Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOEL ANNEXATION & ZONING - 58-87, A - CORRESPONDENCE - ADJACENT OR AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERSServices Planning Department November 29, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Powers, Director of Cultural Services Virgil Taylor, Maintenance Superintendent Mike Smith, Water Utilities Director FM: Ken Waido, Chief Planner ��� RE: Letter from Mr. Alvin L. Miller is On Monday November 21, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on the proposed Noel Annexation and Zoning, a request to annex 287.5 acres located west on Overland Trail. At the hearing Mr. Alvin L. Miller, an adjacent property owner, presented the attached letter to the Board. The letter contains concerns about the Noel Annexation and Zoning requests, but also contains comments which about the Parks and Water Departments. Since a copy of Mr. Miller's letter went to the City Manager and members of the City Council you may want to prepare any necessary responses to the concerns raised by Mr. Miller. Thanks. 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 • 0 cc: Council Mike Davis Tom Peterson City of Ft. Collins Planning Board City Council City Manager November 21, 1988 Ladies and Gentlemen. RE: Wallace Noel Annexation West- Ft. Collins First I would like to address the RF Zoning proposed for a portion of the Noel Property. RF Zoning allows the clustering of Lots and a density of one unit per acre, plus horses and livestock. Has any- one really studiEd.,this area? Large portions of it cannot be irrigated at all and most likely, when development starts, all irrigation shall have to cease. This means that you would be pasturing land that has 12 to 15 inches of natural rainfall and is extrememly fragile. In my opinion, it is extremely doubtful that more than a dozen horses could be maintained on a year around basis. Unless there are strict and enforceable regulations to monitor the ground cover use, much of the place would be totally destroyed and denuded of all vegetation with resulting blowing dire:, and horse manure. RF Zonig without these strict controls is without doubt an absolute and total disaster as far as good zoning. I would suggest that an environmental impact study be done to see how much livestock, if any, the area can carry. I thought the entire City concern was to preserve the foothills, not contribute to its destruction. City Regarding the eagarness the/has to obtain more open space: It appears to me that the City plunges ahead desiring to acquire more land but does not follow through with its attendant responsibilities. The City now owns about 200 acres West of our place and adjacent to the Noel property. Sections have been torn up b.7 the Water Department over the past four years. Written promises were made that the ground would be revegitated and reseeded. About 90%o of the revegitation has been nothing but weeds, which we promptly inherit from all westerly high winds. After 3 years of frustration we called the City Manager last year. The result of that conversation was that Virgil Taylor would monitor the situation every few weeks and clean the fence row as needed so as not to completely b- ry us with the City grown weeds. I have no doubt that this wal all well intended but it gradually gets lost in the adminstrative shuffle. After the high winds this fall we contacted Jeff Lowman, Virgil Taylor and finally Mike Powers. It took about 5 weeks of frustrating requests to finally get the City to clean their side of the fence of the weeds. The Water Departments noress road has hecnme an active dog run and hikers trail to the opera ;,pnce to the West. The Cpen ')pace is an area completely out of control and is a No --Mans land or perhaps a better term would be it is Everyone Land and without restrictions. The area is used by high speed dirt bike riders, uncontrolled dogs by the hundreds with or without their masters that seers- to believe that anything West of Overland Trail., including the CSU Stadium grounds, Our place, and the City Open Area is totally i••ee of any restraints or obligations. It is fairly easy to understand why people may have this attitude. I know of not one sign to indicate what the rules are for the use and prservation of this ground. The Sherrif's department does not monitor this area and certainly the City does nothing, so who does? Absolutely NOBODY. Until the City adopts some policies to fence Private property, as they have on all of their other hiking trails and are able to monitor and control the areas they presently have, they should not attempt to acquire more. The density shift provision proposed for the Noel Annexation: The City has for over 15 years strongly opposed development, and especially high density development, West of Overland Trail. This opposition was due to air pollution and other concerns, and yet it would appear, if granted, that the City is willing to comprise all of their previous concerns for the enticing carrot, of Free Ground. If this density shift is abused to allow 300 to 500 units on this ground, it would only follow that,if Mr. Noel had another 200 acres to give the City, perhaps a 1000 units could be piled up West of Overland Trail. How Ludicrous. The Air pollution is not going to be on top of the ridges of the acquired Open Space, it will be, if at all, down on Overland Trail and further East. If the City is even remotely interested in such an abuse of the Density shift, it is totally unconscionable. If the City wants this Open Space and if they accept the obligations attendant thereto, fine. Let the City buy the ground and retain the lower density that they have so vehemently touted for the past 15 years. As most of you know, this area was restrainted to the point of allowing one unit per 35 acres, then approximately 12 acres per unit, and then down to approximately 2-- acres per unit. Are we now considering, with this density shift gimmick, allowing a density of a few thousand square feet per unit? Just to obtain free land? I wonder how a Court would view such hanky—panky. After all of the gyrations, waffeling and bouncing around that the City policy has expressed the past 15 years, I believe it is about time for the City to come up with a consistant, stable, and workable policy to cover all of the problems of the Foothills area and Open Space in particular. We certainly have not had that in the past. We are not opposed to Mr. Noel. developing his property, but again lets not abandon all restraints for the chance of a Freebee. Lets have the City do the honorable thing, keep the density down and then buy the open space, if they can handle it properly. THE REST OF THE STORY: Mr. Smith, from the Water Department did call 11/9/ 88 and offered a ray of hope on part of the problems. He indicated they would try to better control their weed and do some reseeding. He also indicated a willing ness to discuss fencing along the access road to control the uncontrolled i'eople and dogs. Even if this is accomplished and has fulfilled the Water Dept. obligation there is still the entire West boundary of our place totally exposed. Parks and recreation Dept. haven't expressed that degree of cooperation. We shall see what happens? TO BE CONTINUED.