Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGENCY LAKEVIEW - PDP & APU - PDP120013 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (14)Page 2 A couple minor points to mention is the incorrect reference to Parkwood Lake as "Williams Lake" on the map that was provided and also the name of the proposed development gives the impression that the development is on Parkwood Lake. This proposed development name is highly misleading and unacceptable to those of us that live on Parkwood Lake and in the Parkwood filing. We thank you for the opportunity to provide input into this process and hope that our concerns are fully considered in your planning and decision making. Respectfully Edward F. Redente I E. Redent 2417 Brookwood Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 18 August 2011 Mr. Ted Shepard Chief Planner Planning, Development and Transportation Services City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Mr. Shepard: 0 ap�1 6cl We are writing to provide input into the project currently referred to as the "Regency at Parkwood Lake —Multi -Family". Both my wife and I will be out of town on August 25 and 31 and will not be present at the scheduled meetings. However, we would like to provide written input and hope you will consider this input during your planning process. The major concern that we have with the proposed project is the negative impact on traffic on both Lemay and Drake. A project of this magnitude (238 dwelling units with expected parking for 381 vehicles) will add a significant amount of traffic "on to" and "off of Drake and Lemay. The current traffic on Drake during those morning and afternoon hours when traffic volume is the highest is reaching the point of being unacceptable. Westbound traffic on Drake is commonly backed up to the Rollingwood entrance into Parkwood and many drivers intending to turn north at the Drake and Lemay intersection use our Parkwood residential neighborhood to bypass the congestion. The current situation is unacceptable and the possibility of more traffic with the proposed development will only exacerbate the situation and increase the likelihood of traffic accidents. In addition, although we have heard of some discussion of adding a right turn lane at the intersection of Drake and Lemay for drivers wanting to turn north on to Lemay, there is only room for a short turn lane (possibly 2 or 3 cars) that will not improve traffic flow. We speculate that this proposed development and associated increased vehicle activity may lead to new traffic lights at the access points coming onto Drake and Lemay or both. We can only imagine that having additional traffic lights so close to the main intersection of Lemay and Drake will only increase congestion. d Page 2 of 2 properties on the south side? Is anyone on this email list a resident on Fauborough, Centennial, etc? I'll provide Craig's reply when I get it! Mark Kenning Hi Craig! Thanks for the information; it's helpful to know the history of how things have happened in our town. Despite Warren Park being up -sized, for those of us in the northern half of our section (closer to Drake Road), Warren Park isn't very convenient - Edora Park is probably closer to us (and it's not very close either!). I do understand from the meetings I've attended that our City residents have many ideas and wishes for our town; 1 don't envy the City in having to choose what are priorities, especially in these challenging economic times. But let's cut to the chase: If the church were willing to sell the property and its current improvements on very favorable terms to the City with the stipulation that it be turned into a park: 1) Would the parks department be interesting in acquiring this park? 2) What would be the process be for determining if this is feasible'? I've attached the real estate listing which Larry Stroud of Realtec forwarded to me so you can see the exact parcel (and how much is currently set aside for storm water retention) in question. Thanks for your time and help in this matter, Mark Kenning / 204-4352 Craig Foreman wrote: Mark: Thanks for the e-mail. The history I have on your area of town is that when the developer worked with the City years ago they were unable to agree upon a park site in your neighborhood. Thus Warren Park was up sized, to over 20 acres, to accommodate your neighborhood. Thus the parkland fees collected on new homes in your area were applied to the acquisition and development of Warren Park. The Nelson Farm area park note on page 27 was made as part of the public process. This section contains numerous "wish" items from the public. The request was not brought forward because of the reason stated above. Let me know if you need any more info. Craig 8/27/2011 Page 1 of 2 Ted Shepard From: Mark Kenning [mkenning@kenningfilter.com] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 10:31 AM To: Ted Shepard Subject Christ Church development Hi Ted! Thanks again for your moderation of the meeting last night. You have to have one of the more thankless jobs at the City - so thank you! I'm the guy that had information about a park possibility if you remember.... This Pmai�r ^^ August 2009 if you want to tuck this into your file for background. I'll contact Craig again just for fun but really don't expect it to go anywhere. Rather than reply to the email he called me (or I called him) and essentially he said that even if the church gave the City the property for a park, he didn't have money to improve or maintain it thus wouldn't accept the gift. While two years ago the church said it didn't need money, their employees tell a different story (and have for the past year). Certainly maintenance on the facility has declined the past couple of years. Thanks for your help. Your comments to the developer were certainly the most thorough - and potentially discouraging for the project as proposed. Hopefully they'll scale it down and come back with something more appropriate. Mark Kenning / 204-4352 Mark, You have done a great job with communication and getting this going ... thank you. To answer your question: I live on Fauborough Court and we do not have an HOA. Wendy Wilbor On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Mark Kenning <mkennin$@kennmgfilter.com> wrote: Hello Parks group! I've added Lary Stroud of Realtec to our list. Larry spoke briefly at the meeting. He also provided a sales listing for the church (attached). Craig Foreman of the City Parks department replied to my email. His email is in red; my response is in green, (so you might skip to the bottom, read those two emails, then come pack to this point!): I also talked with Mark Sears, head of the City open