situation has been a very frustrating and aggravating ordeal. The neighborhood group met with the developer to work out a compromising solution several times and discuss the needs of each side. BUT it is impossible to come to any agreement when we, the neighborhood, are dickering with a person that is being paid to develop the land. The developer can't ethically be far to both sides. He must look out for his client by developing the land in the manner that will most benefit him. The problem for the neighborhood then is that how can we have the developer ask the city council for a variance that both sides agree on. How have the rules for developing left people against a certain situation as this so totally helpless?? The rules for requesting variances need to be revised so that a variance can be awarded without having a developer being the one requesting for it. I have lived on Terry Lake Road since 1976. I live just south of Douglas Road which makes me in the urban growth area. (So this area has been labeled.) From Terry Lake Rd (Highway 1) east, the area has had a lovely rural type setting since before I was here. The people have moved here to enjoy the quiet country life. Property sizes range from 2 - 10 or more acres. People raise pigs, cattle, horses, llamas, sheep, chickens, ducks and geese. People enjoy walking their dogs and riding horses and bicycles along the dirt country roads. We enjoy our quality of life without all the city amenities being close by. That is why we choose to live on the north side of town and not on the south end of Fort Collins. Then into our lovely country world came a finger of city zoned land. Now our life must change because of the word zoning. Why must Fort Collins follow all the other cities blindly into unplanned growth. Why does every area of Fort Collins have to look like all the others?? Why not leave like with like. I know for a fact that within the `old town' area, land owners have been denied the right to tear down old houses and put up multi -family housing because it would not fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. Why then should our neighborhood be subject to multifamily units. Why not allow us to continue with our rural setting and have the development be like the other properties in the area?? It would be nice if our city council and planning and zoning department would look deeper into the future than cities like Boulder did. If developing is going to occur (and it will occur), have transition areas where the city slowly thins out to the rural areas instead of grouping these two kinds of lifestyles together one on top of the other. Plan for these developments by looking at the existing road systems and how and where all the traffic will get into the city. Look at the school system. Don't make people who moved into an area for the schools have their children bused across town because large developments brought too many kids in for the particular schools in the area. Yes, developments will continue but poor planning that causes existing life styles in the area to be turned upside down is not what people want. .ue,� iLl�i //1822�/y� // .L/iCG��?CLhi[L�g.C�d��t/ //1 ,a���wn� .�z jai; � ��e�.i��%����PP�v ,Q,�is-u� � �,�a:o.ent��Z r-a�,ea.�igf._c � %�irw�ere - zvv%irirv��iiLPi�eo�aa�C..�?�v»d: .%D :-.GY.-^2%''Ecs _.Ga�.au-f-/�duin�-�iy .�;o��7�n-c�c�csy �ai�v No Text �4ec UeA �/ eejc, ,J, rvi Sel �es,cj n 1-7 F-GSt MDl,arOmin Fo f -i C o1 l i•ns ; Gr l orado `3D53� SycPncr and Ti v6kLA h✓� F-or-� Co I I I r)5 C-D I o r'cid c 18C5a-L lea r (Vl r. Se i I , tiJe rn Vecl a i- �zv- t CC I t k .n s -�rZ-M Nor ih Ca r of oc` I Crj- /� ���t Gs G �rv�.l C_�re�I C' C,rea-s �•� r�t� t,� -tlne Cc i11 i rn 1 f \-%us u e a i e OCT P I eoksed io t-ear p} �ni'j C.uns�c(�c,.�tt� fit' -�\l�„�,t•rtiq C�^,���'r.s � ,. OLrrn���1^efe b�j Pr�-� id r�gG11 Sc�l��c�5 m,n;- etir'Ocer:eS etc. i5 nGrt 36ncJ -T--D ts-�Cfp 100 he L\SC'S vM %U,\/ iYq it CAL C 11 �i de i h2 � JlrVt l n i to��T�Gi v✓� i"nPi r �zrSvrr� l ne-et-�. ) J CLbL-vim; \'cc lei 1^cii- �ra�4 is es�c+czl G�iorU 1Dcu ias and Ter'r� L Cc toad i,60 i r��c_� dramac�iCclt�. W e Qiso it t {a-- pa v r '8. ue. -� I n C r (fCLSCd - rc(-C+ • c 3) )hese�a�ed rocicis weld be c� se.vefe h�nderaf,ce be ca kL�a e rhea cu.+f t5-,+� p far d� �. W k4j-� 0- -ira i n i r ,c r�C�f� -� erdance_ 1-,�se.back- r+dim9 races. 4� Uk\y-, aL-::,D 4:Zae1 4k + +a �c i`� the enJi►�n + G s�derafi �� e^n deiax{; �,,he -b c JotCp 4hi s land I s necessa� -ncc- numbu L lawvis 44+ wilt Ge.�t ihl� be ins+al(Ed -toi1 \ CV p WQ,tPX (-Coo -Lfces ek.s Wc.O as Patent cUL-, cnta m i nab 9ro,Lrd . . die -b `er-h 1�zQf ar�Q otter" them Kcal run o•�� . Fir1a l t ,We -}his �.J�cp�>1er�% rlNill des1YL_5L,{! *C Cou Ct t NY V e-re t 1l i c*-\. e5t; �STS 1 r1 ' 1'hts pt,rt O t- FbF (oll �nS. Please Ifa%fe-. his urliov-&e OtCea 1✓\ G� i. D `'- rkow t I.