Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LANDS TRACT A ZONING - 38-88 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM Vol 22 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OF STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Interstate Lands Tract A Zoning - #38-88 APPLICANT: G.T. Land Colorado, Inc. OWNER: Overlook Farm Inc. c/o Cityscape Urban Design 3555 Stanford Road 21 Old Town Square, Suite 242 Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT PLANNER:I Linda Ripley PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to zone approximately 34.6 acres located west of I-25 and north of Prospect Road into the R-P Planned Residential District. The property is presently undeveloped. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the R-P Planned Residential District zoning with a planned unit development condition. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request to zone approximately 34.6 acres located west of I-25 and north of Prospect Road into the R-P Planned Residential District. Staff recommends that a planned unit development condition be attached to the zoning. The property is presently undeveloped. OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT 300 LaPorte Ave. • P 0. Box 580 • Fort Collins. Colorado 80522 • ,303)=- SERVICES. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Interstate Lands Tract A Zoning - #38-88 P & Z Meeting - January 23, 1989 Page 2 COMMENTS 1. Background: The owner, Overlook Farm Inc., has submitted a written petition requesting zoning of approximately 34.6 acres west of I-25 and north of Prospect Road into the R-P Planned Residential District. The property is presently undeveloped. The property is being annexed into the city limits as part of Interstate Lands Second Annexation. The zoning request is being heard separately because of overlapping and inconsistent boundary lines which define Interstate Lands First and Second Annexations and Tracts A and B, which have different zoning designations. 2. Zoning: The R-P Planned Residential District designation is for areas planned as a unit to provide a variation in use and building placement. The property will probably eventually develop at a moderate residential density. According to the City's LAND USE POLICIES PLAN, higher density residential uses should locate near the core area, regional/community shopping centers, the CSU main campus, or the hospital; within close proximity to community or neighborhood park facilities; where water and sewer facilities can be adequately provided; within easy access to major employment centers; with access to public transportation; and in areas with provisions for alternate modes of transportation. This site addresses most of these locational policies. The policies also indicate that higher density residential uses should locate in planned unit developments. 3. Neighborhood Concerns: A neighborhood meeting was held March 29, 1988 to hear concerns regarding the annexation and zoning of this property as well as to receive comments on the proposed master plan. The meeting was well attended by county residents who voiced their concerns about annexation. The primary objections were to City expansion in general, the possibility of their property becoming an enclave in the future, and the urban land uses proposed being a threat to their rural lifestyle. Staff believes that the requested R-P Planned Residential District zoning with a planned unit development condition will ensure appropriate land use transitions and design compatibility with surrounding land uses. 3. Findings: a) The requested R-P Planned Residential District is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Interstate Lands Tract A Zoning - #38-88 P & Z Meeting - January 23, 1989 Page 3 b) A planned unit development condition is appropriate for this zoning to ensure design compatibility with surrounding land uses. c) On March 21, 1989, the City Council will hold a public hearing and hear first reading of the Ordinance zoning the property. Second reading is scheduled for April 4, 1989. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested R-P Planned Residential District zoning with a planned unit development condition. No Text • Petitioner: Na me CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING PETITION Address Overlook Farm Inc. Stanford Plaza, Suite 100 3555 Stanford Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 Owners: Name Address Overlook Farm Inc. Stanford Plaza, Suite 100 3555 Stanford Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 Colorado State Department of Highways To the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. I (We), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully petition and request that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance of the City of Fort Collins by changing the zoning of Tract "A" as described on Exhibit A, containing 34.600 acres, more or less from into the R-P - Planned Residential zoning district. Overlook Farm Inc. By: Michael S. Byrne President Subscribed and sworn to before me this �p day of 1 Q !- 198,9, byi1�� Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission expires Notar Public s • EXHIBIT "A" • TRACT "A" (DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL) A tract of land located in Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Cons-itlering the West line of the East half of said Section 16 as bearing, North 0°12'30" East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: Commencing at the South Quarter Corner of said Section 16; thence along the West line of the said East half, North 0°12'30" East, 360.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continuing along said West line, North 0°12'30" East, 736.51 feet; thence, North 88°22'30" West, 315.12 feet; thence, North 25°20'00" West, 264.81 feet; thence, North 88022'30" West, 122.53 feet to the Southeast corner of Boxelder Estates First Filing; thence, along the Easterly line of said Boxelder Estates First Filing the following 3 courses and distances; North 0° 09'00" East, 590.26 feet; thence, South 88°22'30" East, 22.64 feet; thence, North 0°09'00" East, 1126.47 feet to the Southwest corner of that certain tract of land described in Book 1338, Page 22 recorded in Larimer County Records; thence along the South and East lines of said Tract; South 89°51'00" East, 45.05 feet; thence, North 0009'00" East, 161.76 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract; thence, North 0. 09'00" East, 2.23 feet to a point on the South line of that certain tract of land described in quitclaim deed recorded in Book 1338, Page 20 recorded in Larimer County records; thence, along the Southerly line of said Tract the following 3 courses and distances; South 85°34'30" East, 1.18 feet; thence, South 870 45'30" East, 136.45 feet; thence, South 83°24'30" East, 350.54 feet to the Southeast corner of said Tract, said point being on the West line of the East half of said Section 16; thence along the said West line, South 0°12'30" West, 1461.85 feet; thence, South 25°20'00" East, 1159.31 feet; thence, South 0°12'30" West, 327.35 feet; thence, North 88°20'30" West, 500.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. The ,above described tract of land contains 34.600 acres and is subject to all easements and rights -of -way now on record or existing. 1 i✓ r _ ]c,u ar v 19 , 1 9 Re: Annexation and Zoning of Interstate land, Came lywobers 34-88 , 35-88 , 38-88 , 39-88 TO: Planning and Zoning Board ifter look incl over the proposal for the annexation of the Tana area and the proposed uses, I feel I need to respond to sever._ l auestions. Th1 area is close to an Interstate highway and any building or nign cl nsity resioential , ie, apartment houses, would only serve to bring in a more transient, sometimes crimnal, eiefrient. Because of the distance this residential district would be from police and fire protection, the more risk: involved in getting the type of element that every city does not want ... increasing the hazards for the law-abiding 41 citizen and decreasing the quality of life. Are there not now too many commercial centers within the city limits which are vacant or at the very least, under-c:ev�.:l ooed . Unless a shopping complex would have the major- retail concerns, such as are prevelent at the Del Camino, Longmont exit, would not the same conditions of vacancy exist? If a snooping center, residential complex is constructed, a long hard look needs to be taken to dispel 1 the concerns for threatened quality of life and commercial vacancy. The zoning which now exists works well, so if it is not broke. don't fix it! Thin:: about ill L. T h�l t W7 A. Ax. Z;rvAla�S Cv Sa3�¢ • 0 January 19, 1989 Planning and Zoning Board of Ft. Collins 300 LaPorte Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: Annexation and Zoning of Interstate Land Case Numbers 34-88, 35-88, 38-88, 39-88 Dear Planning and Zoning Board: I received notification about the upcoming meeting regarding annexation and zoning for the above stated parcel of land. I would like to see the area zoned RP enlarged (at least doubled) to provide a larger buffer zone between our quiet residential neighborhood and the portion of land you have zoned HB for businesses. We are used to country living and I think the original residences in this area should be provided a larger buffer zone between us and businesses. If new residences are built in the area between the current homes and the new businesses, people purchasing those homes would know they would be buying close to businesses at the time they purchase their home; not all of a sudden they build a factory near you and you have to listen to delivery trucks and machinery running. I would also like the City of Ft. Collins to consider turning part of this area into a green belt (or parkway/walking path). There are many residential areas within the city limits now that have large green belt areas near them. Why couldn't some of this land be set aside for that rather than building on all of the open land you plan to annex. Quality of life is an important factor if you want a healthy environment when enlarging the City of Ft. Collins. Also, I