Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD - PRELIMINARY - 44-89D - REPORTS - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION• Christopher D. Rithner, Ph.D. President, Homeowners Association The Ridge Subdivision 4600 Regency Dr. Ft. Collins, CO 80526 September 21, 1990 Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clark Project Planner City Planning Department Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Dear Ms. Albertson -Clark: The homeowners in the Ridge have been watching the developments surrounding the proposed residential portion of the South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD with rapt attention. Since several of our residents own property adjacent to or directly impacted by the proposed development we feel that it is important for the City and the developers to take our interests into consideration before making any final decisions regarding the proposed development. The comments put forth herein should be viewed as reflecting the opinion of a significant majority of our residents. We are not opposed, in principle, to the planned development of the areas surrounding our neighborhood and, indeed, we will continue to work with the City to see that compatible development is encouraged. The environment of the Ridge is characterized by large open spaces, large green -belt commons and average lot sizes in excess of one-half acre. There is a rural character to our neighborhood. We have controlling covenants and an active Homeowners Association which seek to maintain this character. During summer days one may find hawks and eagles circling the skies over our homes. It is our hope that we will be able to preserve many of the features of this area that make our neighborhood a desireable place to live. There are several issues which we have with the proposed development. The plans by the developer to fill in the ravine to provide access to several of the lots is contrary to the well being of this environmentally sensitive area. This is a very deep ravine and we find it impossible to imagine how the very character of these wetlands can avoid being irreparable damaged by the massive grading and backfill that will be needed. Several of our lots back right up to the proposed development and yet the developer has not provided any assurances that the living environment around these existing homes will not be severely impacted. Despite many promises, we have not seen any convenants outlining the use of fencing (abhored in the Ridge), main floor area, setbacks, building materials, etc. As you know, the Ridge has strict guidelines for these issues. At various times we have seen plans calling for six, seven, eight, and now nine lots on approximately six acres with essentially no buffer, common, or green belt areas. Naturally, we prefer hearing that six lots is acceptable, but just what is it to be? After examining the location of several of the planned lots to be placed on drammatically sloping ground toward the back (easy) of the property one can not help but wonder about the suitability of these locations for any buildings whatsoever. It is our hope that you will take our concerns into consideration as you make your final recommendations and judgements. Open spaces and wetland parks are rapidly dissappearing from the Ft. Collins proper. Perhaps we can find a higher use for this important scenic wetlands area than that put forth in the proposed residential portion of the South Shields Veterinary Clinic PUD. For the Ridge Homeowners, Dr. Christopher D. Rithner, President Ridge Homeowners Association • 1827 Michael Lane Fort Collins, CO 80526 September 11, 1990 Att: Sherry Albertson -Clark Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Ft. Collins 300 Laporte Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Dear Board Members: We urge you to deny the application for the South Shields Veterinary Clinic, Phase II. A part of this property has been designated as an "environmentally sensitive area". We believe this means development should only occur with strong safe guards in place to protect the integrity of the environment. In an environmentally sensitive area, citizens ought to be able to expect that the city's adopted policies to protect the environment will be given utmost consideration. There are several adopted policies that are applicable to this proposed development: Land should be developed utilizing natural contours. (The proposed fill is certainly not consistent with natural contours. As presented in January this fill would be 40 feet high and 250 feet wide at the base.) span drainage channels should be used. (The developer proposes a 48 inch culvert in direct conflict.) Trees should be retained. (To my knowledge the developer has made no commitment as to which trees would be protected.) Wildlife habitat should be protected. (The developer fails to acknowledge this area as an important bird and wildlife area even though this has been entered into the record at neighborhood meetings.) Wetlands should be protected. (Low lying areas are present on land included in this application. Has the staff made a comprehensive study to determine if these are classified as "wetlands"? Is a 404 Permit necessary to change the natural flow of this waterway? The proposal lacks an adequate erosion plan. A culvert is very apt to become plugged with the debris that is present in the irrigation ditch and without constant maintenance could cause considerable erosion and property damage. As we understand the application the developer is asking the city to approve a road which is narrower than standard residential requirements. With steep inclines going up and down to cross the proposed fill, it seems a safety hazard will be created. Are guard rails being proposed? We do not believe the city should make exceptions to street width requirements that are in place to protect the health and safety of citizens. Policy makers need to be concerned that property owners have a reasonable use of their property. The property of the applicant which is on the west side of the ravine has many natural limitations because of its difficulty in access, steep slopes and important environmental character which make it inappropriate for development. On May 21, 1990 we offered to buy this pasture land to add -on to our adjacent parcel. We are prepared to renew that offer at this time which certainly gives the property owner a "reasonable use". Sincerly, a Thayet nfo d Thayer Sa cc: Council Tom Shoemaker is (Response Pending) 8-21-91 City Council Members Fort Collins, Colorado Dear Council Members, I understand you have directed City Staff to look into possible actions to take regarding a natural area along a tributary of Fossil Creek in the proposed Lory Subdivision. I appreciate and share your concern for protecting important natural areas. If the price is reasonable, I would support outright purchase of this area for two reasons: 1) The Fossil Creek drainage is an important component of our local natural areas. The upper areas near the Foothills are especially valuable to wildlife. 2) It would set a good example of the intent of Council to provide more than a paper plan for Natural Areas protection. I realize that City staff has not yet prioritized all actions for the plan, but some action now would show support for the concept. For the longer term, I would like to offer a suggestion for future funding of natural areas acquisitions. The parkland development fee provides a good model for what could be used to provide a funding base for natural areas. A set fee could be charged for developing lands, and these moneys could be designated for natural area purchases. As in Parks, some money could go for purchase of Natural Areas within the neighborhood of the development, and some could go for Areas needed from a larger City-wide perspective. I think most citizens would welcome the presence of Natural Areas in their neighborhoods, as they now welcome public Parks. Completion of a reasonable set of priorities for purchase, along with an equitable funding mechanism would go a long way toward ensuring the continued existence of important natural areas throughout the City. Thanks for your consideration of my views. Sincerely, Rick Schroeder 107 N. Hollywood Ft. Collins, CO 80521 484-8337 • 1 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO Robert Kulovany 1317 Hepplewhite Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Dear Board, �1 AUG 22 This letter is written to express opposition to the current plan of the proposed Laurie Subdivision based on the following reasons. 1) An excellent wildlife habitat would be destroyed due to the close proximity of planned dwellings (particularly lots 7, 3 and 8) and constuction of a private road over the existing ravine. 2) A conflict between land uses exists as the density of the Laurie PUD greatly exceeds that of adjacent lots (23, 24 and 25) and greenbelt areas in the Ridge. 3) The minimum square footage of dwellings in the Laurie PUD are incompatible with the size of existing homes in the immediate area. 4) A maximum height allowance of proposed dwellings is excessive and would not conform aesthetically with the surroundings. 5) The narrowness of a common drive (20 feet) prevents emergency vehicles from serving lots on the west side of the ravine, thereby endangering residents of aforementioned lots as well as surrounding neighbors. Please give this matter your utmost attention and do not approve the Laurie PUD plan as it currently exists. Sincerely, Lari mer County Planning Dept_ Fort Collins, Colorado Dear 'Sirs and/or Madams, On July 10, 1990 1 inventoried a piece of property owned by 'William Musslewhite, D.V.M., located on South Shields Avenue in Fort Collins. This ground is proposed to be subdivided by Dr. Musslewhito in the near future_ The inventory was done to assess the presence of nesting raptors and the presence of either state or federal threatened or endangered species. No raptors were observed nesting on the property; however.. American kestrels were observed in the immediate area. Kestrels are quite well adapted to human disturbance and should not be adversly effected as long as the mature cottonwoods remain_ I believe their retention is part of the plan for the P.U.D. No evidence of any threatened or endangered species was found, In addition, the property has not been designated critical habitat by either the Colorado Division of WiIdlife or the U.S. Fish and 'Wildlife Service. I f 1 can provi de you wi th any f uther i of ormat i on or data, pl ease contact me at 667-8261. Sincerely, Richard Kahn Certified Wildlife Biologist