Loading...
3 - Citizen Participation.~~~.~~,~~~x., .,. -_ ~ Heidi Straszewski - FromWashin ton Breakin News: Su reme Court Delivers Victo for Plennin Pa~ e 1' From: Jason Jordan <JJordan@planning.org> To: "'fromwashington@list.planning.org"' <fromwashington@list.planning.org> Date: 4/23I02 3:OOPM Subject; [FromWashington] Breaking News: Supreme Court Delivers Victory for Planning From Washington The American Planning Association's biweekly update on legislative and public policy issues SPECIAL EDITION -- April 23, 2003: TAHOE SUPREME COURT DECISION PROVIDES MAJOR VICTORY FOR PLANNING ~r,:r~asa,k+~s~~~w~xa~a.Rxx~+xw+kw~~~+.kx~kax++~ww~xkw~xxw~w+xw~ Today the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 63 decision, provided a solid win for the planning process in the case of Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). (Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsburg formed the majority; Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented.) The issue at hand was whether or not a temporary moratorium on land development constitutes a taking of property. "This is the best Iegai victory for planning in more than a decade," said Lora Lucero, staff attorney for the American Planning Association (APA.) "As The Court's decision stated 'moratoria are an essential tool of successful developmenY rea~rming the value of planning in the development process." In far-reaching decision, The Court found that the use of moratoria, in this case, as part of the planning process does not constitute taking of property requiring compensation to the Iandowner. Rather than forcing landowners and planning officials to rush through the development process, the Court's decision affirmed the need for communities to take the time to think things through and make informed decisions before breaking ground. "The Supreme Court has strongly stated the concept that rights and responsibilities are reciprocal between property owners and local government during the development process," said W. Paul Farmer, AICP, executive director) "The Court has reaffirmed that planning and planning tools are central to maintaining an open and democratic development process that safeguards the rights of all citizens." To this end, the decision stated that moratoria relieve "added pressure on decisionmakers to quickly resolve land-use questions, disadvantaging landowners and interest groups." In numerous references to "fairness and justice" The Court rejected the notion that a categorical rule with regard to moratoria would be in the best interests of landowners or planners. Rather, that all parties involved in the development process stand to benefit from the dialogue that takes place during moratoria. In a clear endorsement of the planning process, The Court's decision also stated that "To the extent that communities are forced to abandon using moratoria, landowners will have incentives to develop their property quickly before a comprehensive plan can be enacted, thereby fostering ine~cient and ill-conceived growth." Heidi Straszewski - FromWashin ton Breakin News: 8u reme Court Delivers Victo for Plannin Pa e 2 The APA had filed an amicus brief in support of TRPA, a bi-state organization created in 1969 to protect Lake Tahoe and the surrounding environs in California and Nevada. The brief stated the view of APA