HomeMy WebLinkAboutTOPANGA AT HILL POND PUD - PRELIMINARY - 2-87H - CORRESPONDENCE - ADJACENT OR AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS�-J
To: Members of the Planning and Zoning Board
Qity of Fort Collins
300 La Porte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
�
From: Praspect/Shields Neighborhood Association
1000 West Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526-1926
re: Topanga at Hill Pond Preliminary P.U.D., #2-87H
July 22, 1993
���
Prospect/Shields Neiqhborhood Association (PSNA) strongly opposes the
Topanga at Hill Pond PUD as currently proposed and we are also in strong
opposition to the developer�s concurrent request to increase the number
of unrelated persons who may reside in 66 of dwellinq units.
PSNA regrets that the proposed site design changes have riot addressed the
basic issues of our concerns for neighborhood compatibility and social
compatibility. We are disappointed that the Planning Staff has not given
adequate consideration to these concerns and is recommend.ing approval of
Topanga at Hill Pond PUD.
Our association must take issue with the Staff Report's continuous
comparison of the proposed Topanga at Hill Pond PUD with the College Park
PUD proposal and with the Rams Village development. Each development
proposal must be evaluated individually on how successfully the proposal
satisfies the All Development Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria of the
Land Development Guidance System, not by how the proposal compares to
previously proposed and non-existing PUDs. Improvements over proposed or
existing PUDs does not justify approval.
Variance:
Our association is strongly opposed to the developer's request for a
qariance to allow more than three unrelated persons to reside in 66 of
the dwelling units. PNSA perceives the reasoning behind the developer's
request for a variance to be meeting the "equal to or better than"
criterion of the Variance Procedure. Our association must ask "equal to
or better than" what? What standard is being used in the comparison:
Neiqhborhood standards, City standards, Community standards, other
comparable cievslopments standards? The ambiguity of the ordinance in
this respect demands interpretation. Ours is as follows:
Ne�.qhborhaod Standardsz The developer has not demonstrated that the
.` variance would make Topanga at Hill Pond "equal to or better
�han" the standards endorsed by the adjacent single-family
�esidential area and by the neighborhood as a whole.
City Standards: The City standard is not more than 3 unrelated
per�ons living in a dwelling unit. This proposal clearly does
not meet City Standards since the developer is requesting a
variance a.bove what the City legailly allows. So clearly a City
Standard of comparison is not being used.
1
�
0
. �
Community Standards:
of more than 3
�
Community Standard does not dictate acceptance
unrelated persons per dwelling unit.
Other Comparable Developments Standards: The staff report makes
comparison with Rams Village as "the only existing,
comparable apartment project that utilizes the four bedroom
unit." We object to the use of this particular comparison.
When the variance for Rams Village was approved, the Planning
and Zoning clearly stated that approval of the variance would
not set a precedent for granting of future variances.
In order to justify the variance, the developer has agreed to pay for
some Public Facilities improvements for the City. From past experience
PSNA knows that agreements such as these are enticing incentives for
project approval. We would encourage the Planning and Zoning Board to
look beyond these "freebies". If the variance is granted, long-range
impacts to our viable and productive core-neighborhood will result in
decline of neighborhood pride and gradual resident-owner exodus. This
loss will be borne not only by us but ultimately the City as a whole.
It is the position of PSNA that not one of the four All Development
Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria of the Land Development Guidance
System has been met with the current proposal:
Intensity of Use: Unfortunately, the negative impact created by the
intensity of use of Topanga at Hill Pond PUD upon neighborhood values,
goals and objectives cannot be measured on the Residential Uses Point
Chart nor the All Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. On paqe 13 of the
Staff Report referenee is made to "... The fact that the project is
primarily student housing, does not by itself, create a negative impact
as envisioned by the L.D.G.S. The City Code in general, and the L.D.G.S
in particular are silent on the population mix and age group of
prospective tenants in any residential housing project." If the issue of
negative impacts from monolithic student housing proposals is not
addressed in the L.D.G.S. and City Code, then the issue must be
addressed by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Relative Scale, Bulk and Building Height: The building scale, bulk
and height are too massive for an infill development so close to the
adjacent single-family homes and is not compatible with housing to the
east and south. Gradual transition should be required on the south side
of the proposal.
Increased Automobile Traffic: The automobile traffic created by the
travel of 614 residents remains a concern. Continuing additions to
Shields Street traffic can no longer be ignored despite purported
technical capacity. -
Increased Bicycle/Pedestrian Traffic Through Sheely Addition: Two
bridqes over the Importation Canal will not create a safer path for
school children going to Bennett School via a bridge over the Importation
Canal and Hobbit Street. These improvements would encourage bicycle
usage from Shields Street via Hobbit Street to Farmtr,ee Road as an
alternative route to avoid the congestion of the Shields/Prospect
intersection.
2
• 1 � � �
• Additional Air Pollution Along Spring Creek Drainage: We still have
concerns about the additional air pollutants to the Spring Creek Drainage
during the time of day most subject to cold air inversions.
Increased Noise Pollution: Concerns remain about increased noise.
pollution into adjacent residential areas. Homogeneous populations of
exuberant young people are notorious in this regard.
Increased Light Pollution: There will be lighting "spillage
of.fsite" and lighting impacts upon the adjacent residential properties.
Throughout the years, because of our proximity to CSU and the downtown
area of the City, many high density developments have been built within
our boundaries: i.e. Heatherridge Lake Condominiums, Lakewest, Hi-lan,
New Colony, Stonecreek, Northwood, The Bridges and Landmark Apartments.
Throughout the years the City has expected our neighborhood to assimilate
and adjust to the impacts of these high density developments. The
highest concentration of density in the City is within our boundaries.
Site-by-site:approval of proposals by decision making bodies cannot
continue without some mechanism for evaluating and controlling cumulative
impacts. Until then, we must rely on the judgment of the Board.
The current proposal is the third proposal our neighborhood has seen on
this property which targets a very narrow sector of our community's
housing needs and it is also the third proposal in which a developer has
requested a variance to increase the number of unrelated persons who can
dwell in the units. We find it frustrating and a waste of time, not only
for us but for staff and the Planning and Zoning Board, to be continually
dealing with the same basic issue again and again. We have made repeated
requests for the City to work with us to develop a Neighborhood Plan for
the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood. We are told to wait until funds are
available. Now the time has come for us to say enouah until we get a
Neighborhood Plan.
Sincerely,
Emily M. Smit., President
482-4577 �
