Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY PUD EXPANSION - FINAL - 28-89D - REPORTS - CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONCITY lir NEIGHBORHOOD ASS(f[ATION City of Fort Collins February 5, 1995 Planning & Zoning Board 300 LaPorte Ave. Ft. Collins CO 80521 Attn: Bob Blanchard, Chief Planner The City Park Neighborhood Association (CPNA) would like to enter the following recommendation for public record concerning an addition to the existing Housing Authority administrative facility located at 1715 W. Mountain Ave. This proposal was approved at a preliminary hearing on September 26, 1994. An appeal was to City Council concerning this proposal was denied on November 1, 1994. The hearing for final PUD approval will be February 6, 1995. The members of CPNA met on January 23, 1995 to discuss this project. The general consensus was a feeling of "fighting the battle again". There are many long-term members of the neighborhood who have been though numerous hearings on this facility. We feel misinformed or misled by previous statements, made both by City staff and various members of past P & Z Boards, that promised "this would be the last time" or "this subdivision will prevent further expansion". We feel that we should have a strong voice in this decision and that staff and the current board should stand behind promises made to us by their predecessors. We should be clear in stating that we take no issue at all with the Housing Authority or the wonderful service that they are providing to many families in this community. We simply desire the acknowledgement that times have changed and this facility has outgrown it's present site. Those present at the January 23rd meeting reached the following unanimous decision concerning the final PUD proposal. We request that the P & Z Board deny the final PUD. And we wish to place these requirements on the existing facility, possibly as an amendment to the existing lease: 1.) The existing use may expand only by converting the existing garage area into office space and relocating the maintenance facility elsewhere. No further physical expansion of this use will be allowed on this site. If an expansion is necessary than the Housing Authority must relocate the facility. It has outgrown this site. (The Housing Authority has acknowledged this future growth plan in previous discussions with the P & Z Board. But they have sighted cost as their hardship, which typically is not an acceptable justification in City judgements.) 2.) Remove/relocate all existing outside storage The CPNA specifically di^rees with 3 of the 4 Findings of Fa c onclusions. We offer the following information as Wort for the denial. t 1.) The proposed addition is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood (statement #1, Findings of Fact/Conclusions). 2.) The Westside Neighborhood Plan (the Plan) does apply to this site as well as all associated policies (statement #4, Findings of Fact/ Conclusions). This site is located within the boundaries of the Plan. It is shown in an area designated as "Parks" on the Future Land Use Map although it is not functionally a part of City Park. Since this facility existed at the time of adoption of the Plan in 1988, it is assumed that it was recognized in the Plan. If the facility was not intended to be included it would have been specifically noted for exemption or any special conditions that apply to the facility would have been noted. There are many existing uses that are not specifically noted in the Plan but, we believe, the intent was to produce a comprehensive, consistent plan for the neighborhood. There are several policies that we believe pertain specifically to this site. Chapter 6 - Community Facilities, Services and Utilities Findings and analysis (page 6-4) states: "... In the course of the planning process, concern was specifically expressed about the loss of open space to buildings and sports facilities in City Park." Policy CF-11 (page 6-6) states: "Any new facilities or construction in City Park or Lee Martinez Park should be reviewed with adjacent property owners and neighborhood organizations. Projects which diminish open space, significantly increase the size of the maintenance facility, detract from the historic character of City Park, or adversely impact adjacent residences should be avoided. In reviewing city-wide needs, the Parks and Recreation Department should seek to avoid using City Park as a general maintenance storage area. Every square foot of park land is important for the increasing population of park users." 3.) This use is and should remain a non -conforming use (statement #3, Findings of Fact/Conclusions). Approval of this final PUD proposes to eliminate the non -conforming status. In both the RL & the current NCL zoning district this was a considered a non -conforming use. The activities of this facility (maintenance of vehicles, outside storage) are not uses allowed by right or by special review in the NCL zoning district. Clearly, it is still operating as a non -conforming use. If the non -conforming status is retained, affected property owners will have an opportunity to comment on future proposals. 