HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARK SOUTH PUD - MASTER PLAN - 46-88 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 18
C
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OF &,mint 27, ngg
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Park South PUD Master Plan - #46-88
APPLICANT: Marc Middel
c/o Vaught/Frye Architects
2900 S. College
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Marc Middel
1407 S. College
Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT PLANNER: Sherry Albertson -Clark
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Master Plan on 31 acres,
located at the intersection of Horsetooth and Manhattan Avenue. The Master
Plan consists of 44 single family lots, 14 zero lot line single family housing
units and 233,000 square feet of office, retail and commercial uses. The site is
zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed Master Plan is not in conformance
with the adopted plans and policies of the City. Land use Policy #70 states
that "regional/community shopping centers 'should locate near transportation
facilities that offer the required access to the center but will not be allowed to
create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and future transpor-
tation network of the city." The proposed land uses and magnitude of these
uses generate a traffic impact that far exceeds the residential collector street
capacity and creates a negative impact on the neighborhood. Therefore, the
proposed Park South PUD Master Plan is deemed incompatible with the sur-
rounding neighborhood and Comprehensive Plan and staff recommends denial
of the Master Plan.
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750
Park South PUD
P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS
1 1. Background:
Master Plan - #46-88
- August 22, 1988
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: R-P; existing single family residences (Warren Farm PUD)
S: R-L-P; existing single family residences (South Glen PUD)
E: H-B, R-P; vacant
W: R-L-P; existing duplexes and single family homes (The Village at
Four Seasons, Four Seasons PUD)
In April of 1978, Larimer County approved the original Park South PUD on
this site. The Park South PUD consisted of 143 single-family zero lot line
units. Access to the site was from Manhattan Avenue and most of the units
were served by private driveways. The site was annexed to the city in July of
1978, as part of the 289-acre Horsetooth-Harmony Annexation. Prior to annex-
ation, the site was zoned R-1, Residential, in Larimer County. Low Density
Planned Residential zoning was approved for this site at the time of annexa-
tion.
As part of the annexation, the County -approved plan was accepted by the city
and a final PUD phase plan (consisting of 143 zero lot line units) was
approved by City Council in 1980. Preliminary and final plans were
subsequently approved for the portion of the original PUD that lies east of
Manhattan Avenue, which is not a part of the current proposal.
At the time of annexation, commitments were made to the original developer
regarding the status of the approved plan and proposed street system. These
commitments provided that Manhattan would be constructed without curb, gut-
ter and sidewalks as a 44' paved street on an 80' r-o-w and---that--drainage
would occur through the use of grass swales rather than conventional curb and
gutter. Other specifics were outlined to address interior street widths, utility
materials and construction and required street improvements.
Construction of Manhattan Avenue and Stream Court (existing driveway in
southeast corner of site) and installation of utilities in the Stream Court area
have been completed as per the original plan. Since these improvements are
existing in the Stream Court area, the applicant has retained the ability to
build 14 zero lot line units on these lots. It has been clarified by legal staff,
however, that any changes to other unimproved areas of the original approved
plan would trigger review against current city standards. The construction of
Manhattan has been "accepted" by the city, based on the original approved Park
South PUD, even -though construction was not to city collector standards.
Further construction could occur on the site, based on the approved plan.
c
C
C'
i
Park South PUD Master Plan - $#46-88
P & Z Meeting - August 22, 1988
Page 3
2. Residential Land Use:
The proposed Master Plan includes a variety of land uses. The first phase is
for 44 single family lots. The other residential phase consists of 14 zero lot
line housing units (based on the original approved Park South PUD).
The proposed residential phases of the Master Plan are supported by the
following land use policies from the Land Use Policies Plan:
3d - "The City shall promote the location of residential development which is
close to employment, recreation and shopping facilities."
22 - "Preferential consideration shall be given to urban development proposals
which arc contiguous to existing development within the city limits or
consistent with the phasing plan for the City's urban growth area."
75 - "Residential development should provide for a mix of housing densities."
79 - "Low density residential uses should locate in areas:
a. Which have easy access to existing or planned neighborhood and
regional/community shopping centers;
b. Which have easy access to major employment centers;
c. Within walking distance to an existing or planned elementary school;
d. Within walking distance to an existing or planned neighborhood park
and within easy access to a community park; and
e. In which a collector street affords the primary access."
The proposed residential uses are low density in nature and are in close
proximity to regional/community shopping, existing schools, parks and employ-
ment. Access to the residential areas would be from Manhattan Avenue, a
collector street. The residential phases of the proposed Park South PUD Master
Plan are supported by the Land Use Policies Plan and are deemed compatible
with the surrounding land uses.
3. Non -Residential Land Use:
The non-residential phases of the Master Plan consist of 148,000 square feet of
retail uses at the intersection of Horsetooth and Manhattan, 40,000 square feet
of office uses in the west -central area and 45,000 square feet of commer-
cial/office uses in the area adjacent to Manhattan. Since the adoption of the
City's Land Use Policies Plan and the implementation of the Land Development
Guidance _System, the City has attempted to define a hierarchy of commercial
uses in the City. These commercial classifications were made in order to gain
a better understanding of commercial development, to provide for a more
logical community -wide land use pattern, to protect neighborhoods from intru-
sive or disruptive commercial development, and to better plan the transporta-
tion facilities which are needed to serve these uses. This hierarchy is divided
into the following major classifications:
Park South PUD Master Plan - #46-88
P & Z Meeting - August 22, 1988
Page 4
- Regional/Community% Shopping Centers;
- Neighborhood Service Centers;
- Business Service Uses, and;
- Auto -related and Roadside Commercial uses.
The Downtown and the Foothills Fashion Mall are examples of
Regional/Community Centers, while Campus West and the Pavillion Shopping
Center are Community Centers. Cedarwood Plaza, Scotch Pines Shopping Cen-
ter and Drake Crossing are examples of Neighborhood Service Centers. Foun-
tainhead PUD and Drake Park are examples of business service centers. There
are numerous gasoline service stations, fast food restaurants, car washes, etc.
located along College Avenue which are classified as "auto -related and roadside
commercial" uses.
The intent
of a
Master Plan is to provide estimates of development potential of
a site, in
terms
of proposed land
uses and
densities. Approval of a Master
Plan does not mean
the specific uses
and/or
densities have final approval. Any
future land
use
must be approved
according
to city procedures, processes and
criteria of
the
Land Development
Guidance
System. The non-residential uses
outlined as
"potential" uses on the
proposed
Park South PUD Master Plan are
extensive.
The
potential uses for
the 148,000
square feet of retail space
include:
- retail shops;
- personal service shops;
- health clubs or other membership clubs;
- standard and fast food restaurants;
- retail laundry or dry-cleaning outlets;
- indoor theatre;
- neighborhood convenience center;
- home furnishings showroom with associated warehouse;
- junior department store;
- automobile -related services;
- boat, car & ry showrooms, sales and repair;
- warehouse and storage facilities;
- greenhouse and nurseries;
- home improvement builders' centers;
- household appliance sales, service, repair;
- banks, savings & loans, credit unions;
- antique sales, repair, restoration; and
- seasonal uses (i.e., landscape plants, farmers market).
FA
C
C
C
c
Park South PUD Master Plan - #46-88
P & Z Meeting - August 22, 1988
Page 5
Office uses are proposed at 40,000 square feet on the Master Plan and would
include:
- professional offices;
- research and development offices and laboratories;
- medical offices;
- nursing home and congregate or retirement care centers;
- printing and small-scale newspaper offices;
- small animal veterinary clinics;
- art or photo studios and galleries; and
- private training facilities and other similar uses.
The office/commercial uses, proposed for 45,000 square feet, would include
those listed under "office" and those listed under "retail", to the extent that the
retail uses would be of a smaller scale and compatible with the neighborhood.
Examples might include banks, personal service shops, health clubs, etc.
The non-residential uses proposed on the Park South PUD Master Plan are a
blend of uses typically found in Regional/Community Shopping Centers, Busi-
ness Service Uses and Auto -related and Roadside Commercial uses. The Master
Plan proposes 233,000 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed square
footage of retail uses, which is 148,000 square feet on 11 acres, is somewhat
similar in size to the approved Pavillion PUD, which contains approximately
145,000 square feet of retail uses on 12 acres.
The uses proposed on the Park South PUD Master Plan are oriented toward the
Regional/Community Shopping Center scale of development. These uses typi-
cally serve a larger area than a neighborhood. As defined in the Land Use
Policies Plan, a Regional/Community Shopping Center is a "cluster of retail and
service establishments designed to serve consumer demands from a community
as a whole, or larger area. The primary functional offering is at least one
major department store with associated support shops, usually totalling more
than 90,000 square feet, of total retail trade space." The applicant has
indicated that the proposed retail uses would serve both community and neigh-
borhood -scale markets, rather than a regional market. The Land Use Policies
Plan does not distinguish between a "regional" or "community" shopping center.
According to the Urban Land Institute's 1977 publication, Shopping Center
Development Handbook, classifications of community and regional shopping
centers are distinguished as follows:
"The community center is built around a junior department store or variety
store as the major tenant, in addition to the supermarket. The community
center has a typical gross leasable area of about 150,000 square feet but may
range from 100,000 -to 300,000 square feet."
The regional center "is built around the full -line department store, with a
minimum GLA of 100,000 square feet, as the major drawing power. The
regional center has a typical gross leasable area of 400,000 square feet.
Regional centers range from 300,000 to more than 1,000,000 square feet."
The Land Use Policies Plan addresses the location of Regional/Community
Shopping Centers in the following policies:
M
Park South PUD Master Plan - #46-88
P & Z Meeting - August 22, 1988
Page 6
69 - "Regional/community' shopping centers should locate in areas which arc
easily accessible to existing or planned residential areas."
70 - "Regional/community shopping centers should locate near transportation
facilities- that offer the required access to the center but will not be
allowed to create demands which exceed the capacity of the existing and
future transportation network of the City."
71 - "New r-egional/community shopping centers locating within the proximity
of existing regional/community shopping centers shall be designed to
function together as a single commercial district. All centers will be
designed to encourage pedestrian circulation, and discourage multi -stop
trips with private automobiles, or force traffic onto streets whose primary
function is to carry through traffic."
72 - "Regional/community shopping centers should locate where they can be
served by public transportation."
73 - "Regional/community shopping centers shall locate in areas served by
existing water and sewer facilities."
74 - "Transitional land uses or areas (linear greenbelts or other urban design
elements) should be provided between residential neighborhoods and
commercial areas in order to enhance the concept of a mixture of land
uses."
The proposed Park South PUD Master Plan is located in an area that is easily
accessible to existing and planned residential areas and is adjacent to a public
transportation route (Horsetooth Road). Adequate water and sewer service is
available to the site. The Master Plan has been designed with a buffer along
the existing residential uses in the western area of the site and less -intensive
office uses are planned near residential areas. The site's location is in
proximity to the South College Regional/Community Shopping Center Corridor,
although it lies to the west of the defined corridor (see attached map).
Although the location of a regional/community shopping center at this site is
supported by policies 69, 71, 72, 73 and 74, Land Use Policy 70 discourages
such centers from locating where the capacity of the existing and future
transportation system is exceeded. The Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed
Park South PUD Master Plan is based on the proposed single family uses and
233,000 square feet of office, retail and commercial uses. This analysis included
vehicle trips expected to be generated by the Warren Farm PUD and an adja-
cent office park, Minerva Business Park. Although the Minerva Business Park
PUD has expired, • the site is zoned H-B, Highway Business and could be
expected to develop in a similar fashion to the approved plan for offices and
restaurant uses. Thus, the inclusion of traffic data based on Minerva Business
Park PUD is still valid.
The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates an expected traffic volume on Manhat-
tan Avenue along the site that could exceed 10,000 trips per day. Mitigation
measures, including widening Manhattan, a proposed median cut on Horsetooth
Road (left -turns into the site from west -bound Horsetoot?) and two points of
t- I
I
Park South PUD Master Plan — #46-88
P & Z Meeting — August 22, 1988
Page 7
access along the site's Horsetooth frontage have been proposed by the applicant
to achieve the expected 10,000 trips per day on Manhattan. These proposed
improvements will affect the operation of Horsetooth and therefore, are not
supported by the City Traffic Engineer.
Current traffic on Manhattan is approximately 3,000-3,500 trips per day. Based
on the existing, approved area developments (including Minerva Business Park,
Warren Farm PUD and the original approved Park South PUD), traffic on
Manhattan could be expected at 8,000 trips per day by the year 2010. Manhat-
tan Avenue is designated on the Master Street Plan as a collector street.
Collectors are intended to carry between 3,000 and 5,000 trips per day.
Surrounding developments have been approved based upon expected collector
volumes on these streets. The amount of traffic to be generated by existing
and approved developments in the area already is reaching the upper limits of
traffic planned for collector streets.
Adding the expected traffic volumes from the proposed Park South PUD Mas-
ter Plan significantly increases the impact on Manhattan Avenue, as well as
Meadowlark, north of Horsetooth Road and would far exceed acceptable collec-
tor street capacity. Both Manhattan and Meadowlark primarily serve residential
areas. The introduction of retail, commercial and office uses of the intensity
of the proposed Park South PUD Master Plan would generate unacceptable lev-
els of traffic for these collector streets and the surrounding neighborhoods.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
The proposed 31-acre Master Plan is adjacent to existing residences to the
north, west and south. Neighborhood meetings were held on May 4, 1988 and
August 10, 1988 (see attached summaries). While many of the comments made
by residents at the neighborhood meeting were informational in nature, the
concerns expressed may generally be summarized as relating to the following
items: buffering from adjacent existing residences, proposed land uses, traffic
impact and utilities.
Because of both residents' and staff concerns regarding buffering the proposed
uses from adjacent residences, the applicant has provided additional informa-
tion on the Master Plan to convey the buffering intent. The schematic shown
on the Master Plan indicates that a one-story building in Phases C and E
would have a minimum setback (from the property line) of 20 feet and that a
two-story building would have a minimum setback of 30 feet. A combination
of landscaping and berming would also be incorporated to address the potential
land use conflicts and the existing grade difference between the two properties.
The landscaping along the west property line would be installed by the appli-
cant at the time of construction of Phase A, allowing time for the vegetation
to mature before specific site plans were proposed on Phase E or Phase C.
This schematic information is provided on the Master Plan and is intended to
establish a minimum level of expectation for area residents, as well as city
staff.
�_ 1
Park South PUD Master Plan — #46-88
P & Z Meeting — August 22, 1988
Page 8
Residents expressed concerns regarding the proposed change to non-residential
uses. The approved Park South PUD consisted of 143 single family attached
and detached units ..on the 31-acre site. This plan is still valid; however, the
applicant has chosen to propose a new Master Plan. The responses to these
issues have been outlined in the above sections on land use.