space department. I've known Mark for several years, and he was quite forthcoming. He says his department might be interested in the property, however do we really want open space there? Open space means that over the next 3-5 years, watering the grounds would stop. It would evolve into native grasses and wild flowers - in reality it would become more of what is in the southem-most part now (which isn't watered). After a few years, they would quit mowing it too. They might put in a couple of trails and make enhancements, but it would not be "improved" in any way. Weeds and other non -bluegrass plants would be present. Baseball and soccer fields would disappear. A couple of other thoughts Mark Sears tossed out: 1) With the only access being from Lemay (through the church's lot) and Drake (no real access from the neighborhoods although the drainage path into Fauborough Court is used as access), it would be hard to justify calling it a neighborhood park or open space. Finding two neighbors that could provide a total of —10' easement (if subdivision covenants would even allow that) for access from the existing neighborhoods is unlikely. That makes its development for a park or open space less attractive. 2) Both the Parks department and the Open space departments could probably find funds to purchase and even upgrade/install facilities on the property. The kicker is maintenance. Both departments have had budgets for mowing/maintenance of existing properties slashed. Here is where perhaps getting the neighborhood HOA's and even the church to creatively come up with plans/funds for mowing and maintenance might make a difference. So the ball is in "our" courts - the church and neighbors. Can we / do we want to pull together on this, bringing in the HOAs and seeing if we can make a proposal to the City for how we'd assist maintaining a park? We need the church to weigh in on this at some point. Tim, you're our church contact. Who can speak on their behalf? And is there a HOA representing the 8/27/2011 Page 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: danchilson@aol.com Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 6:13 PM To: Ted Shepard, emcard@fcgov.com Subject: Regency at Parkwood Lake Thank you both for conducting the neighborhood meeting this past Thursday night on the referenced project I would like to receive the various documents that were mentioned during Thursday night's meeting at Christ Center Community Church. As owners of an adjacent property we are opposed to the proposed development. Certainly the church has a right to sell the property but that level of density packed in next to single family dwellings is highly inappropriate. Thank you for your consideration Dan Chilson 2807 Brookwood Drive Ft Collins 80525 8/29/2011 Page 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: sherryegraves@comcast.net Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:59 AM To: Ted Shepard Cc: Emma McArdle Subject: Regency at Parkwood Lake - Multi -Family To Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, and the Fort Collins Planning Department I am writing this E-mail to vehemently oppose the Regency @Parkwood Lake Multi -Family Project. I have many concerns, but my main concern is the amount of traffic which will be generated onto Drake and Lemay Roads. Currently, there are times when it is difficult to exit Brookwood Drive onto Drake and it is also very difficult to exit Parkwood Drive going south on Lemay. With the new turning lane to be installed at Drake and Lemay, this is only going to get worse. Parkwood Subdivision is predominately comprised of retired senior citizens, people who have lived here 20 - 30 and more years enjoying the serenity of the neighborhood. If this project is approved, our property values will go down with the increased traffic, it will not be considered a desirable neighborhood anymore, and because of the difficulty of exiting our subdivision, we will almost become prisioners. The church has every right to sell this property, but the zoning should remain low -density residential and become compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Out of respect for the citizens living in the Parkwood Subdivision, I ask you to not approve this project. The church has every right to sell this property, but the zoning should remain low - density and become compatible with he surrounding neighborhoods. Sherry Graves 1133 Heatherwood Lane Fort Collinhs, Colorado 80525 8/29/2011 Page 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: ROGER VANTHORRE Owner Dimnrogv@q.coml Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 11:43 AM To: Ted Shepard Subject: Proposed apartments at Drake and Lemay My husband and I are opposed to the above reference proposed apartment complex. Our reasons are many, but the most important reason would be the traffic congestion in our area. We are aware of the right turn lane at Drake and Lemay and the traffic that will shortly incur with traffic from Timberline and Drake. We are in an enclosed area and this proposal will only increase the difficulty we are currently having making a left turn onto Drake from Brookwood and a left turn onto Lemay from Parkwood. Roger and Jimmie VanThorre 1129 Parkwood Drive Ft. Collins, CO 80525 970/484-2281 8/29/2011 Page 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: ruthjtoll@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:00 PM To: Ted Shepard Subject: Proposed Development - Regency at Parkwood Lake This letter is to adamantly oppose the above proposed development. I am very surprised that the City would allow this proposal to even come this far. When I purchased my home in the Parkwood Subdivision in 1972, it was with the understanding that there would NOT be a high density development that would affect the quality of life that this development will bring about. What is the purpose of zoning laws if zoning laws can be so readily cancelled through "Addition of a Permitted Use" at the desire of a developer and a seller in need of money? This seems to be very misleading at the leastl. I understood from the meeting this past week that the Traffic Engineer has not been involved as of yet. This development is ludicrous as far as thrusting this amount of traffic on Lemay Avenue and Drake Avenue. I have lived here for years; and in the last two years I have found it nearly impossible to get on to Lemay -- would a traffic light at Lemay and Parkwood Drive help -- NO ! Furthermore, the intersection of Lemay and Drake is a dangerous accident trap at this point in time; and I cannot understand why the City would want to add another 350 plus cars to these two streets. 