4.) This facili not in compliance with the to ` the original 40 year lease, datnuary 4, 1977, which states: "...it was necessary and desirable to construct a facility to be the administrative headquarters of the Authority and in which to conduct the social activities of tenants of the project of the Authority;" The use of this facility was specifically noted in the lease. The outside storage and maintenance facility with a shop for repairs are not noted. These uses are much different in nature and could produce a higher impact on the neighborhood than administrative offices would. Also, it does not appear that this addition nor any portion of the existing facility provides any social amenities to anyone. "...which parcel of land is centrally located in relation to the facilities constructed by the Authority and which is an ideal location for the said administrative headquarters of the Authority;" This may have been the case in 1977 but, nearly 20 years later, neither is true. The Housing Authority's properties have expanded throughout the City and this location may not be a central location anymore. Obviously it is not ideal if the adjacent property owners are unhappy with the activities and numerous expansions. "the said management and social facilities would be available for use by the general public of the City ..." This facility, to the best of our knowledge, has never been readily available to the public for Lny level of use. 5.) This development is shown within an area designated as Potential National Register (4-13). Chapter 4 - Housing and Historic Preservation Plan Policy H-9 (page 4-21) states: "The historic character of neighborhood streets, especially streets like Mountain and Loomis, should be preserved and enhanced including building preservation, landscaping, street lighting and other improvements which define the unique character of these streets." This proposal requires the removal of approximately 3 mature trees on parkland along Mountain Ave. These trees clearly contribute to the character of this area. Chapter 6 - Community Facilities, Services and Utilities Implementation Action #6 (page 6-7) states: "Investigate the potential national historic value of City Park and consider this status in future park and adjacent neighborhood development to help preserve, where feasible, the park's character." We appreciate your consideration of these facts concerning the proposal for this PUD. Sincerely, Valerie F. Pettus Vice President, City Park Neighborhood Association 1501 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 January 25, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board Members c/o Bob Blanchard Planning Department Community Planning and Environmental Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Board Members: I am writing to object to the proposed addition to the Housing Authority building located at 1715 West Mountain. As I'm sure you are aware, the Old Town Westside location of this building is one of two areas in the city of Fort Collins which is traditional and historic. Certainly most of us who live in these areas would like to maintain and preserve the authenticity and ambiance of these neighborhoods. As a resident of the Westside part of this area and a fifth generation Fort Collins resident with historical roots, I am greatly concerned that the proposed addition will not only sully, but will ruin the established atmosphere of this neighborhood for many blocks. As it now stands, the Housing Authority building is an example of egregiously inappropriate architecture. It is clearly out of sync with surrounding buildings, it is modern (not always a negative, but in this case certainly so) , its standard of construction is less than adamantine, and it is non-residential. To imagine that this building should increase in size is alarming, as it only serves to increase and exacerbate its incongruity and disagreement with its surroundings. I certainly understand the necessity of the Housing Authority to increase the size of its offices and do not object to their intentions. However, I suggest that they try to find a building more suitable to their needs in a area which has been created for or exists in a commercial setting. Obviously I do not know the financial costs of the proposed addition, nor do I know how much it would cost them to move to a more appropriate building. Nonetheless, I do question how deeply the people involved have looked at other options, and to what extent they have considered the appearance and interests of the neighborhood. It does appear that the option of spending the money appropriated for the addition on moving to and renting or buying another building is possible. It also seems pragmatic, because then the Housing Authority will no longer be creating ill will and objections to what is clearly an already (and proposed to be more so) inappropriate building. • 9 I realize that your job as Planning and Zoning Board Members is not an easy one. I also assume that there are times when you do not really have choices about the outcomes of planning. I do not think that this is one of them. I appreciate your reading my letter and hope that you will seriously consider my suggestions, knowing that, although they may not have written to say so, the majority of my neighbors feel just as I do. If you would like to discuss this matter with me, my work telephone is 667-4611, ext. 315, and my home telephone is 493-6307. Thank you. sincerely, i Jane H. Abbott 0 0 1�4" dt41,4*-, �3 January 20, 1995 RE: Fort Collins Housing Authority Expansion Dear Planning & Zoning Board