am wondering if your RP designation is single family homes or what type of residential housing do you have in mind? Sincerely, lea �nand"Jam s Burns 712 Verde Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80524-8531 cc: Chip Newton, Boxelder Home Owner's Association • • C1 L� 3422 Surrey Lane Ft. Collins, co 80524 January 19, 1989 Planning and Zoning Hoard Fort Collins Colorado B0522-0580 Dear Board Members: I wish to express my concern over the proposed annexation and zoning of the land located near I-25 and Prospect called "Interstate Land". I believe that the annexation of this land is inevitable and not necessarily negative for our neighborhood. However, the greatest concern of myself and others is the potential changes this development would have to the low traffic, safe streets we now enjoy, unobtrusive lights and noise, and no financial assessments (for Boxeider residents). I believe that it is grossly unjust that hundreds of homeowners will have their lifestyles adversely and permanently is affected so that a handful of non-resident investors will reap a rich profit. I would like to see a compatible and agreeable transformation from existing neighborhoods to businesses. But most of all we do not want access roads pushing through our neighborhoods with the hundreds of cars which a densely developed residential area or shopping mall could bring. Sincerely, j r . • //,- I- / /Y f (,(�►+�,a�r<t��.r � 1. o-H.--�� o` � � a...-Q. b3 S- 87.� 38 - FF ,. --Z 3�- ' T,� i�' P - ,a� ,fie - �/' w �•-�.e.,., �---- cam, • • D E('�7 f_�\�i JAN 4 I , 3507 E. Locust Ft. Collins. CO 80=�524 January 18, r 1989 AD Mrs. Linda Ripley, Senior Planner Planning and Zoning Board of Fort Collins 3� 0 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 De=ar Mrs. Ripley: RED Annexation and Zoning of Interstate Land, Case Nubers 34-88, 35-88, 38-88, and 39-88 We will not be able to attend the January 23 meeting, but did want to add our input to this matter. As thirteen year residents of the Sunrise Subdivision adjacent to this proposed developement we are oppossed to the annexation and zoning. We bought out here because of the quiet, country like atmosphere. The annexation and zoning of this land would change that. We would see increased traffic both cars and public. And this will Cause increased polution in our neighborhood and crime. This would also increase the attention to this part of Ft. Collins. If we wanted to live in or near the business district we would have bought accordingly. Economically why develope more buildings to be vacant along with the high rate of vacanies in the existing buildings in Ft. ,?_;; Collins'? Should the annexation pass we would like to see the zoning change to include more single family residences than the thin line that is proposed. We don't know the exact area considered now, but we would like to see three times as many single family residences. Sincerely Jack: and Diann Dean dd 9 0 A ze 'r�._z. Q�e cZ. c� cz rLe c� e��..e2.s�a..�� oS ct-r, • �� d' //l cez,7 LAL C-12 ox � a Qc--tJ 19, d-el 6 ece 1411-1 Qua e e.2 -t-I CA OAQ 0- zio- /Y-) A_ • 0 C. J. Streit 3430 Surrey Lane Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 March 29, 1988 City of Fort Collins Office of Devgldpment Services, Planning Department 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Attn: Linda Ripley, Senior Planner RE: Interstate Land - Master Plan Dear Linda: I live on Surrey Lane in Boxelder Estates adjacent to the proposed development Master Plan. Its been almost three (3) weeks since I received your notice regarding a Master Plan for a Regional Mall buffered by multi -family residences next to our peace- ful and quiet single family, essentially rural residential area. I'm still in a state of shock as to the impact a development of this intensity and scope will have on our neighborhood. The increased noise, visual unpleasantries of looking into the back yard of multi -story homes, the unbelievable increased traffic into and through Boxelder Estates will drastically alter our current lifestyle we presently enjoy. These concerns are in addition to who pays for proposed access streets which aren't constructed even to specified county standards, through Boxelder, as well as an inadequately landscape area between us and the Mall. A proposal was made earlier, I believe about 1980, for low density single family residences for this area. A development of that nature is far more compatible with the Boxelder and Sunrise Developments. Furthermore, from a city planning standpoint, I seriously question the wisdom of a Regional Mall and multi -family residences on the eastern edge of the city's urban growth area. If this is allowed a new wave of growth will extend east of I-25, reaching beyond the current urban growth area and into prime agricultural lands. This is contrary to the City's stated policy of encouraging growth to the north of the downtown Fort Collins. In conclusion, I ask that the Planning Department keep all people in Boxelder Estates and Sunrise, including those along Summitview informed of this proposal including all public hearings, rather than just those people within 500 feet. The increased traffic due a regional mall will affect these people as much as those within 500 feet. Sincerely, C. qJStreit • TO: Planning Department 0 City of Fort Collins FROM: Kathy Sleavin, Homeowner 1047 Greenfield Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80524 SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation and Zoning of Interstate land Case number 34-88, 35-88, 38-88, and 39-88 I am a homeowner in Boxelder Estates which lies adjacent to the "Interstate Lands" proposed for annexation and zoning on Monday January 23, 1989. 