Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN HEIGHTS STUDENT HOUSING - PDP - PDP110018 - DECISION - CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONPage 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: lunarowan@q.com Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:51 AM � 0� To: Ted Shepard S Subject: Aspen heights student housing , 0J Mr. Shepard, 0 I would like to comment on the review for the Aspen Heights Student Housing proposal. I have a number of concerns about the project as proposed- 1- I believe that this is the only student housing project proposed that has 81 houses with 4-5 bedrooms this does not seem consistent with the current city law of three unrelated law- why are there extra bedrooms in the houses if they are not proposing to rent them, and who will enforce that they are not rented? As I understand the city law states that only 25% of houses in a block may become boarding houses. Since there is no policy in place for student housing I believe that allowing a development that is intending not to comply with current city codes should not be allowed. 2- This student housing project is 3 miles and 2 railroad crossings from CSU. North College Ave and Lemay Ave. are already backed up when trains come and having more cars will only make this situation worse. 3- Public transportation from this site to CSU is complicated and not direct. 4- I believe that a regular housing development would be a better choice for the proposed site. thank you for your time, David Slater 8/7/2012 August 7, 2012 — Aspen Heights Meeting — Hayes Opposition to Aspen Heights August 7, 2012 To The City Official and Administrative Officer Overseeing the Aspen Heights Meeting: My name is Jennifer Hayes. My husband Thomas, my four year old son Ellis and I live at 244 Pascal Street in Old Town North. I would like to state my opposition to the Aspen Heights project for the record. I support the development and growth of the North College corridor. I would not have bought a home here if I did not. We have high hopes for this area, and know it can become a gem of our already awesome community. For this and many other reasons stated below, please consider declining the Aspen Heights proposal. Placing 500-700 students in an upscale monoculture neighborhood, which is surrounded by neighborhoods occupied. by range of income levels and a nice mix of families and professional's is not in alignment with the desire to create a diverse community or to retain community relationships. How does someone moving in and out every year add to the fabric of the community - it does not — it creates a transient, distant community. How do loud partying nights and drunken students cutting through our neighborhood to Old Town create a peaceful community - it does not! The student lifestyle can sometimes lend itself to reckless behaviors, such as drinking and driving or distracted driving (students on cell phones and texting, applying makeup, etc.) - the communities surrounding the site are heavily occupied with children who regularly ride their bikes and play outside -which will have to completely change if this neighborhood is built. Bringing hundreds of students into a location where they will likely cut through our neighborhood to get to other main streets is just asking for the death of a small child. This will be on your conscious when it.happens. I respect the experience of the city planners for transportation and I disagree with their'assumption that cars will not come through our neighborhood. Drunk drivers will do everything they can to stay off main roads to,remain undetected. When College backs up due to traffic and trains, our neighborhood streets will be seen as the solution to get south quicker. There have not been any traffic studies in our.neighborhood that I know of. I recommend that if approved, the city install traffic counters on the north and south end of blondel and on Cajetan, Osiander and Pascal at both the east and west exits to get a solid baseline of current traffic patterns. This can then be re - measured if the development goes in to prove the amount of traffic that will be re-routed through our neighborhood. These are assumptions of mine, just as the assumption of the city planners is that there will not be that much additional traffic. Myself, and several of my neighbors, have stated they will put their houses on the market and move south if this development goes forward. Two neighbors have already listed their homes in anticipation of this development, and two more have rented their houses out, seeking refuge in another community in town. This is wrecking home values and the stability of single family home ownership on North College and is wrecking our community relationships. The fear of traffic is literally keeping me awake at night. The thought of Blondel being extended to connect with Blue Spruce - will create a direct corridor for Aspen Heights residents to cut through our community. Students will NOT go north to go south. PLEASE refrain from connecting these streets until after Vine is extended all the way to College. If they do not have the outlet from Vine to College they will come through Old Town North to get onto Old Vine. Our children play outside, ride bikes on these safe streets and will no longer be able to do this if the neighborhood becomes this constant flow of traffic. LoFf a4_410018: tl ge a violation of Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.4.1(A)(2)(j) and (C) as follows: The proposed development will occur on a parcel of land which, with its adjacent parcel, contains a prairie dog colony that exceeds 50 acres. Subsection (C) requires that the proposed development plan restore or replace the resource value lost to the community (either on -site or off -site.) Accordin_ to the Administrative Hearin, Decision. in order to satisfy this requirement, the developer will financially contribute to the restoration of property owned by the city of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program. Specifically, the City will collect a restoration fee of $900.00 per acre to be applied to the McKee Farm which is presently undergoing restoration, totaling $27,900.00. Appellants allege: A. Contrary to the Administrative Hearing Decision, the value lost to the community is not restored or replaced with a donation to McKee Farm for the following reasons: 1. McKee Farm currently maintains no prairie dog habitat and has no plans to accept prairie dogs who need to be relocated from property within the city. Restoration of prairie, without prairie clogs, is missing the point in this case, and thus subverts the intent of the code. "Prairie," per se, is not listed as a "sensitive resource" by Section 3.4.1 and is implicitly not of equal resource value. 2. We interpret the code to require a 'like for like" replacement, or restoration of, the affected habitat/colony, which would mean that a contiguous 50 acre parcel of land must be purchased for a prairie dog colony of this size or, at a minimum, a similar size habitat should be created on city land for prairie dogs to migrate to. 3. Furthermore, the language in 3.4.1(A)(2)(c), "Potential habitats and known locations of rare, threatened, or endangered animals" would also apply to this site; a 50 acre prairie dog colony is a "potential habitat" for the endangered black -footed ferret. Thus; a restoration or replacement of this resource for endangered animals must include prairie dogs for the "potential habitat' to be replaced. Additionally, burrowing owls often live in prairie dog burrows, so loss of this site is a loss of "potential habitat" for this severely declining species also. B. The necotiated amount of $27,900.00 is inadequate and does not allow for a complete replacement of the resource lost: The cost to replace the resource is equal to the cost of purchasing a parcel of land large enough to allow relocation of a 50 acre prairie clog colony. In Larimer County, such a parcel of land, and its development into suitable habitat, would cost significantly more than $27,900.00. 1 st issue - I'm upset that I moved away from the student district because 1 wanted to be I/ in a more family -friendly neighborhood, only to find that 700+ students will be moving in JJ pretty much across the street from my house. I realize that at some point this parcel will be developed, but I'd prefer pretty much anything over student housing, with its traffic and noise concerns, massive turnover and lack of investment in the area, and potential for significant police presence. 2nd issue - I think that the city has misapplied land use code section 3.4.1(A) and (C). There is a requirement that the development plan restore or replace the value of the sensitive resource that is lost by construction. That sensitive resource in question is a large prairie dog colony. The city suggests that a restoration of McKee Farm replaces this resource, but I don't see how that can be the case. I've. been told that there is no plan for prairie dog habitat creation or restoration on this property. So, the way I understand it is that we're losing the sensitive resource - the prairie dog colony - and we are not restoring it or replacing it, as required by the Land Use Code. I'd like to suggest that the city re -negotiate with the developer to actually provide a replacement of the prairie dog colony - that is, 50 acres of habitat that can be used for relocation or for migration to by other displaced prairie dogs. I'd like to submit written comments outlining this in more detail. August 7, 2012 To Whom It May Concern regarding the proposed Aspen Heights development, We currently reside just NE of the proposed development, near Greenbriar Park, in a home we purchased about 5 years ago. My husband and I are concerned about the proposed development and the likelihood that it will bring student housing into an area that is primarily family -oriented. We are also very concerned about the prairie dog colony that is located on the property in question. We hope that EVERY effort possible will be taken to relocate the prairie dog colony. Cost should not be an issue given the nature of the proposed development. We have walked, run, biked, and driven by these prairie dogs for 5 years, and appreciate the natural beauty they contribute to an otherwise urban existence. It is also my understanding that they are a keystone species, and their ecological benefit as such should not be under -appreciated. Besides the prairie dog colony, we are concerned about the fact that this development will change the dynamics of our neighborhood. Although I have completed a second bachelor's and am close to finishing a master's degree in engineering at CSU, we chose this neighborhood because it is largely non -transient family housing. Its distance from CSU will probably create more vehicle traffic, and students, because they are likely transient, may not respect their neighbors as much as families buying homes in this area. Thank you for your time. We truly hope you will consider moving this development to a more appropriate area. At the very least, if the development happens as proposed, we hope that the prairie dogs will be humanely relocated. Sincerely, Kim and Yarrow Fewless 678 Brewer Dr. Ft. Collins, CO 80524