HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUILDERS SQUARE AT HARMONY MARKET PUD, 2ND FILING - FINAL - 54-87D - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (5) 4
411 III
ir@ROWEil
\\ JUL 2 Q 1990 I
L I
July 24, 1990
Susan Kirkpatrick
Joe Carroll Tom Peterson
Tony Fiest Jan Shepard
Joe Frank Ted Shepard
Peter Kast Bernie Strom
Jim Klataske Hal Swope
Laurie O'Dell Mark Thomas
Last evening, July 23, 1990, was an extremely difficult
night. I chose to oppose the Harmony Market, 2nd Filing,
Builders Square. It was my understanding that the procedures in
the LDGS offered me to option to do so.
My position was based upon two salient points.
1 . A deed restriction for parcels 1-G and 1-H was an
agreed upon element of the amended master plan for the
Oak/Cottonwood PUD, and Builders Square was being
proposed based upon that amendment. From my
perspective, the presentation outlined during the 1989
P&Z meeting was the correct one.
a. RL zoning on parcel 1-G.
b. RLM zoning on parcel 1-H.
c. Forfeit the right to amend the zoning on parcel 1-
G.
On May 25, 1990, a filed deed restriction was presented
to Fairway Estates which was not consistent with
parcels 1-G and 1-H and was amendable by the P&Z Board.
These deed restriction terms were not discussed nor
reviewed by Fairway Estates. In essence, the deed
restriction protection agreed to for Fairway Estates
had been, to use a borrowed term, torpedoed. For
whatever reasons, after 12 months, the deed restrict
was filed and the Association shown its content. In my
opinion, it does not provide Fairway Estates the
previous agreed upon protection.
2. Builders Square does not fit the concept of retailing
shopping for the second phase of Harmony Market as
discussed in the 1989 review process. During the 1989
review cycle, a second, huge warehouse retail shop,
almost the size of PACE, was never suggested as a
possibility. Expectations centered around retail
shops.
With these points in mind, I felt that I had a legitimate
1
111 •
right to present my case to the P&Z Board. Consequently, last
night, my presentation was intended to be based upon the facts,
as they were presented by the development team in 1989. Hours
were spent studying correspondence and the 1989 hearing tapes.
Most of my presentation was simply reciting what the development
team said in 1989. Frankly, it did not seem wrong to use the
public statements of the development team in 1989 to support my
position on the two above points.
After the Builders Square agenda item cleared last night,
the remainder of the evening was even more difficult. I readily
admit that I contributed to the difficulty by simply not leaving.
During the "discussion" that continued outside the chamber, the
anger of the Builders Square development team was vented. the
most threatening statements directed to me included:
You called me a liar.
You libeled me in there.
You tried to torpedo the whole project.
You' re a chicken _hit for doing business that way.
If I was twenty-five years younger, I 'd take you outside and
kick your _ucking head in.
In each of these statements, I was the "you. " Yes, in
contrast to 1989, I brought these issues (deed restriction and
another warehouse retail shop) to the Board because I felt that
it was a valid option, and the deed restriction should have been
completed (as agreed upon originally) long ago. No, I did not
inform the development team of my intent. To be best of my
recollection, I did not use the word "liar" or libel anyone
regarding their role in the deed restriction. Yes, I did ask the
Board to not approve (torpedo) the project. If I recall , the
LDGS gives me that option. I lost and I have accepted the
decision. No, the deed restriction problem was not resolved.
More importantly, after the last, above comment was made, I
was scared! After returning home and spending a virtual
sleepless night, I am trying to answer a question - Is being an
involved citizen in Ft. Collins development and the LDGS review
process really worth it or beneficial to your health?
Res ectfully,
Charles W. Butler
4815 Hogan Drive
Ft. Collins CO 80525