that planners need to have to ability to use interim development controls and temporary moratoria to avoid making decisions that could adversely impact the natural environment and surrounding communities. Assisting APA were attorneys Robert H. Freilich, E. Tyson Smith and Jason Divelbiss, of the firm Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle in Kansas Ciry, MO. APA's amicus brief was filed in partnership with the National Trust for Historic Preservation and is supported by a wide array of governmental, environment and smart growth organizations. The complete Supreme Court opinion, a summary overview of the decision, and APA's amicus brief in the case will be available on Wednesday, April 24 on the APA website at www.planning.org. The next regular edition of "From Washington" will be published on Monday, April 29 and will provide continuing coverage of this and other developments. FromWashington mailing list FromWashington@list.planning.org http://list. plann ing.org/mailman/listinfo/fromwash ington ~~~~~~ ~ ~° ""Y`n JYJ49LIL91 1; IpJ f~YYI/YYI ~-YIV _-.- -,--fir"-~~~1Q=5 ~~ ~!~..G~4~ ~~w~ lut1 ~ __. __... _.... .________.__._._.____Y.1?~~....._ 01/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 5-b1ILSON rA~ '~ Ta. ~ of Houidr Board From: Qmbamei North Homeowners Assoaation StitbjeeR: FetiNotfa in opposition to the proposed SS' height variance, O'Connor group propaal for the Ciunbanel Town Center Aa regwsted at the meeting held April 171h, I am faxing you the petitions we gathered dut>dg b1e previa,s week. 'f hose pecidona hold 112 signatures from approximately 118 hotttaa tMit wero oomaoted out of 178 homes in the neighborhood. There were some horses in our area that we wero not able to contact. We only asked one member of the hotukirold to tigu for the address (and have included only one per household in this aoiorit), otherwise I believe that the dumber of signatures here would be doubled. The sigertw+a dhow 95'h ofthe roaidetNS polled oppose the variances, We believe that if we were to cotriinue to eotdact our neighbors, their responses would be the same. Flellbelbnvatd the in support of the libnuy to the person responsible for that ara, or advise me where to send them. Anr ett~ationa on how to proceed to have input and make an impact in the evolution of the Taam Curter would be gtnaily appreciated. Thark lrou fbr your time and attention to this matter. I.oartit~raao ~'~Mt, (hmbanel North HOA Phatee303-530.2143 Fang530.2193 l..mrfil raaxrant(r~tbi.aam 17 PETITION AGAINST THE REVISED GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER THE FOLLOWING LIST OF NAMES INCLUDE INHABITANTS OF THE GUNBARREL COMMUNITY WHO WISH TO HAVE THE NEWLY REVISED GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER REJECTED BECAUSE IT WILL DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THE RURAL ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH WE HAVE ALL CHOSEN TO LIVE. THE ORIGINAL PLAN: WAS TO HAVE 176 UNITS OF MIXED RESIDENTIAL HOUSING ANDOVER 200,000 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. AN UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE FOR AN EXTIMATED 500 CARS WITH ADDITIONAL 200 PARKING SPACES ON THE STREET. BOULDER CITY REGULATIONS LIMIT HEIGHT OF 35 FEET. THE REVISED PLAN: THE REVISED PLAN CALLS FOR BETWEEN 260 AND 290 UNITS OF MIXED-USE