1 have the following concerns about the proposed zoning of this parcel of land: - There will be increased traffic through Boxelder Estates once the proposed industry and houses are built. Our roads are not built for this higher volume of traffic and our neighborhood was not planned or designed for high traffic volume. This is an acerage subdivision without sidewalks or stop signs. People ride their horses, walk their dogs and children play in the streets. An increase in traffic flow from outside of the subdivision is totally incompatable with the present character of our neighborhood. - Our neighborhood was not planned for increased traffic. We DO NOT WANT the increased traffic nor do we wish to pay for any street improvements to accomidate the increased traffic. - Boxelder Estates is a rural, acerage subdivision. To place a small strip of residences between us and a major area of industrial land is to erode the character of the neighborhood. I would like to see the "R-P" of Planned Residential District be AT LEAST 3 times as large as is presently planned. This would place a better buffer between an acerage subdivision and a "Highway Business" area. This change in zoning will provide for a compatable and agreeable transformation from existing neighborhoods to a busuness area. - Have the city planners considered zoning a greenbelt between the existing neighborhoods and the proposed "Planned Residential District"? This would make a smoother transition between acerage lots and a higher density subdivision. - I would appreciate a response from the planning department on the above concerns. I am very concerned that the quality and type of life-style enjoyed by the residents of the existing estates in Boxelder will be adversely and irrevocably altered because of the abrupt change from a rural 0 residential neighborhood to a massive area of unspecified businesses and the MANY impacts it would bring. KATHY SLEAVIN 1047 Greenfield Ct. Fort Collins..CO. 80524 • • • .'' D C�6G�N7fE APR 1 3 rasa Linda Ripley, Project Planner Office of Development Services, Planning Department City of Ft. Collins P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, Co. 80522 Dear Lindae (0 3604 East Prospect Road Ft. Collins, Co. 80525 12 April 1988 Mrs. Culbertson and I wish to express our strong opposition to the proposed project commonly known as Interstate Land Annexation and Master Plan. Our property borders the southwest corner of the Plan fronting on Prospect Road. Our opposition to the proposed annexation is based upon the Master Plan for use of the land as it was presented to us at the March 29 meeting. The following points are pertinent to the effects the Plan as proposed would have on existing land owners in the Boxelder community and those along Summit View Drive. While we understand the Master Plan as proposed is not the final plan, and is subject to future plans by the actual developers, the zoning gained under the annexation and proposed plan would be permanent and more or less binding with regards to adjacent land owners. 1. The proposed Master Plan requests zoning for high -density multi -family housing along the entire western boundry of the land. This is immediately adjacent to all the existing properties along the west border. The adjacent properties were developed and have existed for years as one to three -acre single family units zoned for horses and other livestock. They are still used in that way and constitute _a lifestyle enjoyed by current owners. The high -density proposal is completely incompatible with the existing community and essentially also poses hazards to current property owners in several ways. 2. The proposed plan shows a greenbelt area along the north boundry which is in no way compatible with the high -density area. The only access to the green- belt area for families in the high -density area is shown as a small tip at the northwest corner and a canal must be crossed to reach the greenbelt. Furthermore the proposed greenbelt area is a narrow strip between two canals and is also expected to handle any future flood waters. The hazards of canals to any children in the high -density area expected to use the greenbelt is a matter of record in reports of drownings, etc. 3. The proposed Master Plan would create hazards and constant haressment for adjacent property owners because of trepass by children from the high - density area trying to use the open fields or get to the livestock, principally the horses, in lieu of using the greenbelt area. This poses heavy liability factors for the current property owners. In addition there is the harassment by people who normally occupy high -density dwellings over normally accepted "country odors" consistent with livestock and normal dust. All of the above points are not speculation, they can be documented by history of development and country living. 