Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLARENDON HILLS JUNE 1986 - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DI=VELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION WARD -SMITH DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY On Wednesday, April 2, 1986, from 7-9 p.m., at Larimer County Voc-Tech Cen- ter, a neighborhood meeting was held on the proposed Master Plan and Subdi- vision. The meeting began with a video tape on the review process and explanation of review criteria by Elaine Kleckner, City Planner. Bill Brenner of Robb and Brenner Architects presented the project plans and he and Mark Linder of Mitchell and Co. responded to questions from the neigh- borhood. Neighborhood concerns are as follows: 1. Traffi_c_Impacts and Street Improvements: Area residents questioned the levels of traffic on Shields, sight distance, and the extent of improvements, such as additional lanes and sidewalks, as a result of this development. Residents were very concerned about street design standards for Fossil Creek Parkway, since they feel standard City curb, gutter and sidewalk design is inconsistent with the rural character of their neighborhood, and where curb cuts might occur. Internal street design was also a concern. The group was not in favor of a connection of Hilldale Drive to the east or the use of this connection by construction vehicles and residents. An individual inquired about other possible street connections, such as Prairie Street. One person asked how the Phase lA Road would be buffered from lots to the south and another resident was con- cerned about car lights shining onto his property, located west of the northernmost access. 2. Land Use: The majority Df those in attendance did not favor commercial development on Tract L. They felt that the adjacent residential area would be impacted by additional traffic, bright lights, would be less safe, and that development such as a convenience store would nct project the existing rural character. They asked if commercial development was necessary. A procedural question was raised - is a rezoning necessary for the commercial use? Some residents were not in favor of the multi -family area shown on the Mas- ter Plan. Elaine explained that the proposed single-family density was less than is typically found in the City and that a variance is required for less than three units per acre. Most residents still felt the proposed lots were too small and should be more consistent with Applewood and Scenic Knolls, for giKample. y�yry^ OFFICE OF COMMUNITY IT 300 Capone Ave r t' O_ Box 580 o Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750 DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION 3. Lighting: Residents asked about the type and location of street lights and their impact on their homes. Once again the question of consistency with the established character was raised. 4. Drainage: One person pointed out that the existing drainage south of Tracts A and B should be considered. Treatment of the existing irrigation ditches serving Applewood and Brookwood was an important concern. The question was raised, if irrigation water would be available in the new development. 5. Open Space: Some people spoke about the need for more open space, possibly instead of commercial uses, coming down the hill by Tracts I and J. The group dis- cussed the projects relationship to Applewood open space and trail system. A few people were not in favor of connecting the two developments in this way but several people saw merit in integrating the two projects. 6. Neighborhood Character: Maintaining the existing neighborhood character, which most residents con- sidered "rural" was a strong desire. In addition to the street design and lighting standards mentioned earlier, fencing and architecture were dis- cussed. An individual asked what would be included in the covenants. 7. Environmental Concerns: The neighbors asked how the wetland would be treated and how the floodplain affected this project. They asked if environmental impacts would be evalu- ated by the City. 8. Development Potential in the Area: The group asked if this proposal "opened the door" for other development in the area. Also, did they have to annex now that they were adjacent to the City boundary. The Urban Growth Area Agreement and annexation procedures were clarified. 9. Historic Value: An individual suggested that the homestead cabin on the Smith property be retained. 10. Miscellaneous: Questions were asked with respect to the extent of grading, undergrounding of utilities„ project timing, unit prices, treatment of the eastern prop- erty boundary, orientation of lots toward Fossil Creek, type of construc- tion, need for visual buffers, and the public hearing process. 0,5 L 2 3ssy l -:1 � ���5 g625�sr 7E'�P 223 -2e3/ LkAJ A/IS 1)o4 Cyv1-r2 482o Ca CS 7 OeO -124 — 41.44 a u. f v �o `T�� �e s yQS yFs �S its ,!'0S soa/ so -.5AA Odooz ZG OZ f•• 'Ywt,o . (� . ��,�... 9 V) Fau,�C Cit,c,e.�. LSL 123- �y� y 22 G -N4/5, �<< cNTz% P14 yi�ro�c� `�,�..�`- �---•-✓' _�' �--� � :� � � '�„ � , �--k.� C ,.,�t . �� �.. a - r d 3 3 mac,! R� Crl d u�7 S' 4" a Do ,� /V�c at a k a.�mq� �®�� �1. S'1•���i' �g�� o g l l 1110 �►- Lin � .