HOUSING AND 48,500 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. THE PARKING CONFIGURATION HAS BEEN CHANGED TO A FOUR STORY ABOVE GROUND PARKING STRUCTURE. WHICH IN THIS SUBURBAN ATMOSPHERE WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO A SMALL SKY SCRAPER IN AN AREA WHERE MOUNTAIN VIEWS SHOULD BE RETAINED. THEY ARE PROPOSING THAT THE 3S FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT 8E CHANGED TO A HEIGHT LIMIT OF UP TO 55 FEET. OBSCURING MOUNTAIN VIEWS AND SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING PROPERTY VALUES FOR MANY HOMEOWNERS. OTHER ISSUES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED: OVERCROWDING OF EXISTING SCHOOL SYSTEM TRAFFIC CONGESTION CAUSED BY INCREASED POPULATION NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~~L ~~°~2-~ .~,~,s3o yz.~, ~W4er (-wo~cc ~6q~ G~uatl Creek Lase 516-0 ~err(,~•r ~~c~++o r~ Y7ol ~a.~l/ Cr~~ ~r... v. ~3~S.3 d-o6~7 1,.2s~~ G19~~ ~~~q Q~o,~/ c,~E~.G~ 303 s3fl-~~~~,~ ~~~e~~~_,.~i,no-,~~- ~--- ~O7/~ iwr~ i-a~.f2~. 303 5 3rJ ~9~ 6~ (ro ~Gv~N(~ccJ ~~C 7S ~ ~ ~~ S~ ~~rrr°~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ GI see. ~~v~/a . ~s ~, a- S~si e ~~ if (~ ~6 3 b ~f"~, ~ arc ~.~ J'2T 339 ~~ ~6~83~ 3oa-~ /G ~~ ~~ 3v3 5~.~-/s~z. 'x~3- `S~ ~~~ ~ ~r1~~-.~~~~~6~3 ~}lis~npi-en.~ak L-l~O~~ Ta!(y ~Trl ?~0~~2~c~~'36 ~Of.~1QA1T{d- 1'7cJ('.~'11-12y' ~~Gq ir.~1.1~-r ~o IvP. ~`?~'~~~"~(~2~ M«~tiv~ Jc...~4~t TJGY (.t~~y K~ ~a.ca-~ 303.s3o.z:c~fG ,-- i~3-530- 337 3 3~' NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~y~~~s ~r~~12~~~ ~5`~~ ~ ~ ~ Sb~s~'~''3'f5~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 7~. 3-a3 s~~ 3~5~ ~ 51e ce 3 a- -38 ~s'66 7~~ f.{ fi .~ s'a~:~~b ~ ~~ .~-~- ~y s~~ ! (l (~n (r . 3 ~3 S~1- 97~ S y e~-~l~-` ~ '~ ~`~ t- ~j w~ ~y ~~ l ~~ ~ ~ 3 6 3 -s 3 ~ - ~ ~ 7 z ~ ~ey~~-uce _ ~'i'.~.vtic (/,r ~EYL.,ril~-~/ l~ Apo /~4 fLE c7- 3 d ~-So? ~- l~.Ja ~~-~~; f ~h~~~~~~-v ~i°~f1t~ ~ ~ e~G~. ~~ /~G3~53c .23c~ ~~/ ._ /,~f~ -rna-t q ~-I,~nn,~.i..~.w ~"1$ 6 l~ti ~ c C~, ~3Z' ~i~5 3G-- Z 30'~ 5 //,, '' / ~U~~ V~~ l~ ~ ~3 ~~ ~a3 ~- i~'9e- ttF~yna~r(~ t~~tti.v~~t 653 ~3~~~c c~ 3y3-~tt- t~'~ -~fit~ ~1~~VL ~'`l~~ L`~ U~~~.~~ ~r~ . 3D3 ~g l --~3 ~~. {~ our- ~ e, ~ ~ ~ Q ~t cc.i ~ C~e~e.Gc. l~~ ~ 530 -~ ~~o ~a-~ wc ~~~~~sv ~U~21?~,L~ 36~ ~6 a~~a ~~'~~~~,u~I,~,r~,ll1/~~~ X63 -5~~ d '3g~~ 1~83b ~~Y~u~~c.~ cT ~3 -5~a ,. y5~1 ~v~ 53o~/~Ul NAME ADDRESS PHONE ,Y.~ ~/~i 6~~6 /DYLU/ILQ c, 3n3 53~ ~Sv/ ~i~r 1~~.~,.-n (~ 8~ 5' ~D yr~w r~© r~ .3n3 -5.~ ~ -s2z 5 ~~85 " / ~` 3~ 3~5~~-vYl~t 7~~~ `~ ~C~j S~u-7`7j/S' 71 ~ ~ ~^lf p ~ ~~- 3c;~~ 5'dl - GJ uZS~" ~1~~~- .~r~~~~ ~-o c_~ 3~S Say - ob 6~- r ~tSiv~ 4,~ ~- ~ r ~ ~"{-~~, ~glly ~~ ~' ~ ~t~3 -5"27_ n 665 ~C~ ~~ -/ ~ ;~ ~ 0."~~~~ ''G -_ ~I- 7 f5~ ~ l 3 3-53G- or7 ~~~~~~ 'l 3 ~ U ~tx~v„ Way 3 ~3 S3 0 - cJ7 z7 NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~ne lY`e~~ 6~1 I~y~w`~I~ (~f- 3n5 s~o- ~a~~ (n`~~I ~ ~1 u~ i~c~ ~'~~ ~~~ 5305 ~~a-8~ ~~?r';r"Vi~~J j~~l<z ~~~~ l-~C~ ~c~°a~~r!~%~ C~j' ~,~~,~ - Wiz'/- ~~ ~_~ ~~ /ll~c; /~~r'. / `~~L~~~D ll~(u~i?ritY~--icy ~~ 3C~ i ;)c~~~~~)!i'~~ , , ~~~~ l ''~-~~~ ~~~ira~~~ti~~~~- 3~'3~1 ~q3 ~~~.:< Y~~N ~x A\ ~ 1. t z,~-x 1 U L..~ l ~J i .x . LY ,Jl 0 , !~ / I V ~S ~ .~ ~v I O~ ~~ r F PETITION AGAINST THE REVISED GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER THE FOLLOWING LIST OF NAMES INCLUDE INHABITANTS OF THE GUNBARREL COMMUNITY WHO WISH TO HAVE THE NEWLY REVISED GUNBARREL TOWN CENTER REJECTED DECAUSE IT WILL DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THE RURAL ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH WE HAVE ALL CHOSEN TO LIVE. THE ORIGINAL PLAN: WAS TO HAYE 176 UNITS OF MIXED RESIDENTIAL HOUSING AND OVER 200,000 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. AN UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE FOR AN EXTIMATED 300 CARS WITH ADDITIONAL 200 PARKING SPACES ON THE STREET. BOULDER CITY REGULATION5 LIMIT HEIGHT OF 35 FEET. THE REVISED PLAN: THE REVISED PLAN CALLS FOR BETWEEN ZBO AND 290 UNITS OF MIXED-USE HOUSING AND 48.500 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. THE PARKING CONFIGURATION HAS BEEN CHANGED TO A FOUR STORY ABOVE GROUND PARKING STRUCTURE . WHICH IN THIS SUBURBAN ATMOSPHERE WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO A SMALL SKYSCRAPER IN AN AREA WHERE MOUNTAIN VIEWS SHOULD BE RETAINED. THEY ARE PROPOSING THAT THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT BE CHANGED TO A HEIGHT LIMIT OF UP TO 55 FEET. OBSCURING MOUNTAIN VIEWS AND SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING PROPERTY VALUES FOR MANY HOMEOWNERS. OTHER ISSUES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED: OVERCROWDING OF EXISTING SCHOOL SYSTEM TRAFFIC CONGESTION CAUSED BY INCREASED POPULATION NAME ADDRESS PHONE cQ- ~+-- 50~~3~=7677 Gv ~e.~-~.- le ~' 3~ ~~ ~- $ld. 3u 3 -S~o ~~7'I 5~ .m~ -5 X59 ~~ - ~~ Planning Ganbanel As a resident of Gunbarrel for the past twelve years, and also a resident of the City of Boulder I sometimes feel hlce an Israeli settler in the Palestinian homeland in talking to some of the almost 80 percent of my neighbors who live in the county. This is uncomfortable. I blame the city for it. Your policies in regard to the Gunbarrel subcommunity have created a lot of resentment. It is time to turn this situation around. In the 1977 run-up to the Gunbarrel annexation election, Ed Gawf descn`bed the land use plan for the 34 acres which includes the O'Connor property as follows: The proposed Comprehensive Plan indicates commercial use of the property, and views this as the community center for the Gunbarrel subcommunity... The idea is to centralize the main commercial uses, surround it, as nearly as possible with residential development resuhing in the center being the focal point of the neazby residential area. This is what the Gunbarrel subcommunity wants to see on the O'Connor parcel and on the pazceLs now occupied by our recently stuccoed but still dated strip center.-a town center filled with shops, play areas, pazks, restaurants, entertainment venues, and the full complement of urban services. As the sole provider of urban services the city has a responsibility not to unreasonably withhold them, as the Robinson decision should have made perfectly clear. Ignoring this responsibility, you have instead codified it in a collusive, and perhaps illegal intergovernmental agreement which prohibits the county or any county- approved special district from providing them either. I find it interesting that in the1988 rewriting of Policy 2.04b, the wording which spells out this agreement was deleted because of legal concerns. While accepting more than $100,000,000 in sales and property tax revenue