HomeMy WebLinkAboutBENNETT ROAD BUNGALOWS - PDP - 42-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO CITIZENq t r
Applicable provisions of the West Central Neighborhood Plan
Visioning and Goals — Parks and Open Lands
OL 2 Identify areas suitable for new neighborhood or pocket parks and sites where natural areas should be
preserved or enhanced and acquire them. (WCNP, Chapter 2, p.7)
Implementation Actions —Parks and Open Lands
A. Funding mechanisms should be identified for the development of three additional neighborhood/pocket
parks for the planning area Since new development activities will not likely generate sufficient
parkland fee revenues to cover all land acquisition and development costs, the use of future capital
improvement program funds will be necessary to complete implementation. Potential
neighborhood/pocket park sites (see Map 5) and the likely source(s) of funding are as follows:
2. Across from Bennett Elementary School (City capital improvement program funds and potentially
Poudre School District capital improvement program funds). (WCNP, Chapter 4; p.7)
M
Background for Neighborhood Information Meeting re: Bennett Road Bungalows — Nov. 8, 2001
Applicable City Plan provisions
PRINCIPLE EXNA: Most existing residential developments will remain largely unaffected by these City
Plan Principles and Policies.
Policy EXN-1.1 Changes to Existing Residential Developments. No significant changes to the character of
existing residential developments will be initiated by City Plan. Changes, if any, will be carefully planned
and will result from initiative by residents or from a specific subarea plan prepared in collaboration with
residents. Other changes may result from specific initiatives intended to improve the quality of existing
neighborhoods, such as improving mobility and access to everyday activities and services, and the
introduction of new neighborhood centers, parks, and small civic facilities. (City Plan, p. 161)
Policy EXN-1.4 Infill Development and Redevelopment ..................(over 20 acres) ......................
For parcels under twenty (20) acres, such infill and redevelopment activity will be supported if designed to
complement and extend the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms
of general intensity and use, street pattern, and any identifiable style, proportions, shapes, relation to the
street, pattern of buildings and yards, and patterns created by doors, windows, projections and recesses.
Compatibility with these existing elements does not mean uniformity. Forms of potential infill
development include:
. The addition of new dwellings on vacant lots and other undeveloped parcels surrounded by existing
residential development.
Dwelling units added to existing houses (e.g., basement or upstairs apartments)
Small detached dwellings added to lots of sufficient size with existing houses (e.g., "alley houses" or
"granny flats.
Redevelopment of properties.
Neighborhood -related, non-residential development. (City Plan, p. 161)
PRINCIPLE LU-4: More specific subarea planning efforts will follow the adoption of these City Plan
Principles and Policies which tailor City Plan's city-wide perspective to individual neighborhoods, districts,
corridors, and edges.
Policy LU-4.1 Planning within the Contest of City Plan. City Plan establishes city-wide policies. Subarea
plans are needed to help implement City Plan by applying its general, cit y-wide policies to a specific
subarea. Trough the process of subarea planning, City Plan may be amended over time to respect differing
subarea needs'and characteristics, incorporating new ideass that are consistent with City Plan's core values,
vision and goals. Consistency between subarea plans and City Plan will be achieved through the process
of adopting subarea plans. In adopting a subarea plan, the City Council determines the action that the Citv
will take that stem from the subarea plan. City Plan can be amended by the City Council to reflect a
change in policy recommended in a subarea plan.
PRINCIPLE NOL-3. The City's parks and recreation system will include parks, trails, open lands, natural
areas and urban streetscapes. These "green spaces" will balance active and passive recreation opportunities
in an interconnected framework that is distributed throughout the urban area.
Policy NOL-3.2 Urban Public Space. Small pocket parks, public plazas, and sidewalk gathering places
should include "street furniture" such as benches, and be incorporated into urban designs for the Downtown
District, Community Commercial Districts, Commercial Districts, and Residential Districts throughout the
City.
i
Discussion points for Neighborhood Information Meeting re: Bennett Road Bungalows — Nov. 8 2001
I am Hal Worth. I have lived at 1501 South Shields for over 32 years, approximately 300 feet from this
site. I was also a member of the advisory committee that developed the West Central Neighborhoods Plan.
• Not present for August 22 meeting, but submitted a letter to Planning Director Gloss with some insight
I gained from 5 years of working on the West Central Neighborhood Plan, specifically
with the part of the Plan that deals with use of this site.
• I recognize that this meeting is not the most appropriate place to debate whether or not the site should
be reserved for a neighborhood park. Should have been a separate issue taken up by the staff and the
neighborhood before this development was considered.