1 understand that there would be a stipulation of no left hand turn on to Drake from the development. Surely, the City would not then want to encourage cars from this development to make a right hand turn and then an abrupt left hand turn off of Drake on to Rollingwood Lane-- and then on to Parkwood Drive for access to Lemay. More danger! This route would naturally occur for drivers from this development for access to Lemay. Another concern is: Where will the children from this development go to school? And the routing of these grade school children would most certainly go through Parkwood to Riffenbugh — another dangerous situation. I am asking that the City NOT APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT. In doing so, it would most certainly destroy my present faith (and the faith of many) in our great City as far as efficient and safe planning for all citizens involved. Sincerely, Ruth Toll 1312 Teakwood Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 8/31/2011 Date: 2011-08-31 From: Doug Vander Wilt To: Ted Shepard, Emma McArdle, Development Review Center, City of Fort Collins Subject: Regency at Parkwood Lake — Multi -Family development proposal I recommend non -approval of the "Regency at Parkwood Lake - Multi -Family" proposal as currently being considered. According to the Fort Collins land use code, section 1.3.4 "Addition of Permitted Uses" there are several "Required Findings" conditions which are not met in my opinion: (A)(1) The proposed development is on and completely surrounded by land zoned as R-L. (Low Density Residential) While the proposed usage may be residential, it is clearly of high -density and does not include significant buffer space with adjacent low - density properties. It appears to be major divergence from current zoning intent. (A)(2) The basic characteristics of high -density multi -family housing do not closely conform to the characteristics of low -density residential. The code states that "The R-L Low Density Residential District designation is intended for predominately single-family residential areas." Approved uses include single-family detached dwellings and some other low or medium -density uses, quite different from high -density multi -family which should not be considered R-L according to the Land Use/Zoning District Matrix. (A)(3) The proposed use will create adverse impacts to noise level, air quality, traffic safety, and aesthetic views of mountains and trees well beyond that normally resulting from the other permitted uses for this zone. Many of these adverse effects would be caused by the estimated usage of over 30 motor vehicles per acre at the site, while it is estimated that less than 10 vehicles per acre are currently in use in the the area. Furthermore, the design and location of this high -density development does not appear to progress the goals of the City's Transportation Master Plan and is not located within the boundary of the transit -oriented development (TOD) Overlay Zone. I urge you to support me and other concerned citizens in the neighborhood in recommending non -approval of this proposal. Thanks for considering these matters, Doug Vander Wilt 2719 Brookwood Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-797-2577 • doug.vanderwilt@gmail.com Mr. Ted Shepard, AICP Chief Planner City of Fort Collins 281 N. College PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0580 Dear Mr. Shepard, YKcr 0 PV G -�t ooI I am writing to protest the development project at 2700 South Lemay Avenue of 238 units. This property is currently zoned R-L and should not be changed. At this time we have apartments within two blocks of this intersection on Lemay and on Drake. The traffic is very heavy at the intersection of Lemay and Drake Avenues and the addition of the proposed apartments will only increase the situation. I live in the Parkwood Meadows condos and it is difficult to turn left on to Lemay now but will only be increased with the apartments and the addition of the right turn lane on Drake. It will defiantly increase traffic on Parkwood Avenue along with other residential streets in the Parkwood area if this goes through and those residents wish to go north. If the church really needs money it should sell the property to the city for a park and not to some developer which will only increase congestion to the area. Yours truly, Patricia Sulllivan 1119 Parkwood Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80525 29 August 2011 Ted Shepard, AICP Planning, Development and Transportation Services 281 N College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Thanks to you and to Emma McArdle for your presentation last Thursday evening. It seems the City of Fort Collins is quite "Eco-minded" as evidenced by their utility rebate offer for purchase of more energy efficient freezers and refrigerators and their attempt to synchronize traffic lights. The Regency at Parkwood Lake proposal is certainly not in keeping with the City's efforts to conserve energy given that the explosion of additional traffic on Lemay Avenue and Drake Road would increase the time we in the surrounding neighborhoods already spend idling our engines waiting for an opportunity to access Lemay and/or Drake. In addition to the traffic congestion, the pollution factor would certainly be of great concern especially to individuals who already have respiratory difficulties. A win -win solution would be for the Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Department to purchase the available Christ Center Community Church property so that the usage would continue to be for recreational purposes. Sincerely, 9.t" �i �_.2 J Grace Ellis 2412 Brookwood Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 �_ELo 1 September 2011 SEp r Ted Shepard, AICP Planning, Development and Transportation Services 281 N. College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Mr. Shepard, Again, thanks to you and to Megan for attending the Regency at Parkwood Lake development proposal meeting at Christ Center Community Church yesterday evening. You managed to maintain your composure throughout except when the group clapped their approval of several audience comments —to which you said very straight-faced "there will be no clapping at a neighborhood meeting." What? Is there a city regulation forbidding this? It was commendable that so many people attended the meeting, most of whom are quite angry about the proposal. And why should we not be with concerns about significantly increasing traffic on Lemay and Drake that are already overtaxed in addition to pollution, noise, and decrease in our property values? The proponents of this development tend to make those of us with