since your annexation of the commercial and industrial azeas in 1978, and despite having annexed somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of the residential azeas, you have continued to hold urban services hostage to the annexation of Gunbarrel's remaining county subdivisions. Ahnost 25 years later, we still have had no plamvng effort, much less the subcommunity plan that that same intergovernmental agreement mandates you provide, no library, no rec center, no traffic mitigation effort, no community pazk, no nothing, Wade, zilch. And now you want to take a key piece of the only land available for a Gunbarrel town center, and sacrifice it on the altar of the Boulder City Council's latest excuse for not engaging in a sincere planning effort --the jobs to population balance. We, in Gunbarrel know very painfully about the jobs to population balance. It was created by the city's residential growth management system It put 18,000 jobs here but wouldn't allow residential growth to keep pace because the city didn't want us competing with it for the 275 permits pet yeaz it was alloting. So all those employees of IBM, Valleylabs/Intrado, Ericsson, Lockheed Martin, Qualcomm, Sievers et al moved to Lafayette, Louisville, Erie, Broomfield, and now they all come down Lookout Road every morning. We understand the in-commuting problem very well, but if you expect us to believe those same employees aze going to sell their houses in asst county, move into two bedroom condos with an unobstructed view of the back of King Soopers, and thereby let the Greens residents get out of their development in the morning, boy are you in the wrong subeommunity. We do not want 288 residential units or 148 residential units. We want NOT ONE residential unit on the O'Connor properly. We want a Gunbarre] Town Center on the O'Connor properly. I, for one, am not opposed to additional well-planned residential development in Gunbarrel, the subeommunity has developed at urban densities and can probably accommodate it, BUT NOT ON THIS PARCEL. There is much you might do in Gunbarrel to bring the jobsJpopulation balance into a more favorable alignment. You can deed the property IBM just gave you at 71 ~ and the Diagonal to your housing department and have them solicit developer's proposals for a housing development surrounding the new rec/senior center you might build for us there. Some of that housing should accommodate our aging population who need to move out of larger houses they can no longer manage. With some decent paths, it's an easy walk to the industrial pazks, the town center, IBM even, with an underpass. If you rezone the Hugh M. Woods site as a light rail transit center, there's probably enough room there for a Steelyazds-type residential development. There aze all sorts of opportunities in the industrial pazks themselves for mixed- use projects. Industrial buildings are easy to scrape o~ it happens every day, but once you put housing on a property, it doesn't go away quite so easily. Ask the Palestinians. What will go away is the hope of the Gunbarrel Subcommunity for a town center. So I ask you to turn down this project as proposed. (Sorry, Terry, I think your original inspiration, before you had to bend it to fit the city's whims, was a lot closer to what we want and so desparately need here.) to engage in a