HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODLAND STATION PUD - PRELIMINARY - 18-94B - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONR
agreeing to compromise. We are still willing to discuss the issues and are open to
suggestions that truly address our concerns, but we are also willing to continue to fight for
our neighborhood and the lifestyles we chose for ourselves and our children.
We are prepared tonight to propose a further compromise in hopes that this issue
can be resolved , and the project can proceed. We will not object to the higher density
townhomes or the patio homes currently shown on the developers plans, if the developer
will enlarge the lots on the northern and eastern boundaries of the development to one
acre in size and enlarge the lots across the street from these lots to 1/2 acre lots. By
expanding these lots, a buffer zone will be created and the development will be more
transitional to the area. If the developer cannot agree or needs more specifics at this time
we would gladly meet with him soon to resolve this issue and get back to this Board as
soon as possible.
I thank you for your attention, and the time you have given me to address the issues that
are of concern to our neighborhood. Lets put a development here that we can all be proud
of for years to come.
High. In all likelihood students would attend Boltz or Lesher Jr.High and not Preston
which is situated nearby. Mr. Agee also stated that before any development was to
proceed, he felt it was important to wait for the final boundary committee
recommendations which he hoped would come early next year. He also stated that a
development of 70 units would have from 1/3 to 1/2 fewer elementary students than a 100
unit development. It is apparent that a development on this site will result in not only a bus
trip across part of Fort Collins, but countless automobile trips that parents take to schools
for various activities etc. Given this fact, doesn't it make sense to approve a lower density
development rather than a higher density one in an area that will not have its own
elementary nor Junior High school.
There are three other issues worthy of mention. The first pertains to solar lots. All
of the lots north of the windbreak are labeled as solar lots. These lots and the roofs will be
in the shade all winter. How can they. be labeled "solar lots"? The second issue regards
environmental impact. Despite the finding from the city environmental dept., we still feel
that our neighborhood provides a habitat to a variety of animals and it is very close to the
wetlands. We also question the storm runoff into Fossil Creek Inlet and the potential for
flooding and destruction of some of our property if a high density development is built
here. Finally, the variances we ask from this board concerning density requirements are
not without precedence. There have been a number of them granted when this Board has
recognized the importance to granting variances when needed.
By defeating this proposed development and encouraging a lower density
development on this site you will send a message to the citizens of this community and the
city council that there is room for all of its citizens within the Urban growth area, and that
instead of molding it's citizens to fit a solution it will develop solutions to fit the way
people choose to live. Over the months and countless meetings among ourselves , the
developer, and the city planning staff, we have tried to be responsible and be flexible in
3.01PEN SPACE- Another area of concern is over open space. The plan presented by the
developer lacks any true open space. The windbreak may meet the letter of the law but it
lacks the spirit. Residents and children cannot play in this area nor even walk through it.
Because the Poudre ridge drops to the floodplain, the existence of a neighborhood park
east of County Rd. 9 is unlikely. The proposed day care center and pool will not meet the
needs of children who wish to play soccer, baseball etc. In order to find true open space or
a park, children will be forced to cross County Rd. 9 or Harmony Rd. How many parents
will let their young children take that walk? Instead they will drive them to the parks. Is
this helping to reduce the automobile traffic within the Urban Growth area?
4. SAFETY- The question of safety also arises. There are currently no parks, schools, or
other services east of County Rd. 9. which are in close proximity to this development.
Residents will be forced to cross busy highways to access these amenities. Fewer people in
a lower density development will mean fewer crossings and trips.,
The east side of County Rd 9 lacks a good shoulder or sidewalk to walk or bike
on. Woodland's Station's sidewalk will terminate at the acreages to the north and a
complete pedestrian path along the length of the east side of County Rd. 9 may be a long
time coming. More density means more pedestrian and bike traffic with no safe route.
5. SCHOOLS- Another area of concern is the school situation.In November of 1994, we
had a long and detailed conversation with Mr. Carol Agee who is responsible for
predicting growth patterns within the Poudre R-1 School District. He brought up some
interesting points concerning school growth patterns and this development.. First, he
mentioned that whatever is built there will be a development without a neighborhood
school. The closest schools, Linton and Tinmath, will be full. Elementary students will
most likely attend Odea, Riffenburg or possibly Laurel. He went on to say that of even
greater concern to parents living in this development will be the feeder system into Junior
neighborhood. There is more open space on their property than many of our own
homesites. Despite the possibility of further HP expansion we fully expect HP to remain
sensitive to our neighborhood and provide the high quality landscaping and buffering that
is evident on their existing site. .
2. DENSITY The second area of concern that is closely related to the first is the issue of
density. The proposed density of over 3 units per acre is about 20 times the average
density of the existing neighborhood. This is akin to slapping a 60 unit per acre
development next to a 3 unit per acre development with no buffer zone between the two.
The south, east and north lot lines need buffer areas, currently there are none. To allow a
new development that is 20 times denser to bump up against the established neighborhood
with no buffer zone is inherently incompatible. We realized that flexibility in our original
proposal was needed, and we made a substantial concession in our Nov meeting with the
developer and staff when we agreed to two units per acre as a possible compromise. As
you can see from the slide, this was not an unreasonable suggestion to propose two units
per acre. We are not asking for large ranch type acreages nor even acreage that
approaches anything like our own. We simply want a development that is more transitional
to the area than the one presented tonight. We are quite aware of the current minimum
density requirement of 3 units per acre, but we seek a variance for any development on
this site because of the need for compatibility.
We applaud the efforts of the city and this board to provide various types of
housing within the urban growth area. Surely no one on this board or for that matter the
city council would want to discriminate against any particular group of people just because
of their particular rural lifestyle or desire to live on large acreages. We hope that this
Board would respect our established rural neighborhood and approve a development that
is more compatible.
6c0Od/a/icl ""Y)-a-h0JIJ
To Planning and Zoning Board P'E-,o, c ! 9 9 S�
I have been asked by the Poudre Ridge Neighborhood to present our concerns and
feelings about the Woodland Station PUD. We do this in order to effectively use the time
allotted for neighborhood input.
As you are aware, the proposed development east of County Rd. 9, referred to as
the Woodland Station PUD has created great concern in our neighborhood. As early as
last April we met to express our reservations about such a development. Those of us who
attended the annexation hearings were told that once the area in question was in the city,
that the neighborhood would have considerable input and say about what would be
constructed in the designated area. We will admit that the city has provided and
encouraged input from the neighborhood, and we thank your for that effort. It has yet
however to be determined if all of our effort and input will bear fruit. We sincerely hoped
that after all these months of work and effort by the neighborhood, the developer, and the
planning and zoning staff, that a plan would have emerged that would have genuinely
addressed the major concerns of all parties. It is unfortunate that I must report tonight that
an agreement has not been reached and the neighborhood is far from satisfied and objects
to the proposed Woodland Station PUD for the following reasons.
1. COMPATIBQ.ITY
We maintain that the proposed PUD is totally incompatible with the existing
neighborhood. I wish to present a few slides to illustrate this point. This neighborhood has
long been established in this area, and in the last three years four more large acreage lots
were developed in accordance with county land policies. The annexation of land into the
city as shown in the diagram does have a direct effect on our neighborhood. The proposed
development with 110 units is inconsistent with the residential development already
present. We view the HP plant as a compatible neighbor that has made every attempt to
buffer and heavily landscape it's property to make it compatible with the existing