HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD, 1ST FILING - AMENDED PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 44-89F - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (5)•
•
October 7, 1991
To: Sherry Albertson Clark
City of Fort Collins, Planning
From: Bijan Fouladi
Alexandra H. Henderson
5101 S. Shields
Re: Development of 5001 S. Shields
We hope that this letter clarifies our stand on Mr. Musselwhite's
development of 5001 S. Shields. We currently live in California and
have therefore been unable to participate in most of the process
leading to the final plans. However, we feel that the perspective of
an immediate neighbor to the development has been lacking in the
hearings.
Introduction: - 5101 S. Shields is a long, narrow piece of land with
unique wildlife relative to its surroundings. We understand the city
of Fort Collins has designated the strip as a "forest". The property
crosses a creek and includes a 16000 sq ft lot adjacent to the Ridge
subdivision. Across the street on Shields is the Clarendon Hills
subdivision.
The role of city planning and the city council: - We feel that the
foie of the city in the process should be to ensure that the reeds of
developers, the neighborhood, and the environment are addressed. As a
member of the neighborhood and the owner of an environmentally
delicate piece of land, we would like to make the city aware of the
problems that currently exist. The development should address these
issues:
Problems•
1) Access in and out of shields with the lack of visibility
caused by a hill and the high speed limit is dangerous. We have fenced
in our property so children and dogs do not wander onto the street.
Long trailers with horses are at risk when slowly entering the
driveway. Also, making a left turn is very difficult, if not
impossible when road conditions are bad. The problem has worsened with
the growth of Clarendon and will deteriorate even further with Mr.
Musselwhite's animal clinic and development.
The city must consider either lowering the speed limit on Shields
to 35 mph or providing a turnout lane to decrease the risk of
accidents. We would also like to insist on Mr. Musselwhite's
continuing to negotiate a road easement through his land so access can
be provided from a road other than Shields.
2) The delicate nature of the wildlife and the unique topography
of the lot also requires special attention by the city. It is crucial
to ensure that no development threatens the current state of the
landscape and preserves as much as possible.
3) Finally, the city must ensure that the residents of 5101 S.
Shields continue to have access to their back lot. The Ridge
subdivision has designated a bridge across the creek, adjacent to our
property, as "open -space". This bridge and a narrow pathway along the
creek has been used by our property to walk to our back lot. That
access can not be removed. Furthermore, the final plans have
landlocked the back lot. Mr. Musselwhite and the Ridge have guaranteed
themselves an undeveloped lot next to their houses by denying road and
utility access to the land. The city must insist that Mr. Musselwhite
and the Ridge continue negotiating with the residents of 5101 S.
Shields to incorporate the land into their subdivisions or provide the
necessary easements for future development of the lot.
Conclusion: - We are no longer living in 5101 S. Shields and the house
is for sale. Since we moved to California, we have not been able to
get involved with the city in the planning process. However, we lived
there for 3 years and we are aware of the problems that can be
resolved with Mr. Musselwhite's development. Your consideration of
these issues may greatly enhance the quality of life of the future
residents of 5101 S. Shields without any considerable affects on Mr.
Musselwhite's development plans.
Thank You.
Bijan Fouladi
Alexandra H. Henderson
cc Bill Musselwhite
Ridge Homeowner's Association