HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUMMERHILL PUD FINAL - 41 93A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION4r
(5) There. are some concerns in the plans submitted by the developer.
For example, the school projections section has some incorrect
numbers and does not recognize that CSU is building more married
student housing in the neighborhood which also will impact the
schools. Moore Elementary had 505 students in 1992, not 485 as
stated, and this project along with the CSU project could push Moore
beyond the design capacity. Another concern is the accuracy of the
site plan discussed with Sherry Albertson -Clark. Has the Planning
Department examined our concerns in this area?
While we have many concerns about this project and how it has been handled up to
this point, we have been very pleased with Sherry Albertson- Clark Is willingness
to answer our questions and attempts to be of assistance. We would like to be
able to say the same about our Planning and Zoning Board members as well.
Sincerely,
Greg and Bonnie McMaster
1409 Skyline Drive
Fort Collins, CO80521
484-3348
CC:
Ann Azari
Jerry Horak
Bob McCluskey
Chris Kneeland
Gina Jennett
Bob Winokur
Alan Apt
Sherry Albertson -Clark
,•� cc: Council
Greg Byrne
Tom Peterson
--response pending
October 20, 1993
Dear Planning and Zoning Board members:
As residents of the neighborhood which will be impacted
Project, we would like to make a few comments for the
project.
� 1
3: Summerhill
We want to remind and/or inform the P&Z Board members that the initial'
notification for both the neighborhood information meeting and for the
preliminary approval meeting was inadequate. In fact, to paraphrase Sherry
Albertson -Clark (Chief Planner), this project was one of the worst cases for
mismanaged notification in many years. Many of the addresses were inaccurate by
omitting 1 or 2 digits from the house number, resulting in many of the residents
of the neighborhood not receiving notification of the meetings. Worse yet,
several established residents (over 10 years) were not even included on the
mailing list. Also, •there was no posted sign on the property mentioning any
development plans according to residents directly across from the property. Even
if a sign was posted, Prospect Road was closed this summer, further limiting
chances of notification. Given this obvious lack of due notification, we do not
think that it is appropriate that preliminary approval has been recommended for
this project and that the proposed project has been allowed to proceed to final
approval consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board. Because due process
simply has not taken place, how can the planning process continue past when due
process was violated?
As residents are gradually becoming aware of the existing project after the
preliminary approval, growing opposition to the project is arising. Yet without
the proper due process, their feelings are not being considered. We would like
to emphasize that one of the 12 goals adopted by the City Council for 1993-95 is
to "listen and respond to citizens by promoting opportunities for early
involvement and meaningful participation" (City News - August 1993). We feel
that since the developer and/or City is responsible for. these inexcusable
mistakes, that it is NOT the responsibility of the neighborhood residents to
muster opposition to the project at this point in the planning process. We want
to know what the P&Z Board members are going to do to resolve the situation
fairly.
There are a number of reasons why many of the neighborhood residents do not want
to have the Summerhill PUD Project proceed. Some of the main reasons are listed
below.
(1) The past decade has seen a significant addition of multi -unit
developments, which have increased the density of our nieghborhood
to what we feel is beyond capacity and desirability.
(2) The increase in high density developments has led to much greater
traffic on both major and residential streets in the neighborhood.
(3) The proposed project was only given preliminary approval in 1982,
but was never continued to final approval status. Some of the high
density developments built since 1982 have been built immediately
adjacent to the proposed project, others less than a mile from the
proposed project on Prospect Street (the same street), and some less
than a mile on other streets.
(4) Most of the high density developments are for renters, primarily
college students. While we have nothing against college students,
the high proportion can result in less than desirable situations and
effects throughout the neighborhood for homeowners.