legitimate concerns appear to be stupid and selfish. I know it is not PC these days but do you remember a slogan in the 60s "Don't Calif ornicate Colorado?" Well, now greedy developers such as Ms. Evans who are largely responsible for California's problems have fled the state of California leaving the poor unfortunates who did not get out early to deal with all of those issues and seemingly have no concern about destroying our city's best neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed development. While Ms. Evans was attempting to placate us by offering the opportunity to share in the proposed development's amenities, it was laughable to even think we would want to stroll through that neighborhood. To her credit she took it all on the chin; however, she does seem intent on proceeding with the plan. I don't see how the City of Fort Collins can give consideration to Regency at Parkwood Lake even for a moment. �cerely, Grace Ellis 2412 Brookwood Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 September 6, 2010 Ted Shepard; Chief Planner City of Fort Collins PO Box580 ELO aOtl Fort Collins, CO 80521 �So 1 f°' Dear Mr. Shepard: Thank you for moderating the meetings about a possible Addition of a Permitted Use and Project Development (APUPD) at the Christ Center Community Church (CCCC). The site is currently zoned R-L for single-family dwellings. The undersigned neighbors understand that the property WILL be developed, but wish to strenuously object to this particular proposal based on three factors • The inappropriate density for a parcel zoned R-L; • The amount of traffic it will generate near an already -congested intersection; • The proposed three-story height of all nine buildings. As you explained at the August 31 neighborhood meeting, R-L means low density residential housing — generally single family dwellings. You said that in Fort Collins, R-L typically featured three to four dwellings per acre. The proposed Addition of a Permitted Use would allow more than 20 dwellings per acre — more than five times what is typically allowed! That is so far out of character with the existing neighborhood as to be ludicrous (as expressed at the first meeting)! Traffic around the Drake / Lemay intersection is already congested during morning and afternoon commuting times. Any development will add to this congestion; an overly -dense project like the proposed APUPD will just make congestion and the likelihood of increased accidents even worse. There is only one three-story building within our "neighborhood" - the map showing property within a 1000' radius of the project — and that is tucked in the middle of Scotch Pines West Apartments. Adding three-story buildings (not permitted in R-L zones) on this parcel would be very out of character for the neighborhood. We implore the City — planners, zoning boards and other applicable departments — not to allow development of this parcel that is incompatible with the existing R-L zoning and the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. We believe that this particular APUPD is both incompatible and out of character and urge its denial. There is an infill R-L zoned development not far from us — Southmoor Village East (3200 — 3324 S. Lemay) — which was done in the mid 1980's. Perhaps that could serve as a model for future developments of the CCCC parcel in question. Please stand with us and insist that any development of this land be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and existent R-L zoning. Sincerely, ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Extremely unattractive housing in a congested area adversely affecting all adjoining neighborhoods, north, south, east and west. This includes line of site degredation from any direction and any angle. So, it's all there. Increased noise and crime, traffic and traffic issues, lowering of housing values, and an obvious adverse impact on the environment of Parkwood. Question is, of course, does the City care. Of the last ten City projects that were cosidered by the City, all ten were approved and the city went ahead with the projects, even though some were very contentious based on public input. Further, the residents of Parkwood previously had a similar experience when the City proposed to build a facility for "the disadvantaged" (The Integrity Center) at this same location several years ago. That had great opposition from Parkwood (though less than this current proposal) and the City ignored the public input. That Center was not built because the City and the developer disagreed on a technicality involving "sales" by the Center (Source: Ted Shepard). The developer stated that they have had previous conversations with the City and the City had already said it would permit this use of the land. Hmmm? Yet, Ted Shepard said this is a "neutral process" totally dependent upon public input and City review procedures. Shepard also stated that another housing project is planned several blocks away (at Drake and Timberline - low-cost housing). Gee! What about the environment there and the impact of that additional X number of people and X number of cars on the development at Lemay and Drake. So, it appears to the Parkwood residents that there is every reason to reject this proposal, although the above would indicate that may not be the case, especially considering the City is considering another housing project close to the one that is discussed here. The Parkwood residents, of course, believe that the City as already ignored it's own zoning regulations for this area which state that 'This zone normally does not allow MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING as a permitted use." (Source: Ted Shepard). So, it is now for us all to learn if the City will also ignore its own Section 1.3.2 of it's planning criteria. Future issue - Residents vs Officeholders? Hugh N Owen, Parkwood Planning Group 1240 Redwood, FTC b. When residents stated the population density is too high, the developer said we can't reduce the number of units to be built because they won't make enough money. Ah! The profit motive again. Seems to us not a good reason to destroy a community. c. The units will be rented for whatever the developer can get. (Quality of life issue?) d. People renting these apartments will fall in love with Parkwood and will want to buy our houses. So, what are the objections of the Parkwood Community. It should seem very obvious to anyone who is familiar with Parkwood. For example: MUCH TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND RELATED SAFETY CONCERNS: The intersection of Drake and LeMay is a mess now. Also, it is difficult to enter East Drake or West Drake