4. The Master Plan is purely speculative in regards to access streets and roads, sewer and water resources, and drainage. All of these factors pose significant threats to life-styles and property values of those who live adjacent to the area proposed for development and annexation. The planners for the speculators involved with the land covered in the Interstate Land Annexation and Master Flan seem to have arbitrarily drawn a map designed to obtain zoning for the highest density use to get the land values up with very little regard for the logistics involved with such development and the effects upon people in the existing community. We urge you -to consider the negative ramifications of approving such a nebulous proposal and its effects on the existing community. These concerns of the people were well documented at the March 29 meeting for your consideration. Sincerely, ,/� /1 An 1 �, IQ Cu.eee4-&D-1, Wm. R. Culbertson 11 y IIIIIIIII�IIii��ID t `�companies Suite 1050 650 South Cherry Street Denver, Colorado 90222 303.399.9804 March 30,-1988 Linda Ripley Project Planner City of Fort Collins office of Development Services Planning Department 300 LaPorte Avenue Post office Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 P17-02-01A Dear Linda: This letter is written as a follow up to our telephone conversation Friday afternoon regarding the proposed annexation and zoning for the proposed project known as "Interstate Land Annexation and Master Plan." As we discussed on the telephone we are completely supportive of the project and feel that it would be an excellent addition to the neighborhood and will provide overall benefits to the City of Fort Collins and its surrounding neighbors. A project such as proposed would balance the directions of growth in the City of Fort Collins and allow it to make greater use and derive further benefits from the Interstate 25 corridor that would be the front door of the project. The shops and services offered by the shopping center would be outstanding for the residents of the area and would also provide substantial future additional tax revenues for Fort Collins. The only suggestion we have with regards to the proposed project is that provisions be made within their Master Plan for the extension of Stockton Avenue thru our property known as Smithfield Subdivision lying directly to the north of the Interstate Land Annexation and that this extension provide a tie into the roadway network system of the Interstate Land Annexation project. 0 C March 28, 1988 L. Ripley/City of Ft. Collins Interstate Land Annex. & Master Plan Page 2 I would appreciate your referring our comments to those in attendance- at the neighborhood meeting and also to the _ Larimer County Planning and Zoning Commission and the County Commissioners. Thank you- for your assistance. Please keep us apprised of the developments of this project as they occur. r Sincerely your-s�, M�rcus S. Palkowitsh MSP:mr D/B:42 cc: John McWilliams C� Y 0 & 0 March 29, 1988 Office of Development Services, Planning Department City of Fort Collins Attention: Linda Ripley, Project Planner The residents of Box Elder Estates wish to share with the Planning Department our views and concerns in respect to the proposed project of 192 acres west of I-25 and north of Prospect Road called Interstate Land Annexation and Master Plan which we strongly oppose. 1. The proposed development would create a massive business area adjacent to prime agricultural land on the east side of I-25. The pressure to develop the east side of the interstate will lead to expansion into prime agricultural land which is outside the cities urban growth area. According to the City's long term plans, concern for the environment and quality of life in Fort Collins, prime agricultural land is to be maintained for agriculture. Therefore this project is contrary to the City of Fort Collin's philosophy of development. 2. The proponents of the rezoning do not seem to have a clear plan or purpose. They propose that Parcel A be used for either major retail/business services or an industrial business park. These two different uses of the land would have considerably different impacts on the land, the roads, and the neighborhoods surrounding the area. We believe that each of them should be proposed separately for approval. 3. Parcel H designated to be multifamily dwellings allows a large latitude of construction including multilevel buildings. This type of residence is totally out of character with the homes in Box Elder which are single family acreage units. 