Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARAPAHOE FARM TOWNHOMES PUD - FINAL - 55-87K - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION r- • h HEWLETT PACKARO, ' Ptli,,k0 front the des STEVEN -/6 ._ GOTTSCHALK '''" PIIONE(303)-2294370 .._._.- : FAX (303)-229-4432 E-Mail garp(Jc.hp.com \ /6-b J'efAr a, / - tJc eil c/o s.e, Co,'e S ,44-e G,AA 7 ci e. S-e,r7 D(4 T T 7V-e / :'c5 seo m-.--f �e -,7.ef-e f,s if.-re Tm 4s7i4- C 7j0") A w2.s Ze?te T See A Co/i al- 7-Ifni. (6 01 ` 7erwA,4) To 1eei.e.." i>/D yr D4 7 -e eo?n: or /?i 2--../. 3404 F. Harmony Road, Ft. Collins , CO 80525 s • December 29, 1993 L5 C t [ V 1 Mr. Jim Postal JAN 2 01994 Builder for Arapahoe Townhomes The James Company - developer Dear Mr. Postal: Concerning the Arapahoe Farm Townhome project, we would appreciate it if you could come to the next scheduled neighborhood meeting. Talking to you directly can solve some of the issues immediately. We are not trying to railroad this project, but we feel our involvement is necessary to the compatibility of our neighborhood and your proposed townhome project. Mr. Ward was unable to provide us with details and would refer to the builder as having them in answer to specific questions asked or he left the information at the office. We are looking forwarded to seeing you at the next neighborhood meeting, tentatively scheduled for the first week in February 1994. Sincerely yours, Johnson-Webber Neighborhoods Steven Gottschalk Chairperson nitetime#225-1013 daytime#229-4370 Tom Wilberton 229-9628 Dean Hoag daytime#484-5384 nitetime#223-8448 cc: Ted Shepard, Senior City Planner i 111 December 29, 1993 Bernie Strom 525 Spring Canyon Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Mr. Strom, At this time we would like to thank you for listening to some of our concerns we expressed on the Arapahoe Farm Townhouses, #55-87G on Dec. 13, 1993. We are still trying to understand the process and the way it works. At the P&Z hearing you listened to our concerns and tried to answer our questions, but many of our questions were addressed to the developer and builder. During the summary of the hearing many questions addressed to the developer and builder went unanswered. We were not allowed to get up and refute what they were saying, ie, Eldon Ward answered many of the questions in very general and vague terms, which still leaves most of our questions unanswered. This has been the primary concern we have had in dealing with Eldon and the developer in our neighborhood meetings. When a direct question is asked of Mr. Ward, we always get the same answer he gave the P&Z board at the preliminary hearing, "I don't have that information with me, I must have left it in the office." We realize that you do not want to turn the hearing into a public debate, but there must be a time in the process where these issues can be addressed thoroughly and completely. Here are the issues which we feel that have not been fully addressed to our satisfaction. The re-zoning issue back in 1991, the traffic and school problems. You did address the compatibility issue and greenbelt to some degree. Stated by the Senior City Planner, Ted Shepard, this development is breaking new ground in the transition of a single family dwelling neighborhood with a townhome development. We are willing to give the process a chance to work. After the builder resubmits his plans, we want to be part of the process and be involved with the compatibility process of our two neighborhoods, especially concerning the greenbelt, irrigation, landscaping including berms, building materials and the transition of Hilburn Drive. We would like to restate our primary concerns which were recognized by the P&Z board and will be watching closely to be addressed in the resubmital from the developer. In order for the transition to be compatible with the existing neighborhoods, we feel there has to be a much • • December 29, 1993 larger greenbelt with special attention paid to the number of units in the closest structures adjoining the Regency Park homes. We appreciated your suggesting the reduction of the two buildings bordering the Regency subdivision down to four units, but this only gives us approximately an additional ten feet. We feel the distance should be much wider and needs to be increased to accomplish an estheticly pleasing transition, since we are establishing what will become a precedent for any future development. We fail to understand how this blending between these two developments can take place, when the major line of sight view from Regency to the west will be the extended roof lines of these structures, given the variance in elevation and the architect's rendering of the buildings. We are faced with a view of over fifty % roof line. Hilburn Drive was not addressed in detail and there are several options which the developer has open to him. Hilburn Drive being an attached part of the Regency development is of upmost concern to us. We are sending a letter to the builder in hopes that he will become more involved personally during the next seven weeks of the process. Hopefully we can get him to show up at the next neighborhood meeting, so many issues can be addressed and resolved at that time. It was very frustrating in the early process that the builder was not present for all of the meetings. The majority of our points were either ignored or discarded. Wouldn't this process be more efficient if the builder/developer would be present for all neighborhood meetings? Please let us know if we are doing something wrong with the process or where can we get answers to our questions on certain issues. Thank you again for taking the time to read this letter and considering our concerns. We look forward to talking to you and working with you before the final P&Z hearing on this project. We are three of the 246 petitioners representing the Johnson-Webber neighborhood. Please feel free to contact any of us on this committee. Sincerely yours, Johnson-Webber Neighborhoods Steven Gottschalk Chairperson nitetime#225-1013 daytime#229-4370 Tom Wilberton 229-9628 Dean Hoag daytime#484-5384 nitetime# 223-8448 cc: Ted Shepard, Senior City Planner