from any feeder roads at present. We were advised that the City Traffic Dept can do wonderful things (Source: Ted Shepard), but, if so, why is the LeMay - Drake intersection such a mess at present. The City frequently works on it. LOWERING OF HOUSING VALUES: No one can review this proposal and not realize that a rental housing facility of this type will lower property values in this community. And, this is coming at a time when we are already dealing with a low housing market. Ted Shepard advised that the City is not interested in this. Why not? Doesn't the City care about the economic welfare of its citizens. It expects taxes to be paid. Be Honest! This type of housing is low-cost housing, which brings truth to the rumors we have heard over the past years that Parkwood is to be the City's sacrifice area. And, as reported in the Coloradoan and on KCOL Radio 600, the Mayor's main platform plank when running for the job was to assure the building of low-cost housing. INCREASED CRIME: These units are not likely to attract the family community atmosphere that now exists in the Parkwood area, where neighborhoods are close knit and friendly. And, residents are adamant. We will absolutely not accept an increase in crime in these neighborhoods. We are capable of defending ourselves and of policing the streets if need be, but we prefer to keep the very low level of crime that now exists. Our houses can become fortresses, but we would prefer not to take that step either. IMPACT ON CITY POLICE: That many people crammed into a small area made up of very small housing units will undoubtedly impact the local police. If you know anything about group dynamics, you know such community projects have a reputation for becoming a tinderbox. It is rare now to see a police car in Parkwood. That will change. This proposed housing will impact the police. DISRUPTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: Considering the above, is it likely that neighborhood behavior will need to change. Just the very frequent neighborhood morning and evening "walks" by neighborhood elderly and children will be impacted. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner 9/16/11 Current Planning, 231 N College, Box 580 Ft Collins, CO 80522-0580 Subject: Proposal to the City of Ft Collins for the Housing Development called "Regency at Parkwood Lake" by Century Communities Corp. of California - Parent Company of Regency Residential Properties of Denver. The City of Ft Collins criteria for accepting or rejecting the subject proposal is as follows: "Such use does not create any more OFFENSIVE NOISE, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare OR OTHER OBJECTIONABLE INFLUENCES or any more TRAFFIC HAZARDS, TRAFFIC GENERATION, OR ATTRACTION, ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ADVERE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC OR QUASI -PUBLIC FACILITIES, UTILITIES, OR SERVICES, ADVERSE EFFECT ON PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, morals, OR AESTHETICs, etc. etc. etc." (Source: Ted Shepard -City Planner.) You certainly can understand why the Parkwood community, as a whole, expressed deep objection to this proposal at two well -attended public meetings on this subject 16 August and 31 August 2011. Not one voice favored this project, and many voices were extremely vocal in their objections. As the residents said, it is inconceivable that the City of Ft Collins would even consider dumping over 500 people and nearly 400 cars into the churchyard of Christ Community Church at the intersection of LeMay and Drake; already one of the most congested and dangerous intersections in this city. Most cars would not be housed in garages. This proposal consists of rental properties - mostly all one -bedroom units with a few scattered two -bedroom and three -bedroom units. It was stated that no unit will contain over 700 square feet, so presumably, some units will contain less than that. Nine 3-story VERY UNATTRACTIVE buildings are to be constructed in close proximity to one another with grassways in between. A swimming pool was mentioned. Even the Pastor of the Christ Community Church stated to me that he is very concerned about the congestion that will result from this project. It is assumed he will worry all the way to the bank as he is the seller of the property. The motive being money as it is common knowledge that that Church has been in internal discord for some time. The developer, Lisa Evans, representing Regency Residential Properties of Denver, made a completely ludicrous presentation (which brought jeers from the crowd), pointing out the following factors in favor of the project: a. There will not be nearly 400 cars parked at the development because they believe many of the renters will use bicycles. (?). They also said they expected 24-hour a day activity at the housing units. Aooroval Of The Regency Development Plan Would Further Increase Already Poor Traffic Conditions Of additional concern is the amount of traffic that would be generated by the Regency proposal. Currently, as residents of Lake Sherwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Parkwood, it is difficult to impossible to make a left-hand turn out of our neighborhoods onto Drake or Lemay during peak hours of traffic in the mornings and evenings. Currently, the intersection of Drake and Lemay is rated a "D" pursuant to the City's "Tuning" studies. Its rating is one of the worst in the city, rivaling College and Drake as one of the worst in town. To make matters worse, the intersection of Drake and Lemay has the unique characteristic of being located on a curve that tuns East-West. This curve makes visibility entering Drake (from Brookwood Ave. or Dorado Ct.) from our neighborhoods increasingly difficult and dangerous. It does not take a traffic study for us to know that adding 238 dwelling units on that intersection, some with up to three bedrooms per unit, will adversely effect traffic generation and hazards. Common sense dictates that adding hundreds of additional drivers will create "more traffic hazards" and "more traffic generation" which is specifically not allowed under 1.3.4(A)(3) Addition of Permitted Uses. There are a number of other specific objections that we, the neighoors and families of Parkwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Lake Sherwood have regarding the Regency proposal, but instead ask you, as our elected and hired officials, to look at the bigger picture as articulated above and reject this proposal outright. Sincerely, Residents of Parkwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Lake Sherwood U. CL. z EM & 236 �—ac LOL)KOt,LS QW7 Faalwro,-( Cf Page 3 