4. The proposed development poses many changes in the amount and direction of traffic flow through and near Boxelder Estates. This traffic will affect the character of the area and the quality of life enjoyed by the residents and their children. The burden of improving the roads in the area to city standard may fall on the local resident who with considerable road frontage property would suffer an unfair and perhaps intolerable financial strain. C l 5. In the Interstate Master Plan a green belt area is designated between the Poudre Reservoir Ditch and the Lake Canal (Area J). This strip of land is inaccessible to the residents of Box Elder and it does not provide any relief from the impact of the development of Area H on Boxelder Estates and therefore should not be counted as meeting the minimum requirements for landscaping. r 6. The environmental impact of this plan has not been studied. The 192 acres consist of several water drainage systems. The water table in the area is no more than eight feet in places. The residents are concerned that flooding may occur because of the changes in the land and the artificial impermeable surfaces applied to the land in the form of buildings and roads. They are concerned that their irrigation wells may be contaminated or go dry, which would severely and adversely affect the character of the community and the quality of life. 7. Boxelder Creek is a natural water course with a serious 100 year flood risk. It also is a flash flood danger for which it has a history in recent times. 8. Has the city determined what impact this development would have on the schools which would be affected by the increased family residences, and can this impact be absorbed without further public investment? 1 Sincerely, Boxelder Estates Executive Board fU� Green-��elc� • • • • 0 (r 1117 Greenbriar Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 March 21, 1988 Ms. Linda Ripley City of Fort Collins Office of Development Services, Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Interstate Land Annexation and Master Plan. Dear Ms. Ripley: DC�ElctG� MAR 2 8 W8 Oil I received your letter regarding the referenced annexation, as I am a resident of Boxelder Estates. I plan to attend the meeting on the annexation, but in advance I would like to present concerns that must be addressed. The zoning for this parcel of land was achieved to the satisfaction of residents of Boxelder Estates a number of years ago. This zoning has business and multi -family dwellings along the interstate and along Prospect Street with low density and single family homes bordering Boxelder Estates. Such zoning, which starts with business, and goes through diminishing density into existing subdivisions, is a reasonable approach. Radical variation in this zoning will result in a significant change in the quality of life presently existing in the area. Additionally, a potential problem exists with the streets in Boxelder Estates. The streets are deeded to the county but are not maintained by the county, and they are not designed to meet the present city standards. The streets will deteriorate rapidly, should traffic of a new development be added. Residents of Boxelder Estates should not be required to pay the added cost of maintenance for a new subdivision. Very truly yours, F /.meMsI. Ruff r-- Walta S. Ruff cc: Marion Maness, President Boxelder Estates Homeowner's Assoc. �/"'y5 l/�GPS ��17HilY t/fJ!?4f:t- ol L cYe�� n �a-"W I— .�tn rn rs�rahi S�iould 1Je jro Au S-E we ZGheS lJOI1�L hzrP. r � but ;N�rtas, ttie���i� S i5 �7eC2-�rs`� ® d 5 -e re rL/ ©u �� z-f��e l�tt��/ z ddreatoar ����o//'ems gal /d • r SEND WHITER � PINK (.091IL:S INTACT, WHITE COPY WILL BE RL. TURNED WITH HF'PLY REPLY -MEMO RM-87 TO FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DEFT. _ DON ENKE 300 - IA PORTE AVE. 422 - C - S. PALM DR. RR3 PO BOX 580 --.- -_ - HARLINGEN TEXAS FT. COLLINS, COLO . 80522 78552 s' , �e�-cT DOT[ `. INTERSTATE IAND ANNEXATION AND MASTER PLAN MESSAGE: :� e._ ;„•.. I AM SORRY THAT I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING ON TUESDAY MARCH 29, 1988 at the Holiday Inn.QUESTION `a I WILL THIS PROPOSED ANNEXATION JUST PRETAIN TO THE 192 acres OR WILL IT E, - EXTEND D THE •'? CITY LIMITS OF FT. COLLINS TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD OF I - 25 ? - - 2 ARE THERE AT THIS TIME PARTIES INTERESTED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA OR IS IT JUST - SPECUALTION? --- --- --- :; . �-.. ---- 3 IF IT IS JUST SPECULATION HOW WILL IT EFFECT OUR TAXES UNTIL SOMETHING STARTED?_' 4 IF THIS IS A SKIP TYPE OF ANNEXATION WHAT, IS THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR ALL OF'THE ': PROPERTY INBETWEEN? THIS 192 acres HAVE BEEN THE TALKING STAGE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS FOR DEVEIAPMENT. IS A SERIOUS CONCIDERATION AT THIS TIME I AM FOR IT. OT I A A INST IT. ORIGINATOR -DO NOT WRITE ECLOW THIS LINE REPLY TO - SIGNED REPLY - - -- ' _� 37i W� _ r + ,7•:'R , •'.[ �• n �! .,,fin wr V'0'. ' * " * m ..t ddp' •+ h 4 '� 9^f i,- F {, �'' i c In Wil _ ^41 o�✓!lr. '' „,� *'iri�'Y ...y, •ISNEDry}�(3fy W ..'L}. SEND PARTS I ANDa3 INTACT -PART I WILL SE RETURNED WITH REPLY •'IY.{b'�':'+• A'C J ,•► y '+ �'� • a!• RETURN TO ORIGINATOR