�318 P�►�dise Lah2 2 ZG-lz�q y y�7 s«o ra 9 goo a Zi 6 -s"i 9 9 AF&4— r i F, 6U-ffi. 5403 l;ON ATA AN CT 22(- 255Z Yes ''s S3o3 1�Iox�e5 j— �-. �.. I <tw S Y3 ( /co s s;Ck r A 2,3 - �0 7 G % S3 0 3 Fos s o C I`,Pf[ ,044e, a,9L6 --3 (/ V 0 l 5 IU �g t i I-=- Ig D R t �f�fl �' Uv ► `', `-' = ry �L k l L 4(,Ze S..fr�itCA! ZZG --73 yt. sl I I ,J � -� 0 e 0 APR 211986 VLA"M ViAAWM"T April 14, 1986 City Planning and Development 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80523 To Whom It May Concern: I was out of town for the April 2nd meeting held at the Vo-Tech Center when the Gene Mitchell Company presented plans for a PUD on the Ward Smith property directly adjacent to Applewood Estates and Stonebrook subdivisions. However, I have met with representatives of the Applewood Homeowners Associations who have met privately with the Gene Mitchell Company and other homeowners who were in attendance at that meeting and believe I have a fair understanding of what has been proposed. I would like to make several comments with regard to the proposed PUD. Although I recognized that the future development of this property was inev- itable when I purchased my home in Applewood Estates eight years ago, I had hoped that any development should be designed to enhance and be harmonious with existing adjacent neighborhoods. Since it will be the families of Applewood Estates, The Ridge, Scenic Knoll, and Stonebrook that surround or view this property that will be most impacted by the manner in which this property is developed their concerns should be addressed in a sincere and honest way. These are unique neighborhoods that provide a low density housing, in a rural setting and an opportunity to keep a horse and a lifestyle of reduced noise, traffic, and crime that is not readily available in other parts of Fort Collins. These neighborhoods provide this type of lifestyle to a wide mixture of economic strata with houses valued in these developments from less than one hundred thousand dollars to some appraised close to a million dollars. The homeowners in these neighborhoods are proud of their community and spend many hours caring for community parks, irrigation ditches, etc. and helping out with each others properties. This strong sense of community exists not only within the neighborhoods but between the neighborhoods in this area. The families that live in these neighborhoods could afford to buy houses in other neighborhoods in Fort Collins with street lights, curbs, sidewalks, convenience stores, gas stations on every corner, but elected not to do so because of the quality of life offered by these existing developments is felt to be superior to that offered by the myriad of other developments within the city of Fort Collins. These neighborhoods are not eye sores, and are considered very desirable by many people living in the Fort Collins area. The development Page 2 April 14, 1986 of the Ward Smith property in a manner that is similar and consistent with these already existing adjacent neighborhoods would provide an opportunity for more people in Fort Collins to make a choice of the community lifestyle in which they would like their families to live. In addition, it would provide a uniform transition zone (Scenic Knoll, Stonebrook, Applewood, The Ridge) in this area between mediums and high density of the city and the sparse development of the country separating Fort Collins and Loveland. Although the property in question is within the so-called "urban growth zone", this designation was made in an era of inflated growth projections that is no longer expected to materialize. It is the belief of this homeowner and others that the property in question should be developed in a similar manner as existing adjacent neighborhoods as to preserve the character of this already existing successful developments. The plan to put convenience stores such as 7-11's, other commercial properties, condominiums, apartments, and/or high density housing of various types, street lights, curbs, and gutters will destroy the character of this unique section of Fort Collins. I cannot comprehend how the proposed mixture of properties as proposed will do anything to enhance existing neighbor- hoods and imany of the items within the proposal will clearly destroy the character of these adjacent neighborhoods by increasing traffic, noise, potential for crime and by reducing rural identity, sense of community and safety associated with the unwanted and unneeded interjection of high density housing and commercial development in this area. If it is the admixture of development that is desired by the city of Fort Collins, their developments should be in areas where such admixture already exists or would not destroy already existing assets to the community. Although I clearly recognize and accept the need for some changes with any type of development of the Ward Smith property such as lighting of major intersections, sidewalks on main adjacent streets such as Shields and Harmony Road, the need for these unwanted intrusions would be unnecessary in the development itself if it was kept low density. It appears from the stated proposal that the city and developers