of 3 s a f=,Ar .' b� Approval Of The Regency Development Plan Would Further Increase Already Poor Traffic Conditions Of additional concern is the amount of traffic that would be generated by the Regency proposal. Currently, as residents of Lake Sherwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Parkwood, it is difficult to impossible to make a left-hand turn out of our neighborhoods onto Drake or Lemay during peak hours of traffic in the mornings and evenings. Currently, the intersection of Drake and Lemay is rated a "D" pursuant to the City's `Timing" studies. Its rating is one of the worst in the city, rivaling College and Drake as one of the worst in town. To make matters worse, the intersection of Drake and Lemay has the unique characteristic of being located on a curve that runs East-West. This curve makes visibility entering Drake (from Brookwood Ave. or Dorado Ct.) from our neighborhoods increasingly difficult and dangerous. It does not take a traffic study for us to know that adding 238 dwelling units on that intersection, some with up to three bedrooms per unit, will adversely effect traffic generation and hazards. Common sense dictates that adding hundreds of additional drivers will create "more traffic hazards" and "more traffic generation" winch is specifically nst allowed under 1.3.4(A)(3) Addition of Permitted Uses. There are a number of other specific objections that we, the neighoors and families of Parkwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Lake Sherwood have regarding the :.Regency proposal, but instead ask you, as our elected and hired officials, to look at the bigger picture as articulated above and reject this proposal outright. Sincerely, Residents of Packwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Lake Sherwood Woo Lt�. �9/ (Z gD SZ S 6 A Gf/Y.Uyv /3/a Q0///n U oodl _ ,Z �orj r Lac r? Page 3 of 3 Approval Of The Regency Development Plan Would Further Increase Already Poor Traffic Conditions Of additional concern is the amount of traffic that would be generated by the Regency proposal. Currently, as residents of Lake Sherwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Parkwood, it is difficult to impossible to make a left-hand turn out of our neighborhoods onto Drake or Lemay during peak hours of traffic in the momings and evenings. Currently, the intersection of Drake and Lemay is rated a "D" pursuant to the City's "Tuning" studies. Its rating is one of the worst in the city, rivaling College and Drake as one of the worst in town. To make matters worse, the intersection of Drake and Lemay has the unique characteristic of being located on a curve that rtms East-West. This curve makes visibility entering Drake (from Brookwood Ave. or Dorado Ct.) from our neighborhoods increasingly difficult and dangerous. It does not take a traffic study for us to know that adding 238 dwelling units on that intersection, some with up to three bedrooms per unit, will adversely effect traffic generation and hazards. Common sense dictates that adding hundreds of additional drivers will create "more traffic hazards" and "more traffic generation" which is specifically not allowed under 1.3.4(A)(3) Addition of Permitted Uses. There are a number of other specific objections that we, the neighbors and families of Parkwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Lake Sherwood have regarding the Regency proposal, but instead ask you, as our elected and hired officials, to look at the bigger picture as articulated above and reject this proposal outright_ Sincerely, Residents of Parkwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Lake Sherwood 2 S�averc�c� 2&13 L--,:�"74k 0t M Kennin�tJ k<^nu�E,ife�,coM a�-1 ( s��Y Do �9 Fo z 5 ,& 9 i» .e; I .Go .,, 14 7,2 51 4e ,"V -'D,)- p s z C O-2nn 0 t e4J i c01c L7 / Z9/Z 51(- izcrtbO F�2 K K7(" :cHal 4cfL 2G 2 y OoR4 oo cov2T 1 ^�cor/r�srlomeS Gd ghoo.cc 171' Ia�N 1.T8.O 42//d iZ f e0 i Page 3 of 3 _ Ka ��rv,acgiC(Cl'tP>�-� • Cam a�� O�C4cc�oC�-• jY.eePtlhS,OCq 2606 Dorado Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 September 13, 2011 City of Fort Collins Attn: Ted Shepard Chief Planner PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Regency at Parkwood Lake Proposal Mr. Shepard, I strongly oppose the Regency at Parkwood Lake Proposal and their request for an Addition of Permitted Use. Low Density encourages stability and protects the residential characteristics of the district. RL promotes and encourages a suitable environment for family life by encouraging stability for the single family homes in low density residential areas. The Proposed Project is to extreme! It surpasses the Low and Medium Density Mixed Use Land Code. The neighborhood would go from single-family detached dwellings where residential district have a minimum lot area the equivalent of three (3) times the total floor area of the building but not less than six thousand (6,000) square feet to a high occupancy/density district. Like living near the Campus only the proposed units are 3 stories instead of 5. It's extra occupancy as there maybe more than four (4) tenants living in an apartment. The area is not close to the campus and no alternative modes of travel. It was mentioned by the developer at the meeting that not all proposed new residents would be driving vehicles. They anticipated foot and bicycle traffic. This is not a good site for more pedestrian traffic as it is often difficult to see them especially during the sun blinding times of day. Please consider Dorado Court. This is already a high traffic U Turn area and the proposed development would lead to more unnecessary and unwanted traffic on our peaceful court. There is no other access to Dorado Court except Drake street. During high traffic times or bad weather, I often view from my living room couch, the east bound Drake traffic backing up past Dorado Court. Adding a right turn lane at Lemay will not be a sufficient solution. It's often difficult for residents of my street to get on to Drake especially if one is making a left turn (going east). Dorado Ct has even less visibility due to the close proximity of the curve. It is impossible to see around the curve, the site under review. Visibility is poor and adding more units to the neighborhood will make it impossible to get out of the court safely. Thank you for your consideration. V/"�aA-40- 0-4- DC(-� Mary Ann Dailey Owner SL��E/h�Jt/2. /hI , ao// rlrt �7Rf✓L= /Nus +�12 C10EN LlN/hl3LC %f�D r/7TEN1� miry e-9 �h�= Liz z iY1 cC�rJ,n/gg f�AA2� SSiNI'- /�,,-y �Ro (��o3tq . , vn�u2r' /o�� 4kZF e /�/t,S�— l ,C-Al 1� Ck- � m ln U N, /re�t L)&4 Y�Ror,,71a �9C c�/NL'vrp. Wltb- cAE7ob mosice'iaN3 o-P As PevfoSBJa USA: iy A j - lRlF �rC Ii�/2�AAr� �� eo✓�'r��'�b writ YJ,=�i �l rS /�,��iLcti up A"OdtN l �h� Ei4sc' �jRral�B t�✓C'�eaNea cv�t�l� � o�le cu�i�'F'ae A,eF %'.ep-NrC Sil,CNaL To c�t�4N�1 —/&``E��e iDn y r <1�.