- y 4 We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads. The proposed urban densities will cause.... -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --traffic flow problems and stress on county resources to maintain access roads. Name Address Phone(optional) II We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads. The proposed urban densities will cause.... -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --traffic flow problems and stress on county resources to maintain access roads. Name Address Phone(optional) We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads. The proposed urban densities will cause.... -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --traffic flow problems and stress on county resources to maintain access roads. Name Address Phone(optional) We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads. The proposed urban densities will cause.... -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --traffic flow problems and stress on county resources to maintain access roads. Name Address Phone(optional) SZ-GS%6 r� We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads. The proposed urban densities will cause.... -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --traffic flow problems and stress on county resources to maintain access roads. Name Address Phone(optional) We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads The proposed urban densities will cause -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --stress on county resources to maintain access roads and traffic flow problems The City of Ft. Collins needs to offer residents the option of different lifestyles within the urban growth area. Name Address We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads. The proposed urban densities will cause.... -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --traffic flow problems and stress on county resources to maintain access roads. Name Address We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads. The proposed urban densities will cause.... -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --traffic flow problems and stress on county resources to maintain access roads. Name Address Phone(optional) We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads. The proposed urban densities will cause.... -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --traffic flow problems and stress on county resources to maintain access roads. Name Address Phone(nntinnall We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current, design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads. The proposed urban densities will cause.... -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --traffic flow problems and stress on county resources to maintain access roads. Name Address Phone(optional) We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads. The proposed urban densities will cause.... -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --traffic flow problems and stress on county resources to maintain access roads. Name Address Phone(ontionnl l 5 r- ti6YC - y(a 11 +%. We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads. The proposed urban densities will cause.... -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --traffic flow problems and stress on county resources to maintain access roads. Name Address Phone(optional) liZWA i I, "/ We, the undersigned, are opposed to the current design of the Hoffman PUD because: The proposed urban densities are incompatible with the surrounding established neighbor- hoods --rural acreages with farm animals, some on narrrow dirt roads. The proposed urban densities will cause.... -- negative environmental impacts --safety concerns from traffic hazards and proximity of livestock/oil drilling --traffic flow problems and stress on county resources to maintain access roads. Name r� 9 Address t Phone(optional) Z_ 2 - ZF61 _`I I5—C-1Ia-_IZ March 18, 1996 Mr. Steve Olt Current Planning 281 N. College Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Olt: Enclosed, please find a list of signatures gathered by the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition. This petition indicates the concern of residents in our area regarding the proposed Hoffman/Hearthfire PUD. Most of the anxiety revolves about the issue of neighborhood compatibility and existing land use of the primarily rural residential area. We hope that this would convey to you the apprehension that we as a neighborhood and community feel at this encroachment of an urban development into our area. Sincerely, The Northeast Neighborh od Coalition C/o Kathleen Kilkelly 920 Inverness Rd. Ft. Collins, CO 80524 Dear Hr. Olt: I oppose the current design of the Hoffman PUD because I feel that the proposed URBAN DENSITIES are incompatible with the rural character and density of our community. I feel that this will produce more congestion and increases in traffic that cannot be safely accommodated by our road network. Our existing services in this area are limited and this development will strain facilities such as police, fire, schools, water, sewage, and power. This development will also result in a negative impact on wildlife habitat and the surrounding env}ronment. Sincerely, Address axe-,.. ' w�LA D -s-: s ffi;4�� I r i - II'' • -� r' of . -�, � � lm 9 i it 4� t'�� I 71 &4p., C� �E � U'l-) � ��� ���� a Cv,�-A� (--4� 3014Y QQ. �-PigeL L-1Ap�'