sincere planning effort to provide us with a town center and full urban services. I have reason to believe from my conversations with the City Manager, City Attorney, and a member of council, that you would find support for undertaking such an effort. And yes, I realize that going down this path will inevitably bring up a revisitation of the annexation issue, and that many of my neighbors in the county will have strong reservations about treading on that path; but it could also lead to a revisitation of the Comp Plan policy on Gunbarrel, or some sort of compromise alternative, about which I have a few ideas. At any rate, we can't play Arafat and Sharon forever and have a vibrant community. The status quo has made Gunbarrel a large investor in the City of Boulder, and we have seen little return on that investment. We need to be more fearless in trying to work together. Paul R. Khmer 4/18/02 01/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILSON PAGE 02 GUNBARREL NORTH PETTITON We, the unde~d reekients of Gunbarrei Nortiy oppose the most recent proposal by the dConnor group for life C,tuibeael Town Center. We the variance which would raise the building height from 36 f!. fo ij,i' te. (four to Hve stories . We oppose the variance to reduce the open space requirement front 1,280 to oNy i0ft. per unit. PRIIVT NA11~/9lGNA1'URT AUDRFS6 PHONE/EMAIt. 1. ~bru,i~ ~,,~1 ._ w~ s~~~g~.0 G ~- ~c,a9~.,~«a/.e~ 2. ~ ~ ~},(i,QT,Pa~,tJ~yl /f'~la,Pfc.tF''rc=.rc T.('303 -~ f3'3D-O/3P~or'rt~o~.E'f 3. ~ .~ 5`~~r4S~r ~~r,~F~; r`.r. ~b3 -rS l ~n 36~ ~'n,~r oui(t®eavrG~l 4. QiLt, E RR WiL90._ G`L,..,,~, ~^uGti L.ou~•i~nri ,FCt. t~`,~,,.tl,...r-~•,aa~. 7. D.u f ,~~E¢~!(a2. Q~.a~,•.~~"/¢-~4.t~ F,~1,~~T 4aE.s g. CO~rJ~I L ~ agal 5+1~e.? No.~-1'1 /"Ur1C ~~ ~...-T~ A~u .n. '~r. - ~t~ ~ g, ~'/a~/+ r Ga4/~'7~21~~oi' J'T// U~r~fi~lo~d_ C~~f ei~°.~ angni La~~ 21. 22. ~. 23. 24. 25. 26. Z7. 28. 29, ;~,.r. N •he .w~. =,~i u ~* 7cO c'~~,~ -z._ / 81/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILSOW PAGE 03 GLTBARREL NORTH PETTITON We, the 1u-donligned naidente of Gunbarrel North, oppose the most recent proposal by the Q'Cozutor group for the Guttbarrd Town Center, We the variance which would raise the building height from 36 !t. b S6 i! (four to five stories . We oppose the variance to reduce the open space requirement fnsa-1,200 to only Wft. per unit. PRINT NAME/SIGnTATURE ADDRRSS PHnnrF / Fnaarr. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. T ~ 13. ~6 4 7 -s6f'3ra 3u'~.. ~3~.ytb 14. ~ b n 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. . 23. a~. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. .;t ~oN. 01/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILSON PAGE e4 GUN~AliRBL NORTH PE'TTITON We,•Ihe ~ raidetMa ofGuAbm~el North, oppose the most recent pmposal by the dConnor lint the Cl~ie[rel Tawtt QerMee: We the variance which would raise the building -t h 9e M ! f t am , M 86 ( awr b S1~e slosies . We oppose the varimnae t o reduce the open space regvi bllrt >!~M M rrii! fr~l Per volt PRINT NA1~F/~IGNAT~iRE ADDRESS PHONE/EMAIL 1. ~~ S 2Z 1`x!5 ~ C'~'. J"~3-551:°-%~L~~- 5. ,3~i _ b. s Mts~c C n3 t~l-`1 -34 ~i~~1~~° 7. ~/ D ' to. 56 _ g~~oszi ii. 5 u. o •5 - Sz-1 12 ~ EY $ • 13. ~ ~ i - 75 14. c ~ 0 u ~~ 15. ' ' '/ ? 16. ~. ~Gy wt G~-! r~' ' ~~3zY acs ~ 34S 1v ~ 17. (•~1•-11 11t'~P 2 Ovr'BAGK o'ff' a.u~71- C.o go3of '3o3•Sl'f~~7.o0 , 18. .