�✓�S �Nb fit �uAFA/7JV' /� o-P PADp(c' .4-0//f ! 11//Ir rnIM Wou�. %r'-�i rv, �ely e�¢uSE 7k.444)ia /Y2oAk E1ns I Jz'1 L= kc" V G /W A USl�4 Qk D � Pe-D p� r 01-VA(a .FR-8 C' IS,2ra /LE -JuS,e /1-s Qi1%GQ, f/�c y�Rr2S f�JrLL Ig.i: �on/E5 UJ Qj��Jce.C'iD.,('% �� ��1U7'v$' � b ��,rs�.0 pint-N� ii✓ ���y w �u�' u�'� j a �i� Pi -a p4R L) 04 F AARe44y &n/S/hr-e1Ne. .lam Ltmw7 To 1(s 1A1 Fo,e dt- Zomzr v-P Ac-"n, dGUi' �Oef�l�o �ov2� _e2�'/(=a��iN3� (:D�o,214Au �aSaS GL(17i. �� C2�-Oc.EY+I—C1 ,Y a V Newton E McDonald 1412 Lakeshore Dr �...�;�' a.: Ax 17'rT. Fort Collins CO 80525 9770 - =3- lo1?C> 5� 0x Sao SE f.�a� fi'►r`, She�o,�d wnk t e& , for mo4e�a-�ny +tie meetings Q bzwi a, Piss ble Add +car, o� 5 1°e; ten',++eol US_R cLmd P%ec}- 6200l�(n9n, R-L Pc t)Poso. Q , , C� c i � wi cn rn 9 x �.� a`�9n�bd , tE 1 s o, o vri c� (-O_e r a CU,Y\-4� o, p 9 mod- R-C, 5vn,cp-�, 40'� R.� September 24). 2011 pp �� 2'6\� Ted Shepard, CHIEF PLANNER CTY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. 580 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mr. Shepard: Thank you for moderating the meetings about a possible Addition of a Permitted Use an Project Development (APUPD). At the Christ Center Community Church. (CCCC). From what I understand this site is currently zoned R-L for single-family dwellings. We as property owners here on Dorado Court understand that the propery will be developed, but wish to STRENUOULV OBJECT to this project based on three (3) factors. a. The inappropriate density for parcel zoned R-L; b.The large amount of traffic it will generate near an already congested intersection; c. The proposed three-story height of all nine buildings. Traffic around the Drake/Lemay intersection is already conjested during morning and afternoon commuting times. Any development will add to this congestion; an overly dense project like the proposed APUPD will just make congestion and the 1 likelihood of increased accidents even worse. We implore the City — planners zoning boards and other applicable departments not to allow development of this parcel that is incompatible with the existing R-L zoning and the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Please stand with us and insist that any development of this land be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and existing R-L zoning. Sincerely, Helen Rodriguez, owner 2612 Dorado Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 Page 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: Paul DuChateau [duchateau.paul@gmail.com] ?10 Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 12:27 PM AGO �4 . To: sdush@fcgove.com; Ted Shepard; Lisa Poppaw; City Leaders Subject: Regency project To whomever has the power to do something: I am writing this letter to add my voice to those of my neighbors who share my outrage at the building project proposed for our neighborhood by the Regency corporation. As you are by now well aware, this project would place a high density apartment complex in the midst of a low density residential neighborhood. This project is so far from falling within the parameters of low density zoning that to grant an exception allowing the building to proceed would set a precedent that would render meaningless the zoning restrictions in every future dispute. If this project is permitted to go forward, what possible reason could be cited to stop any proposed project in the city of Fort Collins no matter how outrageously it violates zoning principles. In addition to the zoning issue, this proposal would contribute significant additional traffic load to what is already one of the worst bottlenecks in the city at the intersection of Drake and Lemay. Finally, the Regency developers appear to be ignoring drainage issues for this property. All the properties bordering the church land would be adversely affected by the loss of the drainage area that would result if this project is built. For all of these reasons, I am asking you to make use of your authority to prevent this project from going forward. Paul DuChateau 2713 Brookwood Drive 9/26/201 I i " ) li ') 75{2 v e'9c,--VSo rl 140 I Aol Ii nI Wood `one Leon 14o i Ro11 La,.L� $os2S S hdl 6.o2y Pe CA4/6: T Z ,,�Z71P /<�)I,-2 f U1 T C azlltlI ce) eoSz S- S, CA4,6 // Ao waD ,p Fr. *szs %4rr Kc,oAj Le L.Ji S -2707 B�L-Lk� C�, Fl-, Ca 11on 5, Co 16515 Approval Of The Regency Development Plan Would Further Increase Already Poor Traffic Conditions Of additional concern is the amount of traffic that would be generated by the Regency proposal. Currently, as residents of Lake Sherwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Parkwood, it is difficult to impossible to make a left-hand turn out of our neighborhoods onto Drake or Lemay during peak hours of traffic in the mornings and evenings. Currently, the intersection of Drake and Lemay is rated a "D" pursuant to the City's "Tuning" studies. Its rating is one of the worst in the city, rivaling College and Drake as one of the worst in town. To make matters worse, the intersection of Drake and Lemay has the unique characteristic of being located on a curve that runs East-West. This curve makes visibility entering Drake (from Brookwood Ave. or Dorado Ct.) from our neighborhoods increasingly difficult and dangerous. It does not take a traffic study for us to know that adding 238 dwelling units on that intersection, some with up to three bedrooms per unit, will adversely effect traffic generation and hazards. Common sense dictates that adding hundreds of additional drivers will create "more traffic hazards" and "more traffic generation" wtdch is specifically pot allowed under 1.3.4(A)(3) Addition of Permitted Uses. There are a number of other specific objections that we, the neigh Fors and families of Parkwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Lake Sherwood have regarding the :regency proposal, but instead ask you, as our elected and hired officials, to look at the bigger picture as articulated above and reject this proposal outright. Sincerely, Residents of Parkwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Lake Sherwood /;6 ' e W4 Cl!,) &,�_ &,-a �jC�r(�� �� zip /3� � 4S' 7c6 6ebawrccD ©P. �-7co �t,ak�o�DG� j7c�7/ft t, L/r <'e:,,9-Pt75n3"t� �aa( Page 3 of 3 l� ic.e9 "40 interpret a High Density apartment complex as conforming to the "basic characteristics" of a Low Density neighborhood. Such an interpretation would make the words Low Density meaningless, and allow the "Addition of Permitted Uses" section