are more interested in getting the most tax base and profit per square foot of land in their planning and development than in meeting the needs of the people of Fort Colllins area and enhancing the existing community neighborhoods. W s, cy, M 808 Hilldale Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 4/ 3*/86 Applewood Water Association, Inc. 5431 Fossil Creek: Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526 22 C--6766 Elaine Kleckner Community Development Dept. 300 LaPorte Ave. F-c)r•t Collins, CO 80522 Dear Ms. Kleckner: The residents of Applewood Estates wish to thank you for; the opportunity to participate in the review process for the Ward Smith Development. The suggestions contained in this letter are meant to reflect the combined view of the Board of Directors which represent the entire Homeowners Association. our suggestions are outlined here roughly in priority order. Commercial Development -- The proposed commercial development on Parcel L should not be sanctioned in its present location. The goal of neighborhood compatibility could not be more grossly violated than to allow such an inconsistent placement, especially considering the ample opportunities for placement in the northern sections of the development. Secondary problems with traffic congestion, safety, and road improvements on Fossil Creek. Drive are related to this proposal. Character of Development -- Lot size, lack: of open space (bridal paths, stream corridor, etc.) and proposed development standards all appear to be incompatible with the adjacent suhdivi.=lions of Applewood, Scenic:: knolls and the Ridge. Applewood r_"nj ai"q 49f]I1e 55 1at:m alvrriiaqi"q aah1: "t l." ar'r eo each. In 111i I I rely wm hmvw :an cll.on mpac m of appr "Pt m+wthl v / oarr,P% Ic:)r all par k , " nd t:hrue miles of wKl1..IF.: nt.r i an t:.ra l !ia. ::)1:..ti'r1;11._ Knol 1 t4 haw All far greater average lot size. The proposed change in density for - the area between Applewood and the Ridge is too abrupt. Related to the one acre size is the fact that horses may be maintained. Applewood experience shows that each horse requires at least one acre of pasture on our arid soils. Stressed land quickly leads to soil erosion. Coupled with the prospects for gradina the land near the creek: for roads, we fear greatly increased erosion. As Applewood is currently facing the expenditure of over :l`15,000 to dredge our pond downstream from the proposal, we would look most unfavorably on anything upstream which may aggravate the problem. Tticl"gh we understand the reasons for regulations requiring s,tr-eet lighting, the residents of Applewood seem to be almost unanimous in disapproving the plans for the lighting. We are relatively lucky to be sheltered from the ma.iority of city glare due +o being in the Fossil Creek drainage. Indeed some of us sought our lots to minimize this light pollution. It would be most unkind to intrude. All of these concerns would be mitigated by a somewhat larger lot size. Though we support the city's development standards, we recognize that the major criteria you use in project evaluation all would support a more graduated approach in this case. We support the development of a set of model covenants similar to those of Applewood. We believe that your review should request that these be developed prior to final approval of Phase One. Road System -- Any move to link Hilldale Drive into the new division would not be appreciated. Though provision for emergency access would be of benefit to both subdivisions, we value our sole access highly for isolation and security reasons. Perhaps it would be wiser to link the northern and southern Phase One proposals rather than set the precedent for using Hilldale. We request that the developer should not be required to "improve" Fossil Creek Drive. Our entrance marks the tone for the pastoral setting of Applewood. We recently planted about 200 trees along this road to enhance the beauty and try to keep the road from drifting badly in blowing snow. Curbs and gutters would be inconsistent since we will not likely ever continue them eastward. Perhaps you would consider a variance from these standards if the number of accesses to Fossil Creek Drive were reduced from the several planned to only one or two. Not only would this be more consistent with our lot size, it would also more equitably reflect the amount of road assessment paid by Ward Smith' Applewood residents paid $5699 per lot. Mr. Smith paid only $7381, even though his frontage far exceeds that of any other lot in the improvement district. Also, the lots south of the creek will need more land since they will not have access to irrigation. Irrigation -- We fully support the proposal to put the Applewood/Crest Drive irrigation ditch underground. This would be of benefit to both subdivisions, providing that care is taken to prevent blockage at the entrance. In addition, there are other ditches we use on the Smith property that will need attention to prevent disruption of our irrigation activities. Once again, we thank you for listening to our suggestions. Please call us if you would like any clarification. Sincerely, ��hn Bartholow, for the Board of DIrectors