~d cfr -rS t~- d.~5 19. ~-u.r~ Sac D cC pr- ~Ori[oa Cie. d'o3o/ ~/ 20. ~ • C~ o &'os~i 3~3 5~77~z 25. fa ~ 9~ 26. 5G2 ev 0 ~3l/ ~~3 S'b'/ ~ 35' 27. Gh r(2~ Bier 57o2b $UC4 Gh gouldb~ <o gu3ol 33•`(73 (0767 28. 29. _. 4 01!25/1994 21:82 3035302193 SHWILSON PAGE 05 GUNEARREL NORTH PETTiTON We, the urtde~ned reeidmta of Gunbarrel North, oppose the moat recent proposal by the dConnoz' group for the Gwttwrrel Town Center. We opposed the variance which would raise the building height fmm 36 lit. b S5 [t (fow to five stories). We oppose the variance to reduce the open space requirement ~ Leo do our iKt. per prdt. PRINT NAM6rSiGNATURE ADDRESS PHONE/EMA1L i. ~ar~_I,~sr~e~_~n~.l~oe~:.1J~ S~6S'~c.C~.~~tcc.-r. z Jy~tn~~.~y,u~.4~ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. -6~~) ~~I z-ply s. • 6lAtaiv CkUt4~ 37 y ~ Ro alt cr- a ~. 630.1 ~ 5~ ,~ 9. L~ctN, Q(, 4 t~ ~r i k.SOK S~-D8 ?'R.,(s.C; Tm~ Cam. ~ y3 - S lb - ~o.b 5 ~ 30. - 11. iz. 13• ' 14. 15. 16. 17. 1B. 19. 20. z1. ~ . . zs. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 01/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILS~I Pacit 0h GUNBARREL NORTH PETTITON We, the ~l residents of Gunbatrel North, oppose the. moat recent proposal by the O'C.onnor group for the Gunbarrel Town Center. We the variance which would raise the building height from 36 It b SS f!. (four to flue erodes . We oppose the variance to reduce the open space requi:eaiet-t lrenl 119 bu only (Nt: per ult. PRIATI' NAME/giGNATURE ADDRESS PHO EMAIL 2. 3. 4. 5. b. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. ' 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. z1. 22. . 23. 24. _ _ _ -- 25. 26. 27. 28. 24. ~o Y.':a 01/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILSON GUNBARREL NORTH PETTI?ON PAGE 07 We, the undetaigixd residents of Gunbarrel North, oppose the most recent proposal by the bConnn group for tl* Gw~barrel Town Cenber. We opposed the variance which would rase the building height kodj 31i i!. b S:f it (four to Sve stories), We olrpose the variance to reduce the open space requirement fireet'!~M to ~! Nlrc per unit PjZ]N'i' NAMH./QCTTATT1Ri? ADDR&SS PHONE! fiMAfL 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. ' 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. .. 23. 24. 25. 26. v. zs. z9. ~~ ~ ~ 81/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILSON PAGE eft GUNBARREL NORTH PETTlTON We, the undyed residents of Gunbarrel North, oppose the anost recent proposal by the dConnor group for the Gtpdternel 'town ('eater. We the variance which would raise the building height from 3611. !0 6S ft. (four to Eve atones . We oppose the variance to reduce the open space requirement leoat 1,200 bo only f01t. per unit. 1, 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1( 1] ~: l: 1! 1.° 1f i; it Zs n 2] 2: z` 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. __ PRWT NAl11g/S3GNATIJRE ADDRESS PHONE/EMA.IL 01/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILSa4 PAGE 09 GUNBARREL NORTH PETTITON We, the wtda~ted residents of Gunbarrel North, oppose the mast recent proposal by the O'C.onnor group [ar ttie Gta~arrel Town Center. We the variance which would raise the building height 9nnt 36 A b'35 h (four m Eve stories . We oppose the variance to reduce the open space requirement b+om l,~p bo only i/R per unit. l'RWT NAMB~ISIGNA'1VRE ADDR&SS PHONE/EMAIG 24. 