Members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Fort Collins Housing Authority Expansion. The board approved the preliminary plan and City Council supported the board's action on appeal. I support the project and urge the board to approve the final plan. I live approximately 75 feet directly north of the Housing Authority. They have been a very good neighbor for the past eleven years. Their need for additional administrative space is serious and I would rather see the precious resources they have available spent on this expansion than on relocating to a new facility. Thus saving more for affordable housing. Some of my neighbors object on the principle that its a non -conforming use and should never have been allowed there in the first place. If this was totally undeveloped land, I would be joining their cause. But it's not The Housing Authority Building is there and the piece of land they want to put the addition on is already being used for outdoor storage. Therefore, I currently have to look at metal sheds, construction materials and other household items laying around in their yard. I definitely prefer the look of the proposed addition and would like all that stuff stored inside. Several years ago, under the leadership of the former director, a similar addition was proposed. It was out of scale with the residential character of the neighborhood. I opposed that project because of its design The current proposal has been totally redesigned to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood and I find it acceptable. Sincerely, &C Debra Kaestner 1700 West Mountain Avenue #2 Fort Collins, CO 80521 January 18, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 On January 23, 1995 you will be taking action on the Planned Unit Development for expansion of Fort Collins Housing Authority administrative facility. I have serious concerns about the compatibility of this expansion with the surrounding neighborhood. I am a past President of the City Park Neighborhood Association and a citizen representative for development of the West Side Neighborhood Plan (WSN). I am concerned that the proposed Housing Authority project represents a continuation of the failure of the City of Fort Collins to honor the policies and actions recommended in the WSN. Expansion of a nonconforming use at this location directly contradicts the intent of both the historical preservation and land use sections of WSN. The WSN has identified the Mountain Avenue corridor and City Park as potential historical preservation districts. It is inappropriate to expand a nonconforming use in a potential historical district designed to preserve the historical residential character of this area. This is particularly true when it appears that the City has done nothing to pursue historical designation, as recommended by WSN. The second reason that this project violates the intent of WSN relates to land use. The Housing Authority site is zoned Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL). One of the WSN land use policies for single family areas is to "drop the use of the LDGS in these areas." Land Use Implementation Action No. 6 is: "The City should make appropriate changes to the LDGS and the R-L, Low -Density Residential (now NCL ), zone to eliminate use of the planned unit developments in this zone." I would also like to address the inconsistency of the proposed expansion with the Housing Authority lease of its current site. This site was selected because it was centrally located in relation to the 50 properties built by the Housing Authority by 1977. Central location was important because this site was to also serve as a social facility for Housing Authority tenants. The Housing Authority program has expanded well beyond 50 properties. To provide social amenities to its tenants at the current site, as modified by this expansion, is simply not practical and does not appear to be part of the plan. Also the Housing Authority is no longer served by Transfort, making it difficult to access by tenants without privately owned vehicles. An additional factor that bears on the use of this site is the terms of the lease signed by the Housing Authority and the City. The lease identifies two intended municipal purposes. The first is the function of the Housing Authority, and the second (listed first in the lease) is that "said management and social facilities would be available for use by the general public of the City." I have lived in this neighborhood for ten years, five of those years I was a member of the Board of Directors of the City Park Neighborhood Association. I do not recall ever having the Housing Authority make the Association aware of the public nature of its facilities. In conclusion, I believe that any proposed expansion of the Housing Authority complex should be rejected. It is in conflict with the historical character of the neighborhood and violates the intent of the WSN. It will not meet the purposes defined in the leaqe. It is time for the Housing Authority to pursue an alternaaa ive site that will better serve its long term needs. Sincerely, Rbn Steinbach 1345 W. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins CO 80521 CC: Executive Director Fort Collins housing Authority 1715 West Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 Mr. Bob Blanchard Planning Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580