HomeMy WebLinkAboutBENNETT ROAD BUNGALOWS - PDP - 42-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY HALL (14)Steve Olt 3 Re: Bennett School meeting_ Page 2
Steve did a good job of capturing the essence of the comments made and he's got a long list-- some 50
plus questions. People seemed to want, not only to get copies of the comments, but to be assured that
somehow the comments would be taken into consideration as this project moves ahead.People were civil
but frustrated.
I was surprised that the land is under contract but not yet purchased at this point.
Guess that's all I can add.
Marty
Steve Olt ; Re: Bennett School meetingPage 1
From:
John Fischbach
To:
Marty Tharp
Date:
Fri, Aug 24, 2001 1:09 PM
Subject:
Re: Bennett School meeting
Marry, thak you for this feedback. I will make sure we follow up on all of the items and hold another
meeting as it gets more "refined".
I will keep you posted.
John
John F. Fischbach
City Manager
P.O. Box 580
300 West LaPorte Avenue
City of Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
970-221-6505
fax 970-224-6107
jischbach@fcgov.com
»> Marty Tharp 08/24 1:02 PM >>>
John,
Here are some thoughts on Wednesday's meeting at Bennett School.
1. Good staff presentations even though they didn't have much information to go on as this was the first
presentation of the proposal.
Steve Olt might have appeared a bit defensive when questioned about portions of the Westside
Neighborhood Plan.
2. Neighbors who live BEHIND that block seem more concerned with where the garages will be than
anything else.
3. School people seemed more concerned about traffic problems.The developers appeared to have no
interest in looking at an alternative to entry on that road, even though the lots are deeper than usual and
an alley would be included. Neighbors behind the property don't wan t an alley anyway.
4. Others had a major concern that the pocket park was included in the Westside NEighborhood Plan.
While there were no promises that a pocket park would be created at that site, the fact that it was included
in the plan led them to believe that was the citys plan as well.
Many seemed frustrated that their input had been requested, that they had spent a lot of time on the plan,
and now they feel that was wasted time because the Park Dept. criteria rule out a park in that location. [IF
they had been told that it wouldn't work while they were working on the neighborhood plan I don't think
they would be so angry now. I believe the plan created the expectation that their wishes would be taken
into cons ideration.They point out that major roads make the use of the other area parks impractical for
those with young children.
Unfortunately there are some contradictory statements in the plan --for example, it states that "this land is
undesireable for housing." Then it states that it is zoned for low density housing, and then that the
neighbors recommend it for a park.
5. The drainage issues seem to be pretty important and neighbors know that the low end of the land is on
the west end of the property, not on the east where the developers are suggesting a pond of some sort.
6. Because engineering studies have yet to be completd, and because the plans are so preliminary at this
point, I believe it will be helpful to have another meeting when some of the questions can be answered.
They sure peppered the staff with questions, but there were few answers. I think the traffic study will be an
iimportant one, even though this is supposed to be a residential street. It appears to funnel a good deal of
traffic from apartment complexes to the north of the neighborhood through that street.
Representatives from the school district didn't speak, but did discuss the issue of traffic and school
concerns with people after the meeting.