• But after reading the minutes of August meeting and talking with some who attended, appears that this
issue was discussed and that all the facts were not necessarily considered.
• First, there seems to be some confusion regarding the role of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan in
the City's governance and planning process.
• It is not an advisory document. When it was adopted in 1994, it became a part of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and is as much so as City Plan, the Land Use Code or, for that matter; the Parks
and Recreation Plan. Subarea plans, like the West Central Neighborhoods Plan, are further
elaborations, refinements, and definitions of City Plan and the Land Use Code. As such, they state the
intent and policies of the City Council.
• As I understand it, it was portrayed that the Parks staff and advisory board decided that this site is not
feasible for park use and therefore didn't consider that use further.
• If that is the case, then I think they exceeded their authority and didn't do their job, as prescribed in the
West Central Neighborhoods Plan.
• In the process of developing the WCNP we carefully analyzed the need for parks and open space in the
subarea. We concluded that the northwest quadrant of the subarea (west of Shields, north of Prospect)
was seriously deficient in neighborhood park facilities, based on the Park Plan's criteria. We
recognized that there was not sufficient vacant land anywhere in the quadrant to build a hill -scale
neighborhood park, which could be justified under the Park Plan's population and distance criteria
Instead, we settled for the large pocket park that was specified for this site.
• Before we included the proposed pocket park in the WCNP that was adopted by Council, we received
strong support for the concept from the Poudre School District, including the possibility of vacating
Bennett Road as a through street and connecting the pocket park with the school ground, also in
keeping with the City's policy of collaborating with the School District to create multiple use open
space.
• I won't take more time to argue the point here, but I do have with me specific citations from the City
Plan, West Central Neighborhoods Plan, and Parks and Recreation Plan that support what I have
discussed.
• I did feel it was important to elaborate on where the policy of creating a park on this site fits into the
planning process.
• I will be pleased to try to answer any questions either now or after the meeting..
NOTES/TO DO
Speaking only for the Current (Development Review) Planning
Department at this time, we were not aware of the availability of the
Abbey property until a potential developer signed up for a City staff
conceptual review on July 23, 2001. I have spoken with the listing agent
on the property and was informed that the sign went up on the property
on February 20, 2001. I am unable to speak to what actions were taken
by neighbors or other City departments, in the interim between February
and July, prior to the development proposal being brought before the
conceptual review team.
Your comments pertaining to the City's governance and the authority of
the Parks & Recreation Board with regards to the adopted West Central
Neighborhood Plan would, in my opinion, be better addressed by
someone in City Hall, such as the City Attorney's office.
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns regarding the
Bennett Road Bungalows development proposal and the importance of
the pocket park issue with respect to the development application. In
closing, I assure you that the notes you used at the November 8, 2001
neighborhood meeting will .become part of the official notes of record that
goes forward to the decision-maker(s) at a public hearing. A copy of your
personal written notes will also be included for the record.
.Sin�c�errel�y,
Steve Olt
City Planner
cc: Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director
John Fischbach, City Manager
Marty Tharp, City Council
Current Planning File #42-01
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
December 12, 2001
Harold Worth
1501 South Shields Drive
Fort Collins, CO. 80521
Dear Harold,
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns regarding the
most recent neighborhood meeting on the proposed Bennett Road
Bungalows single family residential project.
The notes of record from the November 8, 2001 neighborhood meeting do
not, to date, include your extensive comments regarding the intent of the
West Central Neighborhood Plan to develop this property as a pocket
park. I.had been -in my office on Sunday, November 11th, and Monday,
November 12th, to complete my notes and they were sent out to the
meeting attendees on Tuesday, November 13th. At that time, I had not yet
received a copy of your written notes (at my request) that you presented
at the neighborhood meeting. I assure you that your concerns will be
added to the final notes of record before a development proposal goes to a
public hearing.
Comment 34 (expressed by you) of the notes of record from the November
8th neighborhood meeting states:
"There is a park issue. I was a member of the West Central
Neighborhood Plan (WCNP) advisory board There seems to be some
confusion about the role of the WCNP and its legal application to the
development on this property. This area is deficient of a park.
As you indicated, no response was given because I (at that time)
requested a copy of the written notes that you were citing from with the
intent to insert the notes into the record. Your response was that you did
not have a copy to give to me then but would e-mail the notes. I received
your written notes via mail later in the next week because, as you said,
your computer was down. Again, by this time my notes of record were
already sent to neighbors who had attended the meeting.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020