to swallow the basic structure and purpose of the distinct zoning uses as specified in the Land Use Code. This common sense approach does not even begin to address the other objectionable issues created from the Regency proposal, such as the increased light intensity from a large parking lot located adjacent to our homes, a loss of desirable views of the foothills, increased noise, increased traffic and a myriad of other issues which would clearly be against the Land Use Code, as specifically noted in Section 3.5.1 (Building and Project Compatibility) and again as required under 1.3.4. Additionally, an interpretation of the "Addition of Permitted Uses" which would allow for a High Density proposal such as the "Regency" within an R-L zone would not only endanger the character of the current R-L zones within Fort Collins but create a dangerous precedent which future developers would use to force the granting of such proposals. Should our City find that the Regency proposal meets all the reQuired findings of Section 1.3.4, Addition of Permitted Uses, this finding would surely be used in an attempt to force other similar projects to be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Board as conforming with the requirements specified under 1.3.4 (A). Any other determination by the Board, when faced with similar circumstances, would lead to an arbitrary interpretation of the law and lead to both claims of political favoritism and potential law suits. For example, during the week of September 12, 2011, the Coloradoan ran multiple stories in which developers were seeking to create more apartment complexes between the boundaries of Drake and Old Town. One such article discussed a proposal to raze two single-family homes at 1305 and 1309 Shields in order to build five 3-story apartment buildings (see Another Proposal, September 13, 2011). One could envision a situation similar to the one reported by the Coloradoan in which residential homes are purchased for the purpose of razing them to the ground and building larger, more profitable apartments where there once stood family neighborhoods. And the acceptance of a High Density apartment complex in a Low Density Residential Zone would lead the way to such development. Our City does have areas which are proper for development of apartment complexes. The Coloradoan also reported that CSU plans to build a residential dorm for 600 students (see CSU Freshman, September 15, 2011) and that there is a proposal to add 300 apartments on the comer of N. College and Maple (see McWhinney Eyes Vacant Block 23, September 13, 2011). Clearly CSU can build a dormitory on their property and it would appear that the McWhinney project is within a zone appropriate to such development. These, along with the current approval of the Grove, are examples of developments that conform with their zoning requirements and do not require the "slash and burn" approach that would occur if our City begins to approve High Density Apartments within Low Density Residential neighborhoods. Page 2 of 3 September 28, 2011 TO: Lisa Poppaw, District Council Member, William Stockover, P&Z Board Chair Andy Smith, P&Z Board Vice -Chair David Lingle, P&Z Board Member Brigitte Schmidt, P&Z Board Member John Hatfield, P&Z Board Member Jennifer Carpenter, P&Z Board Member Gino Campana, P&Z Board Member CC: Steve Dush, DRC Director; Ted Shepard, Chief Planner; Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor; Darin Atteberry, City Manager; Lisa Evans, Regency Residential Partners Dear City Representatives, We are writing you concerning the latest developmental proposal for 2700 S. Lemay Avenue known as the "Regency at Parkwood Lake." This development seeks to build multi -family dwellings in the fields adjacent to the homes in the Lake Sherwood and Silverwood Village neighborhoods. Specifically, the Regency proposal is to build nine 3-story apartment buildings containing 238 dwelling units, multiple parking garages and a parking lot for 381 parking spaces. We are writing you to ask that this proposal be rejected for multiple reasons. This area is zoned specifically as Low Density Residential (R-L). The Regency proposal meets the zoning characteristics of a High Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (H-M-N). They propose to have these nine building placed on 9 of the 11 acres they seek to develop, creating a density of over 21 dwelling units per acre. As you know, the R-L zoning does not allow = multi -family residences and thus specifies it as a "prohibited use" pursuant to Land Use Code 4.4 (C). Not only is the Regency proposal not allowed in the R-L zone, it's density is beyond maximum limits of a Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre) and questionable as to whether this proposal would be allowed in a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. As the Land Use Code specifies, H-M-N specifically allows for multi -family dwellings with a density over 20 units per acre. This is what the Regency is seeking and it does not belong in an area zoned as R-L such as our neighborhood. We understand that recent amendments to the Land Use Code, specifically Section 1.3.4, allows for the "Addition of Permitted Uses" within an existing zone. However, it would appear that making an exception of this magnitude within an R-L zone would be an extreme interpretation of the rile. Pursuant to the "Addition of Permitted Uses," the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board would have to find that the Regency proposal is: (1) appropriate in the zone district; (2) conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district; and among other requirements, (3) would not create additional noise, dust, heat, odor, glare, traffic generation, traffic hazards, or adverse effects on safety or aesthetics. Common sense would tell us that an area zoned Low Density was meant to have the character of low de sn Syr -it-is difficult to beli e that our City Representatives would CPage 1 of 3 �� Ted Shepard From: Doug Vander Wilt [unsearchable@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 8:42 AM To: Lisa Poppaw Cc: Steve Dush; Ted Shepard; Peter Barnes; lisa@regencyres.com; Mark Kenning; andyfishiewis@comcast.net Subject: Regency at Parkwood Lake development proposal input Attachments: regency2O110928.pdf Im 1 regency20110928.p df (994 KB) Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board, Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Council Member, I am writing on behalf of at least 52 residents of Parkwood, Silverwood Village, Eastborough and Lake Sherwood neighborhoods in Fort Collins. Our attached letter is requesting that the City of Fort Collins