25. 26. 27 28. 29. _ iY"...., ~'~~; . a Z3. 81/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILSON PAGE 10 i~ . GUNBARREL NORTH PETTITON We, the r~aidentis of Gurtbarrel North, support the concept of addiutg a library facility to be built within aonfitte~ of the Gunburel Town Center. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Z3. . . 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. ,:~5'„ ~~ PRINT NAA~/SIGNATURE AbDRESS PHONE/EMAIL 01/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILSON PAGE 11 GLiNBARREL NORTH PETTITON We, the residents o~Gunbarrel North, support the concept of adding a library facility to be bullt wi~tldn~aonficue of the Gunbarrel TownCanter. -- PRIMP NAM$/StGNAT[ntE ADDRESS PHONEiEMAIL 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. lo. _ __ 11. lz. 13. 14. ' 15. 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. . 24. 25. 26. 27. ~. 29. 30. 31. ' fl 01/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILS~J rcwc i~ GUNBARREL NORTH PETTITON We, the raetdatts of Gunbanpl North, support the concept of adding a library fadlity to be built vin~'tlwt t~con5nts of the Gunbatsel Town Center. ~~-~.. PR1Nf NAM8i3IGNATURE ADt7RESS PHONE/C~MAI~ ~, 18. 19. Z0. 21. 22. 23. .. . 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 3~• 31. ~1. 01!25!1994 21:02 3035302193 SFRJILSON rave. i~ GUNBARREL NORTH PBTTI'I'ON We, the ~1 residents of Gunbat=el North, support the concept of add' ~ ar~+ Eaality to be built within confines of the Gunbarrel Town Center. PRIM' NAIL/31[GNAT[JRE AbDRESS PHONE/EMA1L 1. 2. ,, ~.3.- 1n~ f1~d_Kl ~-~- ~'S2G Tc.~x.~ Gu•~. Gam" ~o.~~~ /~S~ 3. , „ 33"1 cw C~ r- Qt' l • •~ 4. )~~ t SS Cr-C4 a~-S3~-; 5. rah 5551 E*t~b -b.~- ~ 6.' ?. 3oi. S e, S4C~5 C~ 03 rs •03 9. ~/}'Y ~~ ~'ia,11N B~N~ ~ ~~ G L@,UD4L~- G 3 -a3D- yE 10. S M a 7 ~ ! y 11. 5 3~-- tiAa - -fir/- 12. ` r~S3 ; 13. t~/~ c•' ''i' 14. ~~ ~ S G /1 c~ 3 sal ~ i~ 15. 'r - ~ ~ ~ _ 16. ~ O e -S -a~Z2 +w 17. • w~ 0 ~ oe-ce 1a. a t 19. !1 ~ ~` '~ r r~ a~ 20. a t rJ v~~ O D/ 21. ~ ~ ~, ~ r U 0 x 23, ~ Brw $liC(c ~ocli Ct I Gn 8<230 l 303 `~~ `~ 24. 25. 2b. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. i5 a >" /3 01/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILSON rraut av '~-l4 - ~-/7~0~ . GUNdARRBL NORTH PETTII'ON We, the t~1d~Ned t~nidenb of Gunbar~l NartZw, support the concept of adding a library facility to be built within fire aos~6nes of the Gunbarrel Town Center. 29. 30. si. ~~! 01/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILSON PACit i5 GLTNBARREL NORTH PETTiTON We, the residents of Gunbarrel North, support the concept of adding a library faality to be built within aonflnea of the Gunbarrel Town Center. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. aw/aL d C. '~ ,finks a-4 5'~s i abce.Toy Ct~ 3~ 3 - 5~6- ob 5 ~f 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. - - - l~ PRIINT NAIL/SCGIVATURE ADDRESS riHpNE /$tviAIL 01/25/1994 21:02 3035302193 SHWILSON GIJNBARREL NORTH PBTTITON rcwc i o We, fire :eridenta of Gttnbasnsl Nortiy support the mltcept of adding a library Facility to be built wl~eonfinm of the Gunbarrel Town Center. PRINT' NAM6l9[GNATURfi ADDRESS PHONE / EMAIL 14. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. ..:• 1!a ~ 1S.