The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTOPANGA AT HILL POND PUD - PRELIMINARY - 2-87H - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (2)� �� ; � \ � .- � July 21, 1993 Mr. Ted Shepard Senior Cifiy Planner Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning Dept. 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO. 80522-0580 Dear Ted: Thank you for returning my call this morning and sharing with me your insights into the planning and zoning procedures as they exist in Fort Collins. I must say that you are quite a professional individual, and are a credit to the City in your patient dealings with the general public. Since our discussions, we have read a copy of your Staff's analysis of the Topanga at Hillpond P.U.D. Needless to say, my wife and I, being impacted homeowners directly east of this proposed development, were quite disappointed with Staff's recommendation for approyal of this development. After reading the Staff's recommendations, we feel "sold out" by the Planning Staff review. This 'is not a conclusion made lightly. We come to this conclusion based on our observations that major issues and problems with the earlier proposed College Park P.U.D. (and still problems in the Topanga at Hillpond P.U.D.), have now been made non-issues. The entire tenor of your Staff review document is based upon detailed comparisons of the two proposed P.U.D.s. Afiter each comparison, you conclude that, indeed the Topanga at Hillpond P.U.D. is far superior to the College Park P.U.D. proposal. Taken as a whole, therefore, you are faced with approving the Topanga at Hillpond proposal. May we suggest, however, the reat issue, is not whether the Topanga at Hillpond P.U.D. proposal is su ea rior to the College Park P.U.D. proposal (a conclusion that most residents in the neighborhood would probably agree with), but whether the Topanga at Hillpond P.U.D., or any similar monolithic P.U.D. proposal targeted at a single population base, is approariate for tF�e site in question. We cannot abide by a planning process based on "something" (Topanga at Hillpond) is better than "nothing" ICollege Park). Issues that were issues before, and are still issues to us: 1. Bu/k and scale of the buildings. With this proposal the City has a distinct advantage in that similar buildings already exist! While the footprint of these buildings are clearly smaller that of the College Park P,U.D., we cannot believe that these buildings can still be termed anything less than massive. `4 +., � � � A drive down West Elizabeth wili quickly "drive" home thafi point! While berming softens the visual impact of any building, the fact remains that Rarn's Viliage buildings are essentially three story, and are cleariy incompatible with the surrounding Hillpond neighborhood. As with College Park P.U.D., we still feel that this is a"monolithic" development in a distinctly "nonmonolithic" neighborhood. 2. Targeted population base. Please let CSU worry about its student housing problems, and stop making the community pay the price. The Prospect/Shields neighborhood is a unique blend of people which have lived in harmony with C.S.U. for years. How can you conclude that intrusion of 614 college age individuals and 526 automobiles into this area will not negafively impact the quality of life of the current residents? How can you justify approving a variance of the "non-related" occupants directivel Its almost as if you and we are talking about two different areast I commend the developers for noting that "Snowbirds" can use their facilities during the summer. The fact remains that nine to ten months a year the complex will be populated by students, and only studentsl You have fought and lost this battle with Landmark Aparfinents. We implore you not to fight and lose again. This is still. a distinctly "monolithic" population base. ,_. 4. /nfensify or density. Ah, the magic words. After being in�olved in these planning projects for two years now, we still do not know what they mean! As we te1F our teenage daughter, when in doubt, use math, that's why you go to schooll A density of 614 people in 21.17 acres is 29 people/acre. One acre is 43,560 square feet. The average lot size on Wallenberg Dr. is approximately 11,000 square feet, with an average of 3-4 related people per household. The math follows: 43,560 ft. per acre/11,000 ft. per lot = 3.96 lots per acre 3.96 lots per acre X 3 people per lot = 11.88 people per acre OR 3.96 lots per acre X 4 people per lot = 15.84 people per acre Pardon our simple calculations, but we conclude that the true density of the Topanga at Hillpond (in people per acre) is two to three times that of Wallenberg � D�ive. We do not consider this density compatible with the existing neighborhood. 4., Bic:yc% traffic. it is good that people be encouraged to peddle to school. The city Staff. was sensitive to neighborhood concerns about fncreased bicycle traffic during the College Park P.U.D. review. In this review, not only is Staff not sensifive to the increase in bicycle traffic, but new routes „_, _ �f � � _ . . . .. ” � � have been proposed to route this traffic through the neighborhoodl Being the residents on the extreme northwestern part of Wallenberg Drive, let me assure you that Wallenberg Drive (formerly Farmtree) cannot absorb the vast increase in bicycle traffic that this proposal will assure. The Wallenberg/Sheely intersection is blind. This fact coupled with the unsafe, inconsiderate behavior patterns of the cyclists make thBs intersection an accident waiting to happen. The last cyclist to whom I politely suggested he ride with the traffic instead of against it #or his safety, reminded me of his I.Q., with his middle finger, and continued on his way. We will have the City to thank for all of the future pleasant encounters such as these that we will have if the Topanga at Hillpond P.U.D. is approved. 5. Noise po//ufion, /ight pollution, just p/ain po//ution. Let us simply face facts here. Downward lighting still reflects and illuminates, trees are porous and do not stop sound, and this development is being built in an area notorious for temperature inversions. All of these concerns negatively impact the current neighborhood. One:final;question that we; briefl,y discussed.today, still, needs b,e ans�ered. . Why is this fragile, site and fragile neighborhood continually challenged ,with ,,. targeted student, housing complex proposalsT Is it only because it is close to campus so that students have ready access without using carsT Many University towns solve this problem by building student apartment complexes on the city's edge and transport students by bus. This approach does not lead to a concomitant increase in vehicular traffic due to the ever present shortage of on-campus parking. Is it because city fees are so high that only this type of development will show a profitable return, as tlie developer intimates? Unfortunately we know too little about the City fee structure to answer this. Is it because a landowner desires to make maximal profits at the expense of his or her neighborsT Certainly someone as neighborly and cooperative as the Topanga at Hillpond landowner, -architect, and �avalo��c wcL�� r��r c��s��r th�� a j��ifi�d �`�a:iL�a�oe�! �c�:ld ;� �� ;��::�: a� Fort Collins's policy based procedures of City planning7 We believe that this is the answer. Can one begrudge a landowner his rights to a healthy profit on his investments, regardless of its impact on his neighbors, or how obscene that profit may be�. The responsibilifiy lay at the feet ofi the City Staff, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council, for employing a short-sighted, reactionary city planning methodology. It is clear, 'if not essential, that unique, fragile neighborhoods, such as ours need and demand IVeighborhood Planning documents. The fact that the . Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Planning documents have never been of high priority to the City is not only a disappointment to me, but negligent on the part of the City Council. If our neighborhood feels this way, we can only guess that this feeling must be held by other neglected neighbor.hoods within the City. �! ;� . • � ,•` � � '� As we go to work each day and deal with major street modifications, possible intrusion of 614 C.S.U. students into our neighborhood, encroaching business establishments, and a spiralling increase in disrespectful, negiigent cyclists, one conclusion comes to mind. IVo longer can we accept reactionary planning by default. No longer can we accept planning by developer perseverance. The City, as a collection of taxpaying, law-abiding citizens must regain control of planning and development and institute proacfive and not reactionary planning procedures. Only in this way will we be able to insure the quality of life in Fort Collins that we have all come to appreciate. Thank you for your considerations in this matter. Sincerely yours, ti � �� John T. Roehrig, Ph,D. . _ :. ;;.� �� , � , . Ann R. Hunt,. M.S. . , 1800 Wallenberg Dr. cc: Members, Planning and Zoning Board Mayor and City Council IVlembers