Concerns were raised regarding an existing water pressure problem in the Four
Seasons PUD area and the impact this proposal could have on water pressure.
Work is presently underway on a larger water line. Phase I of this construction
is completed and Phase 2 is scheduled to be finished by September 1, 1988.
Upon completion, water pressure will be maintained at a more consistent level,
at approximately 45-55 psi. Presently, water pressure during peak demand drops
to approximately 20 psi and reaches a high of 55 psi during times of low
demand. The proposed Park South PUD will not have an effect on water pres-
sure with the completion of Phase 2 of the water line construction.
Area residents also expressed concerns regarding the additional traffic impact
that could be expected as a result of the proposed development. As discussed in
the previous section of this staff report, the expected traffic volumes generated
from the proposed Master Plan arc significant. The impact on Manhattan Ave-
nue, as well as Meadowlark would far exceed the capacity of collector streets.
These streets primarily serve residential areas. The introduction of the
proposed non-residential land uses, as well as the intended magnitude at this
location, would significantly increase traffic on residential streets beyond
acceptable residential city collector standards, to the point of creating a
negative impact on the residential neighborhoods of the area.
RECOMNIENDATION
The proposed Master Plan is not in conformance with the adopted plans and
policies of the City. The proposed land uses and magnitude of these uses
create a negative impact on the neighborhood street system due to the signifi-
cant traffic impact expected to be generated by the proposed Master Plan.
Therefore, the proposed Park South PUD is deemed incompatible with the sur-
rounding neighborhood and staff recommends denial of the Park South PUD
Master Plan.
a� '
a ■ lam:
72
II
RLP
RP
WARREN FARM P.U.O.
r
--HQRWTgQIM R_QAP
E
COMMERCIAL/
OFFICE
2 A— 11—V
L..DSCAI
—d-w
vow
Pn s &c
v� IIMN pm
C OFFICE
VACANT X
RLP I
0
ro1lAr.lar64 " LJAte[wr. .Ii+wl
w %T MWOM LIK
lo .—s w
964
D MrTEn &MIAL
t
ICE
F
RP
DUPLEX
111 HOUSING
C-TpI!
'RL - P -
. 1.
PTT'j-1 DEVELOPMENT AREA
PRIMARY ROADWAY
SECONDARY ACCESS
VIIACT.CcaworcuL ® LANDSCAPE BUFFER
wrwwrn•1 NOTES
HB
SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSING
SIACMS.M
- ez 0-47
�A - f I
B comma
PLANNING AND ZONING Tr It
BOARD APPROVAL
I
.. .. ...... .. ..
. ..... ........
PLANNING OSXCTTVES
. ...... ........ ..
....... .. . . ......
. . . .... . .....
LEGAL
W���-:�.w . PARK SOUTH
OWNERS CERTIFICATION M A S T E R P L A N
VAHT ......-...An � �T...w...— ® ... o x ,
o Too na
A
I w
I!
is
i
! MAIEB�IYEi IYp
�OIRTODTM
®r
PARK
SOUTH
PUD
ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN
TMq nAw ro row tRAwecATgw niwloeE{ oYRr AMD wA{
PTT EMTED AT THE
YEE TMDY
NMAT THE MUYNw{ Dw THE YA{TEE
TW WASTE.
E-N,TD WHEN MTE
I
PRAM wEPN{EMT E
M wE{POMN i0 DEIICU M
WO I Aft A
nTEM11ETNe iME YA{TE11 RAM AT THE
HE
0,
NEwWEO11Mp00 YEETMO W {-.-N.
462
VAHT
F YE
- I
o
1 I
SOUTHSDE BAPTIST CHURCH
WARREN FARM P.U.D.
WARREN FARM PAD.
TPACT 0 COAva0rA 1.00MV
0. CAM
O CT C 4000OW OFF=
� 1-
I It
-—°.-�--�—
.—_
-
—
HORSA.. -- .—_
- — ----
-- -- -- --- _
A.. He rR •.
uR `
(i � �
i
PARCEL E
. ar ACFrs c.•w
•�
PARCEL D
• � 4
MNERVA BUSMSS PARK \
VILLAGE AT FOUR SEASONS PAD. ' • I NO ZONED .
-- I ~ F • .NOOO.I OFFKZAWM.
I I • .
16{{11
1Q L 1
C _ �
MANHATTAN
PARCEL F
"4 .. PARCEL B
#3
PARCEL D I N;1L--
H
PROPOSED HIGHWAY GEOMETRICAL DESIGN CONCEPTS
PARK SOUTH P.U.D. MASTER PLAN -
TRAFFIC STUDY
,..- ...
C
10 VAUGHT
FRYE
archi eds
August 15, 1988
Sherry Albertson -Clark
Senior Planner
City Planning Dept.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Park South P.U.D./8-14
Dear Sherry,
Please find attached the revised documents for the above
project to be heard at the Planning & Zoning meeting on August
22, 1988.
Parcel's C, E, and 'A' have been revised in area, desity and
restrictions for building height and landscape buffer has been
added to the Master Plan. The Land Use Analysis has been
amended and the Preliminary Phase Parcel 'A' documents have
been altered to suit.
We have also included in our revised submission documents,
Sheet #2, the Illustrated Master Plan, which has been used at
two neighborhood meetings, for clarification purposes only.
This is at the request both of the concerned neighbors and our
client. We, therefore, think it appropriate for this project
only, to include this plan for the record. Also included is
Sheet #3 illustrating Proposed Highway Geometrics. Again, we
would like this submitted for the record, as this was used in
discussions with city staff and neighborhood representatives.
Sincerely, `
Tony Hughes
VAUGHT*FRYE ARCHITECTS
TH/kc
Enclosure
1
land planning • architecture
2900 S. C:ollege Avenue Fort Cull ins. C dorado.80525 (303) 223-2808
w
111
01NOa
., •
c
I
C
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Response to Neighborhood Comments
The .following is the list of responses given to the residents attending the
neighborhood meeting on Park South PUD on May 4, 1988, as well as
subsequent changes made to the proposed plan to address these comments:
1. What type of buildings would be planned for the office area? liow
tall would the buildings be?
Response: Architect indicated the specific height was unknown. The
Master Plan has since been changed to reflect that the phase in the northeast
area of the site would have a mix of one and two-story buildings. Overall, no
building would exceed 40'.
2. What price range is expected for the single family homes?
Response: Architect indicated a general price range, compatible with
existing units.
3. What is the difference in developing the property under zoning (as
residential) vs. the PUD?
Response: Staff gave overview of zoning on site, which is R-L-P and
overview of PUD.
4. How close will building be to the northeast area of Four Seasons?
Response: Architect indicated the specific setbacks are unknown. The
Master Plan now reflects that a 1-story building in this area would have a
minimum setback of 20' and a 2-story building would have a 25' setback.
5. How does the city evaluate what is an adequate buffer between Four
Seasons and this site?
Response: Staff indicated that a buffer can be a mix of vegetation and
physical separation and/or solid fencing, or any combination thereof. Deter-
mining "adequate" is based on existing buildings and setbacks, building height,
nature of uses, etc.
6. How does the PUD process work?
Response: Staff gave an overview of the PUD process and the Land
Development Guidance System.
7. Residents to the west are experiencing water pressure problems - will
this project increase this problem?
Response: Staff indicated further research would be done on this item.
Discussions with Water and Sewer clarified that the existing water pressure in
the Four Seasons area ranges from a low of 20 psi to a high of 55 psi.
Construction of a new water line (the second phase of which is to be done by
September 1, 1988) will provide a stable level of water pressure at 55 psi.
8. What type of commercial uses are planned next to the northeast corner
of Four Seasons?
Response: Architect indicated this is not determined. The Master Plan
now shows potential uses as offices, studios, galleries, banks, personal service
shops, etc.
9. What uses could be put on the property to the cast of Manhattan,
which is zoned H-B, Highway Business?
Response: Uses -by -right include single family, multi -family and neighbor-
hood convenience centers. Other uses could be proposed through the PUD
process.
10. Has the developer evaluated the need for these uses in Fort Collins?
Response: Architect indicated market research that developer had done.
Staff stated that city policy was not to determine particular "need" for specific
uses.
11. Additional traffic from this development would affect existing conges-
tion on area streets. What will be done about this?
Response: Staff indicated that a traffic impact study would be required
of the developer and City Traffic Engineer would evaluate the study to deter-
mine the level of impact.
12. Will Troutman Parkway be extended? How many houses would be
built without buyers (spec)?
Response: Staff stated that Troutman would be extended west to Taft Hill
Road. Architect indicated that number of spec homes are unknown.
13. How close will houses at the south end of the property be to the south
property line?
Response: Architect stated that lots would back-up to existing South Glen
PUD and that a storm drainage easement would run along the south property
lines in Park South.
14. Will there be a dccel lane on Horsetooth and Manhattan?
(t I
-2-
CResponse: Architect replied that this would be determined through the
traffic impact study. The study has shown the need for a decel lane.
15. How can the developer buffer the non-residential uses on this site from
the existing Four Seasons homes - Four Seasons site sits higher?
Response: Architect indicated a combination of setbacks and landscaping
could be used. Staff indicated that building height could also help buffer the
uses. The Master Plan now reflects a setback/building height ratio.
16. What is the difference between the uses planned in Phase A (commcr-
cial/office) and Phase C (offices)?
Response: Architect indicated that specific uses are not known. Master
Plan now reflects a list of proposed uses for each category.
17. Comment that the change from residential to office, commercial and
retail will affect area.
18. Will there be covenants with the homes, so that present property values
are protected?
Response: Architect responded that covenants would probably be provided.
19. How can there be commercial and office uses on residential -zoned
property?
Response: Staff explained the PUD process and that it allows uses to be
proposed, regardless of the zone.
20. What is the order of phases after phase 1?
Response: Architect indicated that specific phasing isn't certain
21. Comment that the proposed street layout in phase 1 may not be able to
accommodate fire trucks.
Response: Staff has reviewed the plan and fire equipment has adequate
space to maneuver.
22. Comment that putting additional traffic on Dennison Avenue to the
west from this site was undesirable to existing residents.
23. Comment that more residential uses on the site is better than non-
residential.
24. When can more details regarding building height and buffering along
Four Seasons be available? Does developer have to stick to notes on the
Master Plan or can things be changed later without residents' knowledge?
Response: Staff explained the purpose of a Master Plan and the
implications of information on such a plan.
-3.
0 , •
25. How can neighborhood have input? What effect does input have?
Response: Staff explained the review process leading up to the Planning
and Zoning Board review and gave idea of how residents could remain
involved.
26. Has architect been to senior area in Four Seasons to sec how this
project will affect them?
Response: Architect replied that he had not, but would like to visit with
the residents.
27. Comment that group should get involved in review of the project and
with the Planning and Zoning Board at their meeting. Suggest a group be
formed with spokesperson to represent group.
Response: Architect replied that developer thought market was for new
types of uses.
28. Where else in Fort Collins has there been commercial uses put next to
residential at an arterial and collector intersection?
Response: Staff suggested several locations (Drake Crossing).
29. Comment that property owner wouldn't have purchased property if
aware that non-residential uses could go on this site. Why doesn't developer
use the original plan approved in County for residential?
30. Will school impact be considered? Some schools are already full?
Response: Staff indicated that school sites are planned by the school
district and that district is notified of all potential projects with residential
uses proposed.
31. Will existing ditch be open? Will there be any maintenance required
for the pipe being install and who will maintain it? What will happen to the
detention pond that is east of Manhattan? What will happen to the detention
pond in Four Seasons and who maintains it? How will drainage get across
Park South to the detention pond east of Manhattan?
Response: Susan Hayes of Storm Drainage responded. The ditch will
become an underground pipe that will be maintained by the city. The deten-
tion pond east of Manhattan will remain. The Four Seasons detention pond
will be completed and be maintained by the homeowner's association. Drainage
from Park South phase I will flow to the underground pipe and be piped
under Manhattan.
32. Comment that property owner adjacent to the site on Benthaven did
not receive a notice.
-4-
Response: Staff indicated the typical process for notification. Subsequent
information showed that 30 property owners (an entire filing of Four Seasons)
were left off of the mailing list. Staff provided project information to these
30 property owners and has been discussing this project with them.
-5-
c
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY
On Wednesday, August 10, 1988 at 7:00 P.M. in the Forum Room of the Square
Shopping -Center, a neighborhood meeting was held on the Park South PUD
Master Plan and Preliminary Phase Plan. In attendance at this meeting were
Frank Vaught and Tony Hughes of Vaught -Frye Architects (representing the
developer), Sherry Albertson -Clark, Project Planner for the City Planning
Department and approximately 40 residents.
The meeting began with an introduction by Sherry Albertson -Clark to the pur-
pose of the meeting. Frank Vaught then provided an overview of the proposed
Park South PUD Master Plan, after which, questions on the proposed project
were addressed.
The following summarizes the questions asked and responses given by Mr.
Vaught at the neighborhood meeting:
Question : What type of roofs are anticipated in the office and commercial
areas?
Response: Roofs would be of materials common to residential uses. f
uestion: Where would trash be handled?
Response: Trash receptacles would be located in parking areas.
Question : How close would the existing fence be to the proposed buildings?
Response. Distance varies (20' - approx. 40').
Question
What commitment can be made for the
installation of
berms and
landscaping
along the west property line?
Response:
This could
be tied -into the Master Plan
a number of
ways (an
example could be when
a specific number of building
permits are issued).
uestion:
What is the
traffic impact on Horsetooth
and Manhattan
from this
project? What
happens with Manhattan
extended south
to Trout-
man?
Response: Mr. Vaught explained the proposed improvements on Horsetooth and
Manhattan (left turn across median in Horsetooth, decel lane on Horsetooth and
widening of Manhattan).
ci
J
uestion: What is Master Plan process? Does the Master Plan have to be
fulfilled or can changes be made?
Response: Staff provided an overview of the PUD process, explaining the
differences -between a Master Plan and Phase Plan.
uestion: If Manhattan is widened, where does the land come from to widen
it?
Response: The additional width would come from this site.
Question : How is storm drainage handled along the south part of the site?
What happens to the green belt on the original approved plan?
Would the duplexes be rental?
Response: The storm drainage would be handled in an underground pipe. The
location of the green belt would be the backs of the proposed single family
lots. It is unknown if the units would be rentals.
uestion: What is the status of the storm drainage agreement?
Response: Unknown. Staff will verify status.
Question :
How many cars are on Horsetooth now?
r Response:
Approximately 4500, depending on direction and time of
travel,
according
to traffic study.
uestion:
How would left -turn across median occur? Would this
project
increase the number of left turns over present situation?
Response:
Median would be cut. Turns would increase, since there
is no
median cut
presently.
Question :
What is the level of detail required on the Master Plan?
Would
specifics be committed to then?
Response:
Mr. Vaught discussed a more detailed plan representing a potential
layout for
the site, stating that this detail was not typically on a Master
Plan.
ucsti n:
Why this proposal and not residential?
Response:
Market situation. Question viability of residential uses
along
Horsetooth
and Manhattan.
uestion:
Can developer guarantee the hours of operation for the uses?
Response:
If reasonable requests are made.
-2-
uestion: Is developer aware of the drainage problem along the Villages due
to grade difference? Basements arc flooding?
Response: Unaware of this.
uestion: 'Is this a neighborhood center?
Response: No. There is no food store (supermarket) and square footage is
different.
Question: What is the maximum number of businesses that could fit on the
site?
Response: Don't know at this stage.
Question Can you restrict the hours of operation for the users? What is the
drawing point for this center?
Response: Can be addressed. The anchor would be a home furnishings store
and related uses.
Question : Why is a used car lot on the list of uses? Clarify which plan is
the Master Plan.
Response: Use car lot could be temporary use. City is reviewing only original
Master Plan.
Question : Could you flip this site with the HB-zoned site and 'put these uses
there?
Response: Staff discussed the HB zone and uses, as well as the Land Use
Policies Plan and policies for residential and commercial uses.
Question : Shopping centers in Fort Collins are at two arterials. Do you know
where there are any like this situation?;
Response: One at Drake Crossing is at two arterials and a collector.
Question : What can we do if there is trash and debris on the site?
Response: Staff discussed city weed and dust control measures and added that
developer or property manager could be contacted.
uestion: What about left -turn on Horsetooth?
Response: Must be ,reviewed and approved by City.
Question : Has there been any request for Icft-turns across Horsetooth before?
Response: Not aware of any.
-3-
C-7
•
•
uestion: Concern for empty office spaces, retail space. How does developer
determine need for space?
Response: Marketing study. This project plans small buildings that could be
sold to individuals.
uestion: What is maximum height on Master Plan? Is developer committing
to lower buildings south of the Villages?
Response:
Forty feet is height over City. Have put height
restrictions for
areas along the Villages. Height becomes
a function of architecture.
Question :
Why isn't there more detail on
the plan? Don't 90
degree turns on
Dennison cause problems?
Response:
Master Plan and phase plan
detail is different.
Alternatives for
Dennison
are curvelinear vs this design, which
helps cut speed.
Question :
What is process for preliminary
and final plans?
Response:
Staff reviewed process.
Question :
Neal Jaspers, of 636 Wabash.
Didn't want to sign
petition against
project. Map being circulated
shows there was no contact made.
CResponse: Staff noted.
Question : Concern for low water pressure in area. Will this plan create more
problems?
Response: Staff followed -up on this matter after last meeting. Gave overview
of Water and Sewer information, that with completion of new water main (60"),
pressure would stabilize to about 50 psi (or average pressure that each home
has during winter time). This project would not have affect on pressure situa-
tion with this new lime, to be completed by September 1, 1988.
Question : Are there any documents available to address land use and location?
M
Response: Staff gave overview of Land Use Policies Plan and LDGS.
uestion: is the area for duplexes or single family? How many duplexes?
Response: Fourteen duplex or single-family attached units.
uestion: Does the detailed Master Plan shown become part of the record for
the Planning and Zoning Board?
Rcsnonsc: Staff replied that it would not.
uestion: What role does this detailed plan play then?
-4-
Response: Won't play a role in staff or P & Z review.
uestion: Where are copies of the plan available? Can specifics of the
detailed plan be incorporated into the Master Plan? through narra-
tive?
Response: Plan is available at Planning Department. Some of details are
incorporated into the Master Plan (ie. height, setbacks, etc.).
Question Why is detailed plan not being reviewed by City?
Response: The detailed plan was done to illustrate potential development of
the site.
At the close of the question and answer period, staff clarified the next step of
the process, that the plan was scheduled for the August 22, 1988 Planning and
Zoning Board hearing. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
c
e- I
-5-
0"
R
C)
M
Ln
0
WI
z
w
a
z
a
z
a
m
W
a_I
c.3
J
W
G
--; I
W
F—
F-
Q
0
CN
0P
10
Io
0
Cl)
c�
z
CC
w
LL,
z
z
W
J
U
z
0
CC
F-
0
a
z
a
U
U-
Q
To: Marc Middel
Frank Vaught
Rick Ensdorff
From: Matt Delich
Date: July 29, 1988
MEMORANDUM
mts
JUL
29I� U
Subject: Amendment to the Park South PUD Site Access
Study
Following a number of meetings and revisions to the
Park South PUD plan, further traffic analyses were
conducted. The City of Fort Collins felt that the
projected 12,000 vehicles per day on Manhattan Avenue,
just south of Horsetooth Road, was higher than that
desired on a collector level street.
The Park South PUD, Parcels B, D, and E, were
reduced by 32,000 square feet. These parcels are the
commercial uses which have the highest trip generation
characteristics of various parcels on the Park South PUD
Master Plan. Table 1 shows the trip generation of the
reduced land uses. This reduction translates to an
approximate 15 percent reduction in the generated travel
from Park South PUD. Based upon conversations with land
planners and developers, it was decided that a 20
percent reduction in site generated travel from the
commercial portion of Warren Farm and the Minerva
Business Park (HB Zone) would be appropriate. These
reductions resulted in the projections shown in Figure
1.
The volumes shown in Figure 1 are adjusted to
reflect the capture of trips from the normal traffic
passing by the site. For many of these trips, the stop
at the site is a secondary part of a linked trip such as
from work to the commercial use to home, or part of a
multiple stop shopping trip. Based upon the market
c,Dnsiderations of this developer, the uses intended at
Park South would be very susceptible to linked trip
phenomenon. For retail uses, the pass-by/linked trips
can amount as much as 25-40 percent of the generated
travel.
Manhattan, south of Horsetooth, and Meadowlark,
north of Horsetooth, are considered as collectors on the
Fort Collins Master Street Plan. North of Warren Farm,
the projected volume Is 4500 vehicles per day. This Is
in line with volumes expected on a collector street of
this type. South of Dennison, the projected volume is
6500 vehicles per day. This is somewhat higher than the
volumes expected on a collector street. The primary
reason why this volume is at this level is because the
analyses assume that Troutman Parkway will cross the
railroad tracks to the south. This railroad crossing
provides an alternative travel route to/from the South
College Avenue commercial corridor. The volume on
Manhattan, south of Dennison, is primarily due to travel
to/from the neighborhood to the southwest and to
Troutman Parkway crossing the railroad tracks. The
segment of Manhattan between Dennison and Troutman has
very few residential units fronting on It. Therefore,
the imparts of the volume on Manhattan will not be as
significant as that felt by collectors with numerous
driveway accesses.
It has been suggested that a left turn from
viestbound Horsetooth to the access 600 feet west of
Manhattan be considered. It is estimated that this
left -turn entrance could remove as many as 500 left
turns per day from the Horsetooth/Manhattan intersec-
tion. This will improve intersection operation when the
signal is warranted. It will also reduce the volume on
Manhattan, just south of Horsetooth, by approximately
500 vehicles per day. The turn lane requirements along
Horsetooth are:
- Eastbound at Manhattan -- 150-200 feet
- Westbound at the access -- 150 feet
With 120 feet of taper between the two turn lanes, a
maximum of 470 feet would be required between stop bars.
There is more than adequate distance between Manhattan
and the access to fit in the required turn lanes. Based
upon the improvement in operation at the Horsetooth/
Manhattan intersection and the reduction in volumes on
Manhattan, this left -turn Lane becomes increasingly
justified.
z
Table
1
Trip Generation
Daily
A.M.
Peak
P.M.
Peak
Land Use
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
in
out
in
out
Parcel A - 54 DU
540
11
30
34
20
Parcel B - 23.0 KSF
Office/commercial
909
31
13
36
51
Parcel C - 50.0 KSF
Office
615
93
18
14
68
Parcel D - 148.0 KSF
Retail
9872
133
118
429
459
Parcel E - 22.0 KSF
Office/commercial
869
30
13
35
49
Total
12805
298
192
548
647
LONG RAN6E(EOIO)OAILY TRAFFIC
FIGURE
1
I
C
C
J' Onet Dolan
0
3807 Ensenada art
V
Fort Collins.
i �r
e -_c� `-�S it-
TT �' •-gal t`�ti.L ��c� ., P � � �'�
le
� n
2J k.;
�`i:>. was d�-�a:<w'w� .wrsii"�Y✓l+dlCrvl '. ti'e "^..��
��
,�
"----�
,» �..�
f���
C
c
��
No Text
•
m v
'7H< b"roes
oyes w -3ttn
>atm mzM
nlns HH.3O
�m7r7 mbb3
" m S A v m
+ctn zmon
70" 0a7br
WZ 3mM'n
•r C ro
7t*]H ZZxN
73x NOOn
•• M yxcm
yes �Naitn
xr >
a
NY HHm
SM tr*7 H0
Ob btn4
frn�: ZSCA+7
arm" >zz
H
0M OAH
ZH Ns
rzM
cato nT,<.
nca Mrmir
MW En
0 mC) c
mZC nxM
-4O saH
0" C M x
Nz Etna
M to H
Em zob
HGl xt"i�y
s x H m 13
0Am
O
v
En
o�
ZO;vHHb
O m m Q x
Hrotn- "z
N MHtnC
NA0x 3
zmzm�•maw
HEnymCIT
srotnar
M0HH•O On
A7 M ro c"
to:CHm<x
b o x m" M
nctnzz
�CVCVOm
b "mntn
x7tnr<0"
vmrtnav
to b r m r7
aMOcz
zc�rozH
mm"tn
ronv.He"
mzoF.
O C"y
ro b r H s
rq
bmtaHC
Hroms"
m H to r"
C y H C b
MxZZzG�
M > 0 m
Hrm
w2mtronc
H H b b n
xzad.x
0 t- r'n
HroZM
n7�xc�v
0m►9H
En ro to x x
yz"am
0-vyN
roam z
"HzH
mm►3xH
y to M O
acc
c' rz
�^7Hyay0
msG3
�xm to
Gi N
Z
�Atn3H xv<H brothtn y Ht7H �rr�tnH oxxtmx ► a"x bxHs s0s OHxNx
Izw MM �(xj�r-•M 7d"3mom X>xm c "OM
o0H"H sb'v Co'v.%ro mHZtn vtn��Ziw
M. Z" mAOO zcnm V NHxro
0� 0� HmmM w 0tv0 HxOa xHEHy
o1vc'v ax
N�17
FC"HC r0"Z >T0"O aOnbtntnm <m00N
y H s z ro t7 to H to tot" En Zz
s VI -3 Nro ►� OHmvM t"AHO ri L7 ~
o<or czioo� Z=OyyM zv vizopp" z.°n►rCn
wzHHM �M HO CC"<C:cnMn tnCsHC b.Z�b"00
a �< b x 0 < 77 a 'n .0 N N > " > :9
�+MIn rn rrbH tOjrH�>" <Zonm
a Ln .Wl< 0L,a m tno<Z m mmm
Ostnrotn H M rbN�b N2Mm R70 mn
a7o "�., cNrotn on>
Z7
, n >Z. cn m.,7y
Mrr
tnb2 bzHH fl1M
H?7b17 r O _
n b >tlyW tn�v0 N 7otn 03 Hmm
M M Mx
Oz mE ro mrH romAHo :sO"bt„ rom tn0""w
�vvIn zIV os
W. "Coo VC, M<x�y'txnM
M nORf X7 < N MCm3 a3yH HrbZA
H m 10 3 O O H m H r H A H r n O m
t'n• r<3 xvxt7 y x C-30 ObH"
v [n rH �ro mN to MOM MMx Z 0 M tna
m<.H x ;v• z0 OHtn< OHOt"n ymz7mz
<teMpm c0En robes" sroH ssOry
E�InW' ''3 roOr rmNtn m- romx
mH90' > 0 " z Hrosr N .<C
mOx H qp` Om =M,<b <N►Zi0 R7ymr
Oz3"M rozy Mk tam MZOZ 0. tn.
mZA b' M� "
ro"`7omo bxOnH >M "V n00 10 10
HOCroro R7 HHt70 Mror wxC m
xxao o vbW0 tobr0 C. Hb"
mm OH 0mH m"ro HHM KHbrox
'vt.,s "aHx tnrzcn �ex0
mmM zr"M ".«p MM CH0190
r0wr) yyZxntn 3YCtnH•n 0Hmm mrN,H2OnCb zrn " aC"a> ONtr7 M C(nNnz
O'momtxn �<xy .0*7 -tntn 0t"m m zoo
vHmH C"p ct" Enn0Z
m"3 "ZZW HOOpn �Qtn >zS7T
1000Z mamo s 0 Z �Mtnb
COC 'L m ZmrHr AM
tmnbzG� NmzO non-'r) c00 m
q z w �0(Mi7 to"Mm
b b0 z a 0 '3vmro0 Ham r-3w 0
zntnx7 O rrH v y. " sppx6C
az20 Z70b'0*7 KE W o K 0 HO C
v bo ►•z< r
O tn0 C7'n"H HM tz*7 z
Mynri
�+ r sxzx x.
H �C HO0m A b O• H
M Z
b M C O cl x
r x o
c
z
C
C
• a o �L.�� L•�-c�c-' � z� 2-
c
4:5c ,
l� � c e IC..� rrz .c. • GL
_C
•2 �' ISYLG.C�G y ��[. L L .,
2p\
Ll
co
�b
00 1-3
z�z
C/I to
z~tri
H En
CaEn
zcnc
xzx
� wz
> trj
• H H
xr
�>
rotu
r�
t%j :E:
3 C=]
�r
zEn
rx
' C t=]
W cn
�
z
t3 c
z
En
th
Etxj
H H
xx
W
O
7d
x
O
0
d
x
>i-+roH z0�7t3H>
co 0%h 3 txr� H'j C H
zz z
�-+HHO `ztOi7tmm>oou
t >> 3 H En H m a] a
ztr]OC) F-+nOH •_]
HroroH :Otri r
C)>rr Wz1-3
O W b > O x ts1 '-+ tr]
zt"HO oamzz
zmx� xt+ oPC
z zxH kdCd t0
►'-�OOC) > Ht0ncn
H'.L7Cti7 �vC1' tWi]tr'•CC17zC7
'C :U to br3W
Htncn >En0cz
�` > Z M PO M t=7 Uzi Cnn
HOt2 ro0�kH
zx> zzO�z
>cyL4 'd
n>L-4Hx
ocnn tt2i()
>�z HPOtW21x►Ca
z 1-3 to F3 to r
t'7"H CHHC>
oHO>
H tci�dCC33
Hx Htri a'V
rorti W-V4 tnc
nxH `3H�!�n
tziMr
cn � b H'pv'-< z [ci
x0m biaz d
3H tnbU)xx
ctzjx 1.3z >tq
Wtn> OHdHH
0) H ►"iHZH�
z0> cn cnnt�0
9C cn tri to W •
HL17H >a rz
>1-3
OHW z�0m
C) H to
• 0 H
z
L ,p,
•
Oxx tr7x HC:.H
i >0ru yayr�,
o���-]ryiy xx>
>E• L7� H
'<HHC rdHZ
En 1-3 H pv 0 'O cn q
�x1HHru cn'tfH
>K>x0 Cz>nj
H ()
3cnr :0'<0t)
0xcn'330 H m
tZi7� W >z>Zb-3H
nHMt"> r>>Wz
30 H>cl) I'<►rovtty
roHzro "w. W
0ro'TJ zO C
gm:ro0 HtC*JHtH-
ti7• t" xd�HH
z z
til z C)
CtTjt00t0 c0(n
CH17HPn >t7 z
ExroH> c)• 0ri7
tri0xH x zx
0 Z : H on H
IVh30�0 >z•�y
H O C ro ro x 0
MM OH dt+]H
toC4 HCHx
t"oxc)
zt-4(') H crp>
• d m cn w W H to
w 3Mq CNOH
loob z W tj O C
H9cn>wx IAt-4mm
z C) cn ro O
>zzo wo>�
C tj wa G7ftjHly
H
z0
Htty
O H
z M
> d
r
W
>roHcnH
01-3 Mhr00tri
c0rokro
OW0
MOroc'v
>ftj0HO
to cn r cn
OHt2dt+7
Z tri
t"CCom u t*]
►' � H H y
r>H��
oaz C)
U) 6) N 70
M cn O to
cnOOvw
F�c00
` H
cnyptIj
''V>H►"
trio C)
M C �
U)>rz
1-3Hd0
tntt-•zttj
a�)H
U
0 O 0) C
xOy►Oi]
t0 N N
�N>(n
zWt�ri
00tjro0
t+ryx
�>0
13
try
N
x0x
t'7 '-3 Z
H H x'0
HH00>
cn Cl)
t,4
cxnzOop�
todHW
dHxcC
cn0<z
Hztt1ith
�z• u'
4 cn
tO tlq'tij
3
1-3
b3WH
ttri 0 x tr]
Ht2i tsiixi
OHOcn
t-4xzt"
tri oz
z
'0�] O
K x 0
OtriW
>
Crx
l) ttv
:x
M 'O te]
K• z
> O
1-+
�H�cnH
O H x H x
aOxH',L7
xHi,rOiy
>xor)>
<MC:>H
b'00dCy-•r
z"01►4 )
>HvH
d0zz3
Mz�zz
xxtv
��r4
''r1MC)HO
Ht-4�zn
rnOtri
O>HH
1-3 W ttai
xx0t4
tsi • ►q
�>=tt''H
O • t0 • H
t%1Hcn9tt-
tn
omo
CcnHC)z
zon
ca0c)Z
• >zmx
z O b
0 H H to
COz�
zx3a
1-3 0
t+] to H
O• y
a Z
c
z
O
W
t0
0
H
H
O
z
CA
H
0
ro
7d
Cl)
0
C
cn
x
ro
C
d
H
ro
r
b
z
Cyrus Frank
710 Arbor Ave 032
Fort Collins, Co 80526
G'
1 � U
AA.
.,fir M1 _ •
� b
OZNnr O o
0
• Ln 'p w 1-3• N O O
MHO, b►-4'vH z0Wjt-3> a�C�Cn3H 00
�(nY cn0x Orar1 x 0) �""0CH >to -30H •-3dH (n H
r7x HCHx >MH"A ru n
Z> HO (� H()dx LIJr, ' ��Ot'Jt�l ►9WL'M t-3L9ILii t*1 Q��►���� �3(nci �o'L;V r-3 xnr
►+HHO Lr+]tT1t�]b W oG)HHy x>to COro►�Gro CnH2! L"HC)zty O
•� d M 0M• Z H bd b 0 0 z Cn z :U H H x •v C7 In x H xl ro 0
��7M?7 t�=]bb3 .3rn 1C',v y,� G)x C(ntn 5ti 0w0 tj �CH?:►0rn �>�y :v
zHM 3nrc�, x"dcnbr ►�HycM rGdcnH m0 oC:to bx0nb 7a ()
H a m M c) 7o rn b (n H 0 En -3 x z� r, 0 b to c �< m a> H
zinc Hpu'73 HnOy •� mcvy rzr cn
x Hy�7H �7r+]�] r M H Hb > OHt*]C7r+7 t'nH0 b0rop fj.
-3roLTJ C)brlb� �Hy 0Cdr3 000t" zxdHv O00pig O En
rA�Hx<= �MM t=] En to �tT1 2
xx1 ZHl�kn y O
tTJOH -. >Oxt�7Ht�7 x t770(n (ndHW 0
b7 �
HO C7CLT1z��1 t<>x0 Czb'� ►CHH�H u1-3 cn >1-4> 3 xtv
xZ 3MCr]��] xr ts7'1] tvH() rry, 0Ozz3 ro x
Svt�H zzxH 'cdCt7 3cnr �KnN OOCZ �zG)ntn
Max H00f) z H�nu] OxcnMu7 nt"d x P7�7o
b- tri Hxcc� vwrr"tl H zo Hw c�ro(n o�z�n Hzt13m xo can o
HfCi co En 'nbOC2 ()''3z >d rZHH (nt17G)tv7V >H En m"'�x�P-+ d Z
�`
ro b rbWw ;� tno(n th HMt�Ct-"�
Hr Hrn zM��� 30Hb� `�b�`� ME ro tr�7tr"y� "M'�mC)g0
cnb HHt17 rond�CH 10Hii'v"+J Z0• C HC00 En
'tit xxb 'tibE z rn(%0�7�9 00 'bd�-,� t�iC9l y
oz0:4 :''boo HtC�7ytH. c�idxs > 1-3 nHro ,, M
t%3t-30 H nYHy Hr?,z() A7
t7r0oEn �(nCa roy,ryx r">3 �dxd Htn x t*J0=m t''nOtr1
OCn0 :v()dxt*� (nyOt�7 Hmmx O?+HH
_ Z trlt"H HroM'-' ro
�� bZHz >m Cttil ity0t*3 �COCOn ytn�tv2 b
3tv bra] W HC ObyH OHOfn d Z
H ro M x H H
(� C Cx" z y VI H M r M y "7 M C7 y� d ►yi t" tz] troi (y � x O r
cn r Z yto�v H '+]tTJ3
> 03H►3 CHH❑y �x:vHb r)•
z> y�0 cnx Mom 7c zx xz > CHHO ro�Htir
zzG) O�ZHM >ttp0 tvzOZ � y
0 OHH �HtOyc�]M MM cn ►<00y LTJHC,'M Z 0-txi]rH
rx x Mxro H0a,n� �7o'=10 �3Hrp 000 taytnHtro"
KM "azM W mz7 o db�70 (nyr�r Ztmt-4 �oxC;UtTJ
> HH��n t�M OH HHdO Hb�7
dtT�H r+JHro
MC: ()xH xzzx to:4m HCHx Ent"zm ►<= ►�H�7'*�x
t�C r�Mr 2 ►-+db t.�•c*�tl]tj7 zrHM H►GG)� CH0H0
30 Enz> Hb►rCzt(i >OnyH �t'ObM t'7�- t� 'T1Cb rH�n(n
MC C)xtn Nto a0 dMEnro roH to Oc(Hnccnn C(nHnz
x0 'vtacn Cxy ot"M ro
i 3H cnrovMi�13 Mt-3raH CHp H2O cr tonC)j14
aim cnm� O�HdHH 00U)Z MC)t30 BOti OM AC)c >ztm
0` '3 xbM M CH E OC M►-� -- O Z :1.M. cn
t'] HHZH CnbzL) HxZ N�'ln x�70
E[•i z0� MMHxH H7rox EnrMimm 0 -n - 3• h7ta En
H H (n (n t*i O t3 M w O (� C 0 O En
HL) >4 ntn >Y0• r� y bO zC)En bWMMto O H. W ��Z�
oxo Ht*�H ",�2,x (n�° 0
rryx ►-a�� >c
OHM � 0 � dd z > p ►4 z C � k � o7 0
+ HO�O
0 IH to H d G�'T�r-�y Htr�7tz xdr
dz H t< x:nzx x. � z C+70En
cn _ z z
> d y 0 H
r z
c
z
c
t, I
sm
1
clONS TO PARR SOUTHOF-
D. MASTER PLAN .
F
O� 1. THE RETAIL, COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND MULTIPLE S-,,USING PHASES WOULD
SIGNIGICANTLY INCREASE THE NOISE LEVEL, TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND LIGHTING
WHICH WOULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT IS THE OPINION OF THE VILLAGE H.O.A. THAT THIS CHANGE OVER THE LONG R]-
WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE PROPERTY VALUES.
2. THE SPAWL OF BUSINESSES THAT EXISTS ON COLLEGE AVE IS NOW BEING PROPOSED
DOWN HORSETOOTH AVE. IT IS THE OPINION OF THE VILLAGE H.O.A.
THAT THIS CONDITION WILL DAMAGE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND
MARE IT A LESS DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE
3. THE PROPOSED SET BACKS FROM THE VILLAGE PROPERTIES OF 15' FOR ONE
STORY BUILDINGS AND 20' FOR TWO STORY BUILDINGS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
THE PROPOS-ED BUILDINGS WOULD SET APPROXIMATELY 10' TO 12' BELOW THE
PATIOS OF THE VILLAGE RESIDENTS OF THE EAST SIDE OF THE COMPLEX
AND UNREASONABLY CLOSE.
4. THE POTENTIAL OF 2 STORY BUILDINGS NEXT TO THE EAST BOUNDERY OF THE
VILLAGE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE NOTION OF RETIRED HOMEOWNERS HAVING
PURCHASED PROPERTY IN APPROVED P.U.D. FOR ADULT LIVING BEING CONFRONTED
WITH BUILDINGS VERTUALLY IN THEIR BACK YARD IN.OUR VIEW IS NO RIGHT.
5. THE TIME FR4ME OF 53 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD
MEETING UNTIL THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT SEEMS UNREASONABLY
SHORT. THE DETAILS ARE INCOMPLETE FROM OUR PERSCEPTION AND CAN
CHANGE WITH VERY SHORT NOTICE. WE THEREFORE WOULD REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL
60-90 DAYS FOR A MORE COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE PLAN.
6. A NUMBER OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE VILLAGE PURCHASED THEIR TOWIVHOMES IN
THIS ADULT LIVING COMMUNITY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LAND
TV THE EAST WHEN DEVELOPED WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS. THE
RESIDENTS OF THE VILLA$rGE CAN ACCEPT THAT WITH APPROPRIATE BUFFERING
OFFICE SPACE WOULD BE AN APPROPREATE USE, BUT NOT 2 STORIES AND
NOT IN THEIR BACKYARDS.
7. THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE ADJACENT TO THE VILLAGE THAT HAS THE
POTENTIAL OF LATE HOURS, LIGHTS SHINNING IN THEIR HOMES, NOISE ETC.
IS NOT ACCEPTABLE NOR IS IT REASONABLE TO PLACE SUCH USES NEXT TO
A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY.
8. WATER PRESSURE IN THE VILLAGE AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS
IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM. THIS PROBLEM CAN ONLY BECOME WORSE WITH
EXPANSION IN THE AREA. M
'(-c__
�I JUN 20 1988
t" I
0 ro
W 0
G W
t2!
H U
O O
En
t=] HIE Y H ro H z 0 W H H Y to C H Y ro H W H H 0 H
x > W0x 0IVtZ3 oxxtnx t4aF-A xYxHx MOM 01-3M x y co
ro H x Ht3] HOV!n 1 YOtTJtd HWrt•] C7i-3tz]0td YEtd C H0tri O
> > m trizt13 HHHcna %0zx1-3 xAr H
Z Z H3 oH Cto _r-'n0M G)HHx>to CO1.0).< o t*1H2� rn O
En z HHH0 zMtTJtrJYW td• zH WY6)0 z w W 90 0rij ;q
Hrriro x H3 z C m 0 Q ctntijH W OWO 1-3x0Y xHEHy
0�0�a t17YY3 Hw tda,O YE t37 Ht+y M rjJOroCro H:0 Yx0AY A
Z " M 30t"m xrocnYr ►<HHC roHz Y'TJOHO YcnWVq Ctria> -+ O
0W MA x t23Y CAH0 cnyxz'TJ 0 fnH to cnrcn t+i td r I r to Z
HaW ztrJOA HAOH "+] xt2JHW Hro H oHt37C7[TJ rAHO 0U % 0 W
ZEna HI'd IVH WrrjPJ r 'd HO Z9uZY z x to 0-4 0 tIj00'=] Y►O t-' C H
z H EHH 0 0t-Im a00t4 yytrJ Z cnZ0 ZHA1-<A H 0
Hrotd AYr WEHxCx Wthtd t-3 cn►oH W W0[n cnt7HW Zx 0 m td
xz OWY YOxtriH-gm SdHH m 0 rl am W HxC YHYH3 70
tt]0H 3rH0 ACtTJzz Y►<Yx0 C0>ftj ►<HH H 0q cn oOzz3 ro Y
Wz 3tTJmpv Tar a Ht*J'sJ HA rrY trJHYH < Z 0 0 h
> r" C 11 F< v C o to 3 cn r W ►< A N A r 02 W 0 o Z to M x z, C H
70lTJH ZZxH Y HLT]A(n 0=wmcn ►-3 th r>H-4 > HzC*jDJ �a0 thA 0
ta3x HOOA x1Wt-I 0 W0 Hw CHrocn 0 0 Z A
Y• tr7 Hxctd 0mL"tT�3C7 ma>z Yz�-3H l mat)m �E• vi U)
En C7 2
• ►< �7 to Y r 3 txj H x Y C r O td cn o cn H th t2J
C Htncn Ytn0Cz A tnrY r�x x- rrHcn tax
1-3I'd3 H M z a 'O z H O z ►< ►< r ►< td E 'd tr7 t-q 1-3 rn t2i A H 0
xr Y trJt=JHfn 30HY(n 110t33 W0'TJ9d H In xx'v to
Hr HrA Y a 001-3z110 H'U• W "Coo rot "M rq<> TJ'TJ H
cnY HHtd roA F<H rHAro"+] ZO C 0tlW3 rYcnY AH H t9
Q YE Z ti7A0Wm C H MW Y3 H HryZA 70
ror� xxY WzOE 1-3tr]300 Hmgv H AYH rA0m
7D M H 0 O CHH M. 'tiC3 MOMU HW�x t'J0=txj OYHH 'LI
O Y Y 0 4 ro Y r H x r� tri tv H cn td O tsi tj � X z a td x Y tr
WW x Y Wn0Mx W to H Hro z H H H tia:0tr7z Y
r own mA t'3E1'3 x W. za 0 W OHOtn H G z
[dE zxti] Yts]WHC Ctnt3i0th COvn '+]YHH M v H =M0r
3ta YHz g10WMH H ev W. H 'Oor rtlJHcn m- 'TJt93
r WzH tiles LTJr t9H'TJ 0 YCHz Hro;Ur H z O CC
Ar rz w r Ex70HY no 0t33 xx►tY CHHO to Htr7r
Y m"6-3 CHHCY t2j0xH A zx t+70 a tTJ Oz 7oYxr1-3
zY z0 cnxz6a 0Zm3 -qm 'd H x to Hz 00 03 H
W 1-30 t+7YaGt3 'dtrn W 00 t17HC th A ro to
0 O H yt-rt+l "+70 O >WpnH Y3H'd 000 mgwgtr
ZH Hx MWro HOCroPV W O fnYrW 019r x0MC th
rx rozra WE wa xmu a 0 > W 1-3�-300 H r 1-3>W
►<th r CH'TJHm tutTJ OH 0t+]1-3 t=JHto HHtn ►<H:d'TJx
YHC HHYYA ro4x HCHx (nrzty 14 a 0Pn0
W� Axes xi.zx 'dECrJC+]lT] ZrHtTJ H►«�p CrJt+� CHCHC
the WC23L-+ Z H0v r0xa0 Hz o wH O YxzAcn
Co x H t'r O Y r H cn Y c cn H pv 0 t+7 t2] t�7 ►-H '"Q C Y L-4 H
0:0 cnW> Hro►<Ztd zrA H Crt�Y oHtr7 HC ctAHAz
30 C 0 ro as ataEn W :H w O -CA(n 0t"m m zoo
LTJC AxW VrA3W Cx a ry cr (4naz
z x0 0m6-.3H .'dHt+]H CHO 1-3z0 90YH • x Oro
Et7 3H wrocnxx taH3 Hz3W 1-300IV acn -YZtdx
OH Ctdx HW">LTJ 100cnz tdmtd0 x H Atd ztdcnY
Wz cnco> 0Ht7H1-4 Cz t17 E OC trJN �" 0 Z 0HHto
USG) W>tn x m CH WE NYvn 3x0 tlj0"tri
rn cn Hr-3zH cnYza HtdZt7 A -A - 3• E OCOW
z zx Mt=JHxt-3 H 6 W M WHtT m O A CO OWz
Et2J z0Y W cntd0 t9W z W z 3Wt+J'TJ z• W CCO E
HH ta"W W• C Y YO zawc < 10t9i100 HYtd t+i',dYO
yG� xcn Yc rz z0Wz 0 Crt-rHW H• H xzC
xx 6-3t+3H zz'd Yx YOx 0x0 tti0Y 1.4 z 0t7r
W x C7IVIAz O YZZO WOY'TJ xzeW0 a HO a
O Ht*cli tr1x03 0 YO HzC rz Y .M0rq
W o ff W ti] rn 0 W U 0 In H H H m tTJ Z ^0 t*J to H
x A H cn H r xxzx x• t7
°O z H H K HOath r� o r� m
0 z O H O Z H
O � d M O z
G W
C
Z
%K �,
I
i
-
JUN 2 1
V�
C-7 -7
_
r -
0— �� t .9 Ifs"
C
. �iCJPLC !/ GC�Y t� C� 4`� Q�`��-'t�'afZL '''IE/t���'f / -yam-- _
b- Y7
JUN 2 1 19M
V
c
r
C
June 18, 1988
City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board
Reference: Park South PUD-Master Plan, Case No. 46-88 and Park South PUD,
Parcel A -Preliminary, Case No. 46-88A.
I would like to register an objection to this plan as it was presented. The
Comnercial/Office and Comwrcial Retail would substantially change the plan of
the neighboring residence living. The proposed set backs of 15 ft. for one
story buildings and 20 ft for two story buildings is probably less than that
offered on single family homes in the same area. The proposed plan states that
this plan would be a soft entry into the residential area. This offer seems
very abrupt to me as I would be the one next to these proposed buildings .
I would consider living next to the one story office buildings with the proper
landscaped buffer zone along the property lines but feel that the commercial/
office use next to an established residential area is unacceptable. Ibis type
of business use could end up to have 24 hour opening and lots of traffic and
parking lot lighting directed into my home.
As many of the current residents purchased their homes with the thought that
this area would remain low density housing, it seems prudent to have the area
remain as zoned before or delay approval for at least 60-90 days so more of
the plan could be detailed or studied. There is much concern over the water
pressure that now exists in this area and what effect the new building
project will have.
Rupert D. McAllister
The Village of Four Seasons
720 Arbor Av No. 13
Fort Collins, CO 80526
JUN 21 1988
FORT COLLINS PLANN*_hAAND ZONING BOARD
P.O. BOX 580
FORT COLLINS,COLO. 80522
REGARDING THE PARK SOUTH PUD MASTER PLAN
`.
0
JUNE 17,1988
C
I live in the Village, Unit # 17, which is the 5th unit south of
Iiorsetooth Road. My livingroom, two bedrooms and Patio face the proposed
Park South PUD, as do most of the units along the east side of the Village.
When I purchased Unit #17 I hoped that single family units would adjoin
the east side of the Village Community as originally Zoned.
I feel that Retail, Commercial Office or Multi -family residential units
would significantly increase the noise level, safety and security,traffic
an(I exhaust pollution, ospeiall,y with a set back of only 15 to 20 feet, from
the property line. It hardly seems reasonable to me that a set back of 15
to 20 feet and the difference of elevation between the properties would
allow for any type of screening or buffering between the Village homes and
the type of buildings and businesses you propose.
The time frame for final approval of this project is unreasonably short
since there are numerous details that are incomplete from our persception,
such as screening, service access to the buildings, including adequate
sct, back, also trash removal and storageloading and unloading, access and
hours of operation.
I support the request that an addional 60-90 days be provided for a
more complete review of the plan.
Sincerely Yours
Charles G. Olson
720 Arbor Ave, Unit #17
Fort Collins, Colo. 80526
JU14 2 0 1988
C
c
June 13, 1988
City of Fort Collins
Office of Development
Services Planning Department
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
Dear Mrs. Albertson -Clark:
I am writing this letter in response to your letter of June 7,
1988 regarding development of case number 46-88 and 46-88A.
As a homeowner in the Four Seasons area I purchased my residence
with the understanding that this land had been zoned for
residential units. I am very much opposed to any commercial
development in the vacinity. At the present time we are surrounded
by commercial development at Horsetooth and College and at Shields
and Horsetooth. I do not feel that the City of Fort Collins
should allow commercial development to encroach into this
residential area.
Sincerely,
Richard R. Wtorck
3812 Benthaven
Ft. Collins, CO 80526
i
LY
'UtJ 16 10 �: .
.3`���ta
D
.0 20
��C� c7 6 (,f� .�•- Y,�'- LI�t 0�+--:1�7.1�.i �� �t-�—t=•f�4�Gd�--r-� �[ �G•G' � � /l �--
���`- �� L!crit�- .�C�s� �j?�a.—tA1t / � /�'�/� ♦c.� �""�'-�` ''j LLZ+--a-�-.c-o{ ..
�--►'act ^ .�-G�•c..: LdLa�c '•t � L�c♦�. ,��y��'-iis�-tlt�':'• .
ti
0-1
''
SL � .� wz_a. f, �� .,ee.
--- _ .-.. -. ...... _. _ _-T.ak.. •s:..f:-�iw fir'-�vs�..a.a:",c5..�-'�".,�w:mkt�
r� F;.: • � •r r crrr c
U-'LAHENCE W. SI- I T H ==
June 19, 1988
Planning and Zoning Board �U�__
City PLANNING, Vi
P 0 Box 580 . UN 2 , Q0
Fort Collins, CO 8052
Attention: Sherry Albertson -Clark
As permanent residents of the Village at Four Seasons, we are totally
opposed to the proposed changes on zoning for the presently vacant land
east of The Village over to Manhattan. It has long been zoned for residential
and we can see no economic or aesthetic reasons for changing that zoning.
Certainly there is NO shortage of commercial or office space within a mile
or so of the Four Seasons residential areas.
We are opposed to a philosophy that permits competing businesses within a
block or two of each other, such as appears to be developing just west of
the Four Seasons, at Horsetooth and Shields. We do not need another business
and commercial section along Horsetooth to the east of Shields.
We do not believe there has been adequate time or notification concerning
the proposal for the Park South P. U. D. Master Plan. There are many resi-
dents of the Four Seasons who knew nothing about the First hearing or neighborhood
meeting. We would urge that an additional 60-90 days should be allowed for
a more complete review of that proposed plan. Further, all residents of
the area whose property values might be affected should be given adequate
notice of such a meeting.
We are deeply concerned about the potential of businesses and commercial
structures of greater than one story height being permitted in the proposed
tPar{c South plan, which would not be compatible with the present residential
patterns already established to the south, west and across on the north
side of Horsetooth.
We are opposed to any developments that would generate evening commercial
traffic, disruptive to the lifestyles of our retirement community,
Further, There has been nothing offered in the master plan that would
provide adequate buffer zones between our community and the new development.
In our opinion, business developments belong rightfully along South Mason
and not Manhattan-Horsetooth.
The much -vaunted beauty of developments in the area of Lemay and Drake
would provide a fine model for any business/commercial developments in
our area. But even then, there should only be residential plans made
for the west and south two/thirds of the proposed Park South P. U. 0.
Master Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
.. I ` i�-� ��%{+--r ram/ �'�!' �! - �✓� ' �
ClnrPnre and Helen _Smith-
720 ARBOR AVE. NO. 29
F7. COLLINS, COLO. 80526
303-226-6716
OWP-
�71-114-7 JUN 2 11988
rc Q !°�'(-Q J L.�G �7�, c ( .QR�% C2J j1�
�r 1
L�1 C. ✓�c L4 ck�d� �i'�a_, (� i R! s2t'l
U y /
CtiaC�c7 i�L,
ti
U
(.4- (�<<LLLc�� hDJD-y+c'
1.'
OeA-
1/
c'�.•� �c��►-'tee s Q Gc..e..d._c.� � � � %�--� _n, �;�.��;.��,.. � _ _
i
C
' .-I "oil ins' Planning Pr Zon;n. Baird
c!� o Shorr 11be,rtsor! -Clark
P. 0. Box 5fi0
Fort Col.'_i ns, W 80522
Juan ?0, 1 n.;i?
Omar t,;a..lav,,
T;refn;-rnoc to the propose(]. Park South PUD Master Plan we want, to so on reoord as
"ninf, opposed to the plan in its present state.
n'e arc 1.1.vi vg in the Four Season subdivision since June 109? havi nr chosen this
t.,articul.a.r r—i?hborhood .for its quiet, low -traffic, family-oriente(l nn.ture.
r t nla.ns for development o' thn area adjacent to our subdivision choold not alter
nil- :)'went'. F.,rviron ir. any "'epative why. The area up to Manhattan should definitely
he reta:i.nF;d as a single family residential area or maybe townhou^ns wi `.h a nnnsidorabla
gr(-nr b0t-iypp bufrer zone? to nommerr.ial development on the other ride of C.-I.ohaPa.n.
dcfi.ritely :jr•e n_, orrd to any street connection to a commnrri.31 zone from our rr^i.r*h-
bo.^good (f.)(nt r:,^n ;t) that would impact on thru-traffic in our arrn.
As pr,)porty nw:ir=:rs arr? '..axpayers we expect the city planners to glvc full con:-,ide.-,t'.i-)n
to hPiping its maintain the quality of life we found !,,hen :;c r►ovrr1 into this area.
Respectful l.Yi
v
Rclnnd •a: Rtr`h 'Arr-Ir�r
3?31 Co -onado .Ave
"Four Sea,ons"
Fort Collins, CO1 80526
22.6-2909
t,
JUN 2 1 1988
7
C
June 20, 1988
To:
The City Planners
Sirs:
I am totally opposed to the P U D plan for the area just
East of The Village.
When we bought our home less than a year ago, we were told
that the above mentioned area would be single family
residential homes, The "presently" planned office,retail,
and commercial area will definitely adversely affect the
value of our home.
It is very strange that prior to the last planning meeting,
the approximately twenty-eight homeowners most seriously
affected were not notified of the meeting.
Please do not allow our quality of life to be lowered by
allowing this commercial development.
c. .
" Mr. & Mrs. T.F. Martin
700 Bonita Ave.
Fort Collins, Co.
Phone 226-5152
C Gloria Palmer
713 Bonita .Avenue
Ft. Collins, CO 80526 [ I-E
Planning Dept. JU"d 2 1 1988
•i
300 Laporte Av. .
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
Dear Sirs:
I am one of the 30 people not afforded the opportunity to
attend and give my input at the required neighborhood meeting
regarding the Park South PUD. The reason for this was the
developers failure to provide the city staff with a complete list
of the affected property owners. If you look at the attached
plat I think that you will agree that I have serious concerns
about said development. One of my first concerns is the
developer's plan to provide ingress and egress to the subject
development from Dennison. If you look at the plat it will be
obvious that anyone residing within the Four Seasons subdivision
both presently developed and currently being developed west of
Century Drive will use the streets within the subdivision to
travel to and from the retail/commercial/office portion of this
development. The PUD provides that "the alignment of Dennison
thru parcel "A" is deliberately cranked to dissuade through
traffic." However, it will still be easier to take Dennison
than to go out to Horsetooth or Manhatten which are supposed
to be the arterial and collector streets. That..will make
Dennison a collector street. Also the -cranking may provide a
slowing of traffic within the proposed PUD, but it may cause a
driver who is late in getting to a destination to travel at a
higher -rate of speed on the adjacent subdivision streets.
Another Lhing to consider is that many drivers living west of
Moss Creek will turn on it instead of going to Manhattan which
will bring increased traffic passed Lopez Elementary and down
Benthaven.
Therefore I would suggest that in order for the developer
to best submit a usable and functional PUD master plan that
these two points of ingress and egress be deleted in the interest
of traffic flow on residential streets & the safety of children
who will be going to and from school and other activities
afforded by Lopez Elementary and Troutman Park. Should you
not find this suggestion to be in the best interest of the
residential property owners, I would highly recogmend that
the developer be compelled as part of the initial off -site
requirements for Park South.Parcel "A" PUD to install stop signs
at all hazardous street crossings at every corner.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sin erely,
Gloria and Mike Palmer
713 Bonita Av.
Ft. Collins, CO 80526
223-8054
W, 0Iftoo
C
June 19, 1988
Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board
c/o Sherry Albertson -Clark
P.U. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO. 80522
RE: Proposed Park South PUD
Dear Planning & Zoning Board
We are writing to express our extreme concern and displeasure
regarding the proposed Park South PUD (Master Plan case number
46-88 and Park South PUD Parcel A -preliminary, Case Number 46-88Aa.
As a Four Seasons homeowner, we feel that the proposed plan is
ill-conceived and not compatible with the development of our
neighborhood. Our concerns include traffic patterns, safety
of our children, aesthetics, and retaining the value of our
homes.
Since we bought our new home two years ago we have had to deal
with severe water pressure problems, school overload, drainage
problems and traffic safety. And now developers that feel that
Four Seasons and the surrounding area can be used as a dumping
ground for businesses that have yet to be named, not to mention
a proven need. This is irresponsible and will not be tolerated.
There is an abundance of empty concrete in Fort Collins already,
both commercial and residential.
We are not opposed to development of this land --but we feel it
is important that the community that is directly affected become
an active component in the planning process.
The plan that is named above is not consistent with the quality
of life that we in Four Seasons strive for and should be opposed
by your committee.
i
Sincerely, f
Scott P. Smith
Jane Liska-Smith
3819 Ensenada Court
Ft. Collins, CO. 80526
226-4306
3812 Ensenada Court
Fort Collins, CO 80526
June 20, 1988
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
c/o Sherry Albertson -Clark
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Re: Proposed Park South PUD
Dear Board Members:
C � G W1,
2 8�
I
As homeowners in the Four Seasons development area, we would like
to express our dissatisfaction with the most -recently proposed Park
South PUD. Commercial development of this parcel of land seems to us
to be incompatible with the surrounding residential areas. In our
opinion it would be more logical and aethetically pleasing to limit
commercial development to those areas immediately contiguous with the
existing commercial properties along Mason. Commercial development
between Mason and Manhattan would be more appropriate land use than
leap -frogging over to the area between Manhattan and Dennison.
Having lived in areas where zoning laws were non-existent or
totally ignored, we are aware of the horrors this kind of
non -regulation can produce. Arbitrary changes in zoning laws at the
whim of a developer or planning board can be equally distressing to a
community. We feel the Board should stand by the original designation
of this area as residential.
Commercial development would line the pockets of one property
owner - the developer; but it would cause great consternation among
many property owners - the homeowners in the immediate neighborhood.
As appointed officials, perhaps this is not of concern to you; but it
should be of concern to those elected officials who made your
appointments.
We realize your job often becomes a balancing act between the
interests of various individuals and,.what you, as a board, perceive to
be the best interests of the community. Please keep in mind that what
many of us find so desirable about living in the "Choice City" is its
LACK of development - as opposed to places like Colorado Springs or
Denver. As concerned citizens we feel we should have an input into how
our neighborhood is to be developed. We hope you will give serious
consideration to our opinions before making a final decision on the
South Park PUD.
Sincerely
Frank R. and Rebecca L. Riggle
C
(t-
rrl
JUPd 2 1 1988
June 19, 1988 —.
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
c/o Sherry Albertson -Clark
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
RE: Park South PUD - Master Plan Case Number 46-88, and
Park South PUD, Parcel A - Preliminary, Case Number 46-88A
Gentlemen:
Our household strongly opposes the proposed plans as referenced above.
We DO NOT believe that the commercial aspect of this project is a
suitable addition to our community.
There is not an appropriate buffer zone between what is proposed
commercial development, and residential housing. The city itself has
invested slot of tax dollars in our community by providing us with
a new park, and Lopez Elementary School. A commercial development
would jeapardLze our property values, Increase traffic, and deface
the overall appearance of our community. Futhermore, Fort Collins is
plagued with an overabundance of small business dwellings which are
unoccupied, and we do not want anymore.
Commercial development west of the railroad tracks on Horsetooth Road
must be haulted. We are counting on you to turn down these proposals,
and protect the enviroment in which we now reside.
Sincerely,
Charles E Dinkey, IV
3813 Ensenada Court
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
JUN 2 1 1988
June 19, 1968
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
CIO Sherry Albertson -Clark
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Proposed Park South PUD
Dear Sir :
19y wife and I are opposed to the proposed Park South PUD in its
current f(-.rm for the following reasonss
There is no buffer zone adjacent to the homes on 8enthaven which will
impact the homes on the west and south sides of the proposed
development. This means noisy and unsightly parking lots and noise
from trash collections from dumpsters that are normally kept in the
rear of buildings. In this case, facing private homes. Furthermore,
there are a number of elderly folks who purchased 90,000,1 dollar
condo_ on the north end of Bentaven who are retired and expected the
peace and quiet of a single family neighborhood. My personal
experience is that rental properties (as the proposed 14 duplexes)
tend to attract temporary residents who don't have the same respect
for the neighborhood as a person who has invested 100,000f dollars to
purchase a single family home. These retired people are being cheated C as well as the rest of the Four Season residents. When we purchased
our homes we were under the impression that the proposed Park South
PUD area would be zoned for single family homes only/
Because of the access off Dennison there will be additional traffic
in our private neighborhoods and around Lopez Elementary where one
child was recently struck by a car on his way to school. Traffic will
already be increasing because of the construction of more than 180
new homes in the Four Season Subdivision.
The South Park developers can construct buildings up to 40 feet in
height (3-stc:)ries) which will allow -no privacy in our yards or in our
homes. Will we be allowed to construct 40 foot privacy fences?
The plan is very vague in it proposed uses of
- Chemical research laboratories
- Muffler of car repair shops
- Veterinary Clinics
- Laundromats
- Fast food restaurants
These do not seem like the types of businesses that should or would
be zoned kitty-corner to an elementary school and city park!
The possibility of another detention pond on 8enthaven concerns all
local residence especially numerous problems that the existing
1
ti
0. 0
C detentit,r, pond adiacent to Benthaven has caused (not to mention its
ungodly sight and smell).
The Mal -ter Plan, as it stands, is not compatible with the standards
expected by Four Season residents. I propose that the developer be
forced to rethink the South Park PUD and obtain input from the
people that wi1.1 have to live with these decisions for years to cove_
being the intelligent people you are I trust you will make the right
decision based on the problems, lack of complete thought and the
negative impact this proposal will have on my neighborhood and the
Ft. Collin's community.
0
C
Sincerely,
3818 Ensenada Ct.
Ft. Collins, Co 80526
223-2245
June 20, 1988
Sherry Albertson -Clark
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Staff
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Sherry,
�r2 L
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed Park
South P.U.D.. There are several areas I would like to draw
to your attention.
1. The current level of growth in the Four Seasons and
surrounding area continues to impact the current
residences with increasing water pressure problems. The
city water department has indicated that the new water
main extension is to maintain the current level of water
pressure which is 21. This is inadequate when the city
even admits that adequate water pressure should be 60
pounds.
By approving the Park South P.U.D. high density use for
commercial and residential areas without suppling current
occupants with adequate waterfacilities is irresponsible
resource management by the city.
2. The original plan for the land currently called Park South
was for residential single family homes. This would be
compatible land use. Bringing commercial buildings into
an area that has a school, park, and retirement homes is
not compatible. An example of compatible land use would
e�single family homes, a branch library, and or a senior
citizen center.
3. The main reason for building my home in the Four Seasons
area was to live in a residential community that is
quiet, low crime, and commercial free surroundings.
_Approval of the Park South P.U.D. would destroy all
of these things.
C
0 0
I hope you will carefully weigh your decisions when reviewing
this development and pay close attention to the quality of
living currently enjoyed and future of the Four Seasons area.
Respectfully,
Patricia Meuwissen
3824 Ensenada Ct.
Fort Collins, CO 80526
' ^
' . N
~
~
. /
'
June 20, 1988
- Mary D. & Rudy Bowman ,
719 Bonita
Fort Collins, CO.
80526
Planning and Zoning Board
Dear Members:
We to voice our concern over the new plan to build retail/
commercial/office areas between Benthaven and Manhattan.
When we purchased our home on Bonita we specifically inouired how
that vacant area would be used. We were told it was strictly
zoned as residential. And now can this be so easily chanqed at
the whim of a developer�
Our main concern is our children. Very small children walk to
Lopez elementary along Benthaven' The concerned parents in our
neighborhood make sure they walk this quiet street because
Tradition is so busy. The last day of school one boy was hit by
a car while riding his bike near Tradition. We also fear for our
children`s safety with the temptation for children to play in the
oroposed adjacent parking lots.
The vacancv rate for offices in this town is horrendous. Why do
vou think that this will be different in our area? What about
vagrants who might inhabit these vacant huildings. How will our
children be protected from them. We have also experjpnced some
criminal activity in our area. Won't'this be exacerbated by
such building. This development is not at all compatible with
our neighborhood.
Who will guarantee our property values since this was one of our
main focuses when we decided to purchase a home in this area?
Since a change has occurred since the original plan who is to say
they will not, in the end, decide to build only commercial.
Rudolph and Mary D. Bowman
- 14 - 0-4�-
.. .
`^,��^��-./-,A-
_
N
JUN 2 1 1988
4007 Benthaven
Fort Collins, Co. 80526
June 18,1988
Dear Members of the City Planning Board:
It has come to our attention that the board is planning to hear proposals concerning
a retail/commercial/office development in between Benthaven and Manhattan streets.
We are very concerned about this proposed development and oppose the building of
commercial and retail space in that vicinity. This is primarily a residential -.area
and should remain so. The proposal does not take into consideration traffic flow,
safety and well being of our children, property values and the compatibility of
the development with our present neighborhood.
Traffic will already increase with the building of over 100 new homes in the Four
Seasons subdivision. Lopez Elementary school traffic will be affected by this growth
and thus concern for the safety of our children when walking to and from school.
Commercial traffic would add unecessarily to this increased traffic. People do use
residential streets to get to the already existing shopping areas in the area.
It seems more reasonable to use the already existing vacancies in the area, particularly
"The Square" which is not 100% occupied to date. Foothills Fashion Mall is due to be
expanded and this will surely add to the retail spaces needed.
As residents of the Four Seasons subdivision we would like it to remain a residential
area in every respect. Commercial/retail/office space are not needed in this immediate
area, especially with new offices being built elsewhere in the city and not fully
occupied
Jul 2 1 egg !; ,t
Igm
I
("ZI le erg ,
y
/OA-
//1 CZ ,p `S� a S 51 s /�vk-l-�
11M7
-S Z/-,.
GlS�iLFSSP S
GG'c Ja-<- ..� jam �� t�c� s�s� � s cs � id.%� 4� �•-�
av 7��LJ�5 kte
.�
� s
�i � UT /lC/�Ltivl o,0
i/t t4 eee, Se4/ `7 is
A 0
I-e
Mrs. William H. Swaby
915 arbor Avenue
Ft. Collins, Colorado 8J526
June 17, 1988
Planning and Zoning Board of Ft. Collins
As a new homeowner in the Pour Seasons residential area I stron 1x
oppose the proposed retail/commercial office development going
in between Benthaven and manhattan.
Why is this zoning change necessary? We already have easy access
to a variety of office/retail/commercial businesses. Please con-
sider the many adverse conditions that will result from the proposed
plan. Homeowners chose this area because it is a single family
residential area.
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. William H. Swaby
C
J'
1988
i
fi`
hU
0
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Dear Ms. Albertson -Clark and Board Members:
4012 Granite Court
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
June 19, 1988
The Park South PUT} -Master Plan #46-88 and Park South PUD, Parcel A
#46-88 A proposals deeply concern us fcr the following ressons.
First, our area is saturated with community service centers as it is.
Our proximity to the Albersons shopping area, Foothills shopping area,
Raintree and Cimmoron Plazas (to list a few) make the proposal for an
additional such development very questionable. Our area doesn't have a
need for more commerical retail offices.
Second, duplexes suggest a transient population detrimental to tie
homeowners? interests. The homes in our area are comprised of people
interested in developing a strong residential community. How can this
be achieved through a series of duplexes and transients? How will duplexes
affect our property value?
We chose our home location because we weated a buffer between ourselves and the
business community. As it is we are minutes away from every conceivable
shop. The proposal before you threatens to move into our buffer yet
another asphalt creation. We solicit your help in maintaining the buffer
between the business and residential domains. As a responsible decision
maker on this issue, we implore you to consider the needless impact
upon our community this proposal creates. Please help maintain our
residential area.
— Si ereiy
ames L illiams
P. Diane Williams
JUN 2 1 1988
�,
C
June 20, 1988
City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board
300 LaPorte
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Sirs:
I am writing in regards to the Park South Master Plan
P.U.D. I realize that we all can not have things entirely
our way, however I do have some reservations about the pro-
posed Master Plan. My concerns, as a private citizen, are
few I feel.
First, I want to thank you for the information I have
been receiving concerning the proposed P.U.D. In the latest
update, I noted that 14 duplexes were included into the
original single family homes. What price range are these to
be? I do not want to see each unit sell for less than
$90,000, as to be of comparable value to the existing homes
in the Village. This will also increase the living density,
of which I am concerned.
Next, I would like to see the buffer zone extended fur-
ther south. The existing homes in our subdivision and those
proposed in the empty lot adjacent to Renthaven and nennis:a
should be buffered. I would like to see a buffer zone between
all residential homes and the proposed commercial/office spaces.
I feel traffic flow needs to be addressed. I do not see
any need to have an access off of Dennison in the commercial/
office space. The traffic entrances should remain on Horse -
tooth and Manhatten. Will there be stop lights or stop signs
erected on Horsetooth? We need to protect against increased
traffic flow for the well being of our neighborhood. My
children play here and I need a secure place for them to play
safely. I am not too encouraged by the prospect of more people
going through our streets to reach the proposed area.
Also, I would like to address the type of office/commercial/
retail businesses that would exist in this plan. Many restraints
0
2.
need to be placed here in this issue. I feel that no higher
than two-story buildings should be allowed. Possibly, only
med.ical. offices should be allowed. Certainly, no cHr washes
should be allowed. Our water pressure in the Four Seasons is
low, as the City is aware of I am sure. Care should be taken
as to where trash bins will be placed. Home residents do not
want to look out of their windows and see trash bins and refuse.
Please, do not allow restaurants/ fast food place to go in.
We already are near to these types of places.
I would like to state that I am neither against this plan
nor for it. If it must go through, I would like to see many
restraints entered on the Master Plan. I want to lave in a
quality neighborhood where my home value will rise, my children
can play safely, and traffic will not be a problem.
Sincerely.d. /("�
B. Jan Scherer
707 Arbor Avenue
(226-2135)
cc The Village Association
Four Seasons Homeowners Association
C
■
...., -.e +. J9(.e �� N`TTeLi:aF�u.. *„�.:r�-✓. •4�Jw'le,L -`.•
it
row,
son - Cia rk
box
C'
1, C C I'D -fu
. ur)
i k COL.
Vol fin I "kw u�
ui
LO
Ll"
V L Ov. C
Uk 4L. A
C-
'ilk 1 *,0 Ai,
t.
T:1
Aq -
cxj
Lk' y
im
or
IA4:
Ica cu
kc
2J
f
0 lk'r
(ic Lis cit.
Cot Ot'"i
V C),5 2-�
0
a, •
C
June 18, 1988
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
c/o SheFry Albertson -Clark
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
re: Proposed Park South P.U.D.
Dear Sirs:
�D-
JUN 2 I 1988
i
As property owners 1 iving beside the proposed Park South P.U.D. we have
studied the maps and plans of the development and are very dismayed by
them. We appreciate the opportunity now to express our concerns.
We are alarmed about this proposed development for several reasons. Our
Four Seasons neighborhood will directly adjoin these offices and stores
and we are concerned first with this close proximity. The plan as drawn
specifies only a few trees as buffers for parcel E -- trees which I doubt
will be very substantial for many, many years -- and nothing along parcel
C. Trees can do little anyway to block out what alarms us most: the
visual barrier of three story structures; the noise of dumpsters, delivery
trucks and loading platforms; the bright light of tall security lights in
parking areas; and the general intrusion of city sights and sounds into our
private 1 Ives and homes.
We are also alarmed about the inevitable increase in traffic. Customers of
the proposed development would find Benthaven a quick shortcut out to
Shields via Troutman Parkway or to Horsetooth via Tradition. Houses line
these streets and one of the best things about our neighborhood is that the
children all still walk to school at Lopez Elementary. This will end with a
commercial development and traffic will clog up even further around Lopez
as parents come to pick up their children.
It is also discouraging that we have no control over what may be built in
this area. Apparently the developer could use this space for everything
from a retirement center to a "convenience center." We have some control
over our neighborhood now through our homeowners' association. With
these new neighbors, our efforts will have been in vain.
The developer has mentioned in his plans that he will try to make the
transition soft, but it can never be "soft" when such a commercial area is
abutted directly onto a neighborhood and surrounded on three sides by
residences. We have tried to find other places in Ft. Collins where a
commercial area is put right into the middle of a residential area and we
couldn't find one. This would be a break with that tradition.
These concerns are mainly our private ones. We do, however, have grave
concerns about how this development would affect Fort Collins as a whole.
South Fort Collins has other undeveloped, "off -College" sites that do not
intrude into neighborhoods but could be developed for lower -rent retail
space. In addition our city has quite a lot of empty, developed retail and
office space already. Would more retail and office development be the
best use for this area? Or wouldn't residences be the better development
for an area already surrounded by residences?
Fort Collins has, through the action and control of it Zoning Board, been
very successful at preserving the integrity of its residential
neighborhoods. The seclusion and separation of its neighborhoods has lead
to increased security, safety, privacy and quietness; this forethought and
planning has, in turn, lead to the general consensus that "Fort Collins is a
great place to raise kids." We have heard this over and over and agree.
People don't say this about Denver or even about Boulder. it is the best
thing Fort Collins has going for it and the credit is due to the layout of the
city and the careful planning that has accomplished it.
We strongly feel that this proposed development would be a big break with
that careful planning and a step in the wrong direction. Here, backyards
and parking lots would abut one another and offices would sit opposite to
houses. We will be forced to struggle for our privacy, safety and quiet.
We -fear that we would lose this struggle and with us the whole city would
lose, too.
Sincerely,
Q
Scott and Kathryn Elder
701 Bonita Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80526 226-9549
June 15, 1988
JL
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board �1 2 1988
C/O Sherry Albertson -Clark ��JJ1j
r
U�
P.O. Box�80 -- --
For t Collins, CO 80522
RE: Proposed Park South PUD
Dear Sir,
On May 4, 1988 a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss
the proposed Park South PUD. Out of approximately '262
Property owners that should have been notified 30 were not.
While these 30 property owners constitute only 11.4% of
total number of residents, If you were to look at the
.location of these properties (see attached plat map) it is
my opinion this 11.4% will constitute almost 50% of the most
concerned property owners regarding the proposer] PUD.
Recognizing that the Land Development Guidance System on pg.
35 paragraph B Indicates that "failure to deliver such
notice shall not affect the validlty of Any hearing or
determination by the planning and zoning board," It Is
evident that the error was the developers'. Even though It
was not necessary to search out Incorrect addresses, the 28
property owners for which they had correct addresses should
have been notified.
The original proposed PUD Phase A has already been revised
to show 14 lots of duplexs, thus Increasing the density of
that area. That coupled with the developers' failure to
notify these 30 property owners, I strongly advocate the
need for tabling the subject paoceedings and starting from
ground "0".
I am against this proposed PUD for various reasons. All of
which are of grave concern to my family. The proposal shows
access to the commercial/office and retail portions off
Dennison Avenue. This will attract people to travel on the
local streets of Benthaven, Moss Creek, Bonita, and Arbor as
a short-cut to this development and not on the controller
streets of Manhattan and Trautman. The result will be
additional traffic In our private neighborhoods and around
Lopez Elementary School where one child was just hit by a
car while on his way to school. Traffic will already be
increased by the construction of more than 180 new homes In
the Four Season Subdivision.
The Master Plan calls for a buffer zone and a maximum
huildinq height requirement of 30 feet In Phase E. What
about Phase C? Presently It calls for a 40 feet maximum.
This area will definitely Impact private homes on the wept
and south sides. A 3-story building would allow no privacy
In our •yards or In our homes. What Is a buffer zone? One
tree which will take years to offer any assistance of
buffering? What of the noise from trash coilectlons from
dumpsters that are normally kept In the rear of buildings?
In this case, facing private homes.
The Plan Is also very vague In its' proposed uses. As I
understand It. chemical research laboratories (explosive in
nature), muffler or car repair shops (noise pollution),
Veteranary hospitals (animal noise), laundrnmats
(undesirable clientele) could occupy areas of this
development. Fast food restaurants would draw
-non-neighborhood people from College Into our area. Again,
the safety of our children Is at stake, not ,lust from
traffic but from transient people as well. These are Just a
few of my concerns about what will occupy this area.
In facing this development from the west side of Benthaven,
I have an additional concern In regards to drainage and
detention ponds. Please look carefully at this problem and
avoid another "detention pond" In the form of a ditch behind
homes. If a pond becomes necessary, perhaps the developer
should assume this tesponsibllity and make an attractive,
neighborhood lake as a part of the development.
The Master Plan, as It stands, is not conduslve or
compatible with our neighborhood or Its' needs. In talking
with many of my neighbors and other parents of Lopez
Elementary school children I find that they concur with my
concerns. I trust you wlII make the right dre:lslon based on
the negative Impact this world have on OUR neighborhood,
property values, and our children's safety.
Respectfully,
3725 Benthaven
Ft. Collins, CO 80526
223-1763
3
♦s-
W
•
c
Ft. Collins Planning; & Zoning Board
c/o Sherry Albertson -Clark
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
Dear Members:
i
HE': Proposed Park South PUD
PO box 1928
FL. COl l l I l,,�). CU. 80522
June 19, 1988
The Land Use Element of the City of Ft. Collins Comprehensive Plan
provides, amorig other relevant procedures, guidelines through which the
citizens of the City of Ft. Collins can actively participate in the de-
termination of their neighborhood's quality and desirability. The cur-
rently proposed Park South PUD has provoked considerable dismay among
the ns;jority of homeowners in the Four Seasons and adjacent areas.
This development, specifically, and other proposed land uses, penerr111y,
bordering iforsetooth between the railroad crossing on the east and
Shields on the west clearly threaten our community's quality and desir-
ability. Each of you must not look at the Park South PUD in a vacuum
or in isolation from the surrounding area. We certainly do not.
l'.le:+se urid(:rstnnd you have sent a very a.larmin); signal to us all
in the community by allowirig a "Grease. Monkey" and a "Circle K" at the
northwest sorrier of Shields and Horsetooth. The "Urease oionkey" belori ,;,s
on South L ason and the "Circle K" does not belong there at all with a
117 Eleven" only approximately 100 yards due east. You are clearly giving
priority -to the expansion of the City's tax base and collection of util-
ity aria street chargebacks over compatibility, appropriateness and
appearance.
In addition, your loose interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan,
generally, and the Land Use Policies Plan, specifically, has allowed
continued piecemeal development of the sec Lion bordered by Horsetooth,
College, Harmony, and Shields. The secondary arterial, Troutman, which
cuts through the widdle of this section looks like a back alley way near
'hields and virtually serves to sever the south half of the section from
the north half, further separating the neighborhoods. And now the City
plans to extend Wabash west to Shields, cutting yet another sinew of
our community unity. There is vehement opposition to the Wabash exten-
sion! The neighborhoods and community are deeply disturbed by the
chopped -up patchwork assortment of homes and streets the developers,
with the Planning & Zoning Board's blessings, have given us. From your
June 19, 1988
Pane 2
past actions affecting our neighborhoods you obviously have no com-
punction:; permitting further piecec;ealing and more free-standing unco-
ordinated, unrelated and unappealing businesses on Horsetooth, Shields
and ,anhattan thereby virtually surrounding; what's left of our decimated
community with businesses.
Our neighborhood and community residents envision a more cohesive
and inte rated residential area enhanced by the continuation of our
greenbelt ci.r.clinp, to a pocket playground, club House, Fool and tennis
courts. Vle feel very strongly about preserving what neighborhood we
have and ardently and arduously oppose further segmentation. We want
a desirable, appealinLr, coordinated, quality community where there is
a .tense of connectedness and pride of place.
There is not a sinj;le redeeming quality in the currently propc,sud
park .tuft; PUL. The commercial/office/retail part of the plan is totally
unacceptable and non-nenoti able. Any and all such buildings belong) be-
tween ,�:arihatta.n and the railroad tracks providing a buffer to the resi-
dential area. You should know that; everybody else does! The developer
apparently has no concern for improving the adjoining neighborhoods by
desis;nin connecting paths or open space and greenbelts which help brim;
irro dissimilar sub-ne:i,,;hborliood elements together into a compatible and
appealing* environment with more, not less, density bonuses.
The residential portion is also totally unacceptable. The lots
should be no smaller than 7,500 square feet and the home values should
be no less than $85,000. All the homes should be single family with
shake roofs and no rental properties.
Furthermore, there is no demonstrated demand or need for either
the cor:amercial or residential structures. Surely it is obvious to you
that this developer is reaching too far too fast. You know the water
distribution system is below standard even with the new main, the sewers
on much of the south side of Horsetooth are merely open, dangerous, un-
attractive ditches and the traffic flow on Horsetooth is uncontrolled
making accessibility difficult, to say nothing of the traffic problems
within the community. Clearly the City has some catching -up to do first!!
And-firially, none of us are comfortable with or impressed by the
tract; rc;cord of the developer-. That may not bother you but it bothers
u:; a to t! The Park Jouth PUD is definitely incompatible with the od ja-
cent, neighborhoods and inappropriate for the community. Period! We
remind each of you to abide by the process, purpose and intent of the
Lend Use Element by being sensitive and responsive to the massive number
of objections and if, in fact, there is no middle ground, then you must
reject the Park South PUU.
June 1J,1��tiS
Page 3
`.1e want to be proud of our nei-liborhood, our community and our
city. We want our neighborhood and community to be an asset, a con-
tribution and a viable, vigorous, cohesive, stable and reputable
building block of the city. Give us the South Branch of the Ft. Collins
Public Library, not Park South!!
Cordially submitted,
ason Asa Dubek
2 1 1988
f
t C rr-/
C
7a s 6-)e1,11115w *2✓ -A ue--
rr ewuA6/ to ,SOS''•-�o
t-A� / q iyr8"
1N eps - ID -R-r� t�,K)e c 1C4>MrA6tzZj
wE- TPu.ecrar-a-,cp ort.w— Zyz c, vs IVvo U-,C--- �x
�t
"(�'� 1a'l2_� �►J Sty-l-� l�l.b K L D �12ry G8''_1 o-t45>
CXA.� L-y /a tv-L, Tkt�-vh, u
IN -T- � ��ta5o� tP�DIv iS i c�oJ i � /�L�=£ cam Sow,'f-ci=
`(Z� "� "� �'�-� � ���►-x� �y �PPcx�E 'ice- �S
�i�"'✓� �•-�_ Tjd� � v �L.o � ��! I S Si��Yz-T St �h1-r�� f '�,p.�ab�dug�
��yv?ram k-, LAAT�i,ti
n •.e
. '.•�:'fx' ju•: Sig. c. sFati�ifC$+�'w"w.a'ra�r7w,.?.,-.. wfoGlk�; "
Planning and Zoning Board, City Of Fort Collins
June 20. 1988
Dear Sirs:
t 1 1988
It has just recently come to our attention that a proposed
PUD for the Park South area could quite definately effect
the life style, environment, and safety of our children.
We feel a more thorough notification of the May 4th
neighborhood meeting would have been appropriate. The
proposal of commercial, office, and retail developement so
close to the Four Seasons developement is not with good
vision. To consider that the Villages area will only be
buffered by a simple tree line is poor planning, especially
when the buildings' rears facing us will expose utilities
and dumpsters! We also feel that forty foot buildings are
inappropriate for a residential area. That height building
would give us very little privacy In our yards or homes.
The area south of Bonita Avenue to Dennison Avenue classed
as RLP was not to our understanding to be a Detention Pond
when we purchased our lot. This would give us an
unobstructed view of all the rears of the so-called office
plot.
We find the proposal offensive that the retail plot could
included such business that might degrade the quality of air
and scenery of our current developement or the safety of our
homes and children.
Our children will now have to contend with more traffic than
was originally considered by most of the residents when Four
Seasons offered the close proximity to Lopez school with
quite street traffic.
The recent change in Phase A to include duplex units will
increase the denisty even more and add even more traffic to
this area.
Considering the above, we feel that the proposed PUD is not
well thought out for an area trying to build a fine
residential setting, preserve the safety of our children,
and the environment for us all.
Sincerely,
Bill F. Henderson
9Janet L. Henderson
707 Bonita Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80526
+i...ile't •Y �:u�.:J Y-�•=rC%79d .AtW 'G;�,G M+ .�..,�. iAlfva�'w"a+«i�'iew1'M11 .,"�'.
a
3743 Benthaven St.
Ft. Collins, CO 80526
June 17, 1988
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
c/o Sherry Albertson -Clark
P.O. Box- 580
Fort Collins, Co 80522
Dear Madam or Sir:
In the past I have been very favorably impressed with the job the
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board has done here. Small
commercial signs, beautifully landscaped industrial sections, and
many beautiful parks are just a few of the responsible decisions
I am aware that the Board has made.
I cannot believe that the same people that have instituted a
philosophy that has given Fort Collins a reputation of being a
"choice" city would allow a commercial development to be built
practically in the front yards of a subdivision of custom built
homes. Apparently this same developer is also proposing to build
duplexes close by that would most likely end up as rentals. This
is not keeping with the same atmosphere as the rest of the
neighborhood (or "zone") and should not therefore be allowed.
This letter is mainly to bring to your attention our predicament.
I'm sure once you are all aware of what's trying to be railroaded
through you will put a stop to It.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Carol Harper Rosane
3743 Benthaven
cc: Laurie Odell, Chairperson
Don Crews
David Edwards
Sanford Kern
Bernie Strom _ '
Jim Klataske t; '
2 11988
a
C
2 1 1988
/l. SArl,
y
,-41"W fj,�c �LlGG9� Af'ry i�,Qrssro
�,�i. of Cl�t,QUG rrA,Ps
�vov14a�rc
/"/1iO.l >o �d%1L�fli9S•;v9' D!J> �Dw,d�vS�, ��-vD >D �,�/�i
�rA�rD 2 /�•r/O >'�� vv7y Zot�-,a si.�/jr'� .�'9i.��
l%�,O�cJ �,v0 Lv9.s yDLO i7 Lv�s ys�,�vo9�
�l�5 T OF 7�� ' >.�fJ7 �,�gvyG �i�►rs
Pe
lelle
�mwrvP,eJ y�/c iJ1'Q9�x7v""' � Px r�1ra
>9,P�C dov�i� f%��s>�� D�•r� is Pc`.Pyo��/,c� 7s
>f1�'
my
O�� z
c
iS
,.��/ ESsc-,�c�, !vc �,QoG r,/vST 7�0 �1�✓0.2 �Oi:�>s dam'
%i%r9� ,?3 ��D ���� •�if/grJ /�D,✓aDi C�A�i o.v D•d r✓lJ,vG ,t �'. Tii's
/,j���.9,Qs ry v s yd .6� �-x7'��.��.c�/ /�.'r�.o. �.2 >.s/is ���se►.v
y
L
Jj
C
c
June 19, 1988
ins Planning and ZanIng Board
C., C Sherry A 1 oe- - -.on-C1 ark
P . C; 580
Fnrr :'nilins, CC 80522
PF: Prnpased Park South P.U.D.
":P.ar 731c,
JUN 2 1 1988
%:f- Are aef in tel y opposed to the Proposed Par F- Souuth
Plan for ..) varlety of reasons. A fey. ,)f ()LIc major
t:oricerns are addressed in this letter.
tl,i:c r was a meeting held a: Lopez Elementar -,
reg,_.udlr,g the proposed Park South P.U.D. This
niee', ', :?y was to be a "Ne 1 ghborhood" meet i ng to fu 1 f i 1 : a
r:•quiremer,t of the planning process. The developer was to
fut-:i:h address labels for approximately 4-52 propert y
owners. For whatever reason, labels for 30 of these
prc:petty owners were not made availab'e. if you -.ill refer
to the attached p'at map, you will be able to see that these
�0 Prop(?r i y owners while cons i st I ng of only 11 1;'2 0 of the
totpl will constitute 40-50% of the most concerned. These
peop.e were not aff.occed an opportunity to Impart any
opinion for or, against the proposed P.U.D. Nor were they
.ulc to express their concerns. 1 would therefore strongly
add---)r_•at,e that the process be restarted at the neighborhood
meeting level.
Thr lf-tter dated May 17th from the Office of Development-
Services Planning Dept., to Mr Frank Vaught indicated their
coriurents relative to the proposed P.U.D. I am unaware as to
whether or not any of this review was available for comment
at the meeting of. May 4th or if -it was a result of the May
4th mpt-ing with some of the property owners.
Iri .ar. cocdance to the letter of May 17th, a revised Pack
5tr. i-1;' Masct-c Plan and Park South Parcel "A" P.U.D.
pr .ir:.lnary site- plan was submitted to the City Planners.
in acliaitior, to responding to some of the ccurvnerits in the
. jr.ninci department letter of May 17th, the devP.opers have
char,ueri the concept of oath the Master Plan and the
Preliminary Site Plan by changing the southeast corner.
The site plan, as revised, is now an attempt to incorporate
sic : ple..ment an extremely minor section of the previously
ed 1C approven P . IJ . r . This revision changes the
o%-roll concept of the one presently proposed. This is
.y u c;riange o f such a magri i tude that I be 1 i eve t%:tr
shou 1 a o;;ce aga i r, commence at the "neighborhood"
rlF+e` i r rl ; eve J .
ad I been notifled or afforded the opportunity to
participate at the rr:eezing of May -lth, I would be :t:: +re U,
the fee, 'ngs, thoughts and concern, of my fellow neighbors.
Even though i tee. that the developer should be made to
start the process over again, I am compelled tc express my
concerns of the prcpcssed P.U.D..
. :=,hc,uld the affected property owned: be able to respond
r.j the changes noted on the revised Master Pl-i;, and Parcel
"A" P.J.D. Sire Plan' I think they should.
2. P.,rrF-i "A" P.U.D. pcellminary site pion: Thi3 caiinnt be
7;:e1ligent1y addressed until such time the developer makes
a f;n.al deciylon as to what he wants and is subm::.ted to the
area residents.
r ; f f l c F? :;w: The proposed Ingress and egre--:s to Parcel
3" of the Master Plan should be addressed nc�:. Any
,eg.a.tive decision would dramatically affect wl::_t. may or may
n:,r br c:c.)ne with the remaining portion of ne property. I
` there should be absolutely no provis•Ion fc.;r- ingress car
e-yrPsu to the future commericial/office or retall
development from Dennison Ave.
4. The Master ?]-an provides no indication of proper
t7offering to the adjacent properties on the west nor his
prop.-Dsed sout.ri-rly property line separating Parcel "A" and
the proposed corn;r,ercial properties. There should be a
l.a.n:.,ccaped buffer zone immediately adjacent to the existing
res3dr-nt al area, then a street, then the proposea
development.
5. There should be
reEail, commercial
noIq?; t.
no building permitted In the commercial
oTflce, or office exceeding one story in
C
c
C
h. The proposal to deliberately crank the alignment of
Dennison. Ave. through Parcel "A" will not deter through
traf.fic.'It may. however, slow traffic down within the
pcoposed develop;firnt. All of the existing and future
nr e;nprnent in Four Seasons establishes a very definite mode
:ur tr:i(,f::: fIow o this development. Resident'.. -Al streets
: 1 i:Fc n;re direct access to the proposed development as It
i^ fern::;Fr `,.' y i .)It1 nut. Furthermore, the addl t i.r.n.a;
Properties north of Troutman Parkway could very well, find it
mo::r" cclverli:-it tc) :.se residential streets in Four Seasons
r.han the arterial or controller streets.
Al i of o-i.-= traffic flow will generate an extrr-me _,afety
na: pro for elemne,:tary children traveling tn _n::; from L_:pez
F l e-ax!n t ary Sc!`.r7Q 1 And T -outman Par-K..
.:'e 't 1--: possible to construct a building and plant
:at; i : h may oe architecturally and a.r:�thPt i ca i 1 y
3 :ith , residential r_UMRL.nity, it 1s ex- :.rumeIy
..:c.,e .1_ rti -u I, to e tabl ish :.bage, traff1C L+ :w, personne�
�.i:j ..u:,tomers which are compatible. In fact, on this site,
.:o n::t .eel that It can be done at all. Thera is
9h:�o'.utely no way that a development of this nature belongs
resic:��tial ly oriented area.
S 1 n c e r e I y
"%/''
Clarence Palmer
Betty Palmer
701 Arbor Ave.
Ft. Collins
233-2559
No Text
•
II • •
1 1'11/i
June 22, 1988
Sherry Albertson -Clark
Senior Planner
Office 6f Development Services
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
IV-0.009
RE: Park South PUD - Master Plan Case Number 46-88
Park South PUD, Parcel A - Preliminary, Case Number 46-88A.
Dear Ms. Clark:
Fort Collins has numerous apartment complexes, commercial
buildings, retail space and shopping center space which remains
unfilled without building additional space that may remain
vacant.
I believe the City of Fort Collins would be in error to allow
apartment complexes, commercial or residential development in the
area.
I do not believe the current proposed development in the above
listed cases is appropriate for the residential neighborhood.
I urge that the request for rezoning be denied.
I was one of the thirty (30) property owners who was not notified
of the meeting between the developer and property owners held on
May 4, 1988 regarding the cases listed.
N
Thank you.
Yours truly,
William W. Woodward
713 Arbor Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
c
•
C
June 22, 1988--�
Sherry Albertson -Clark
Senior Planner �- ; i
Office of Development Services
Planning Department �`" `I✓i
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
RE: Park South PUD - Master Plan
Case Number 46-88
Park South PUD, Parcel A = Preliminary,
Case Number 46-88A.
Dear Ms. Clark:
I was one of the thirty (30) property owners not notified of the
community meeting between property owners and the developer held
on May 4, 1988 regarding the cases listed.
I do not believe the current proposed development is appropriate
for the residential neighborhood.
Lopez Elementary School was constructed to serve a single-family
residential development originally planned for the area. I
believe the City of Fort Collins would be in error to allow
apartment complexes, commercial or residential development in the
area.
Fort Collins has numerous apartment complexes, commercial
buildings, retail space and shopping center space which remains
unfilled without building additional space that may remain
vacant.
r
I urge that the request for rezoning be denied.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours truly,
t4rT11y(An&J. Poodward
713 Arbor Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
Ah
C
WILLIAM LOPEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
RICHARD ELLERBY, Ed.D. 637 WABASH PHONE: (303) 223-2956
PRINCIPAL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80526
June 23, 1988
Fort Collins Planning and Toning Board U�L,
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
To Whom It May Concern:
It has been brought to my attention that a master plan
for developing Park South PUD includes a considerable area
for business, commercial, or office use. Since Lopez School
is going to be impacted directly by this development in
terms of added traffic and resultant safety considerations,
I would hope that you steer your street designs to lessen
the impact on routes taken by students walking within the _
ne_ghborhood as well as to and from school.
We had a boy seriously injured in a bicycle/car
incident on the last day of school and this happened on
Wabash Street, which is a relatively quiet thoroughfare. We
must do our best to protect children against themselves -
this in light of the young Roybal child who will be buried
June 23, 1988.
If I can be of any help in"anticipating future problems
involving pedestrian safety, walkways, or school involvement
in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ill RRii� and El lerby, Ed.D.
Lopez Principal
RE:mt
3800 Benthaven Street
Ft. Collins, CO 80526
June 27, 1988
G
City of Fort Collins U `
Office of Development Services
Planning Department
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
Dear Sir:
I would like to register my strong objection to the development
as planned of the Park South subdivision. Our property is on
the western edge of this area. It will be the view from my
dining area.
When we bought this home, we were told that the entire area
C behind us would become single family homes. If the word
"commercial" had ever been mentioned, we would not have put
our life savings into this property.
Our area not only doesn't want, but definitely does not need
yet another commercial area, of any kind, within yards of our
homes. We can already walk a half mile to the east, west, or
south and be in a commercial area. Fort Collins is already
overbuilt commercially and has many empty shops and offices.
It is obvious even to the novice that the higher the density
of the development, the higher the profit to the developer.
In the case in question, however, the cost to several hundred
families is just too great. ,
My other concern is the traffic which would be coming through
our neighborhood. We live at the intersection of Benthaven
and Dennison, which would become a major intersection if a
commercial area were allowed. Also, this area is home to
,many, many very young children, whose safety would be
threatened.
Sincerely,
i'. F , a *_-N�
Mrs. C. F. Hoodmaker
_ _. < _ _ . , :..:...,:,9cb:.�,.a<,.�15,�'aiSaAw.•?•izw�nl�u.:.;.,.+:.-...a:�µ;+fh.��a'.+k c,
July 18, 1988
City of Fort Collins
Office of Development
Services Planning Department
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
Dear Ms. Albertson -Clark:
I am writing in response to your letter of July 12, 1988,
regarding development of case number 46-88 and 46-88A.
As a homeowner in the Four Seasons area I purchased my residence
with the understanding that this land had been zoned for
residential units. I am very much opposed to any commercial
development in the vacinity. At the present time we are
surrounded by commercial development at Horsetooth and College
and at Shields and Horsetooth. I do not feel that the City of
Fort Collins should allow commercial development to encroach
into this residential area.
Sincerely,
l
Richard R. Storck
3812 Benthaven
Ft. Collins, CO 80526
JUL 2 0 M I I.'
•
C
C
June 23, 1988
Lindsey and Diana Wess
3819 Dahlia Ct.
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Sherry Albertson -Clark, Senior Planner
City of Fort Collins
Office of Development Services
Planning Department
300 LaPorte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Ms. Albertson -Clark:
This letter is written to urge disapproval of the proposed
Park South PUD plan. Specifically, we do not support plans for
the development of commercial/retail/office space in our
neighborhood. With so much commercial and retail development
remaining empty and unused in this city, we are shocked to
see yet another site selected for such use. Furthermore, the
revised plan to develop duplex units in the same area is not
acceptable.
We oppose both of these development proposals because the
increased traffic and higher density would be detrimental to the
quality of this residential neighborhood. We prefer low density,
single family dwellings to either commercial or duplex
development.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Lindsey Wess
Diana Wess
. �.. ��Y:•:Ee.'>.+•.i..., :+.f,�..-4NEA,A":.. ,... r _... �,t.-d�+"c".rz-.. n <. `yj'
C C(2Ow19
D ,
AUG 151988
August 5, 1988
Sherry Albertson -Clark
Senior-- Planner
Planning Departmcant
City of Fort. Collins
Dear- Senior- Planner:
We are writinq to you in regards to the proposed change of znni.nn
plan known as Park Suuth P.U.D. Master Flan and Preliminary, Case
Numbers #46-88 and #46-F38A.
Unf(:!rtunately we will not be able to attend the August 22, 1.988
meeting. After- putting off our vacation several times in order
to attend the earlier- proposed meetings (which never -
materialised), we are now forced to either forfeit our summer -
vacation, only to have the meeting canceled again or to hone thiFi
meeting like the others will be postponed until a later date
which we will be able to attend. In the event that this meeting
is held we would at least like to voice our opinion on the
matter.
This is .a quiet, family neighborhood. It is one where we chose
to buy a lot and have a. house built, where we planned to spend
many years. And now our neighborhood is threatened by commercial
activity. Having moved here from just south of Elizabeth and
Shields we know how that quiet can be ruined by such commercial
activity. We specifically moved here knowing that the areas all
.around were zoned for residential. And now we find that the
zoning restrictions can be changed at the pleasure of developers.
We feel. betrayed. We feel inadequate, without a voice, without
the clout and financial backing of the developer.
The only recourse we have is to appeal to YOU to please not
change the zoning in this area. -There are so many more areas
available, away from homes and in the business district, to be
used for commercial. uses.
I hopes you will consider our feelings when you make your
der_iOnn. Thank: you for listening to us.
Si ncerely,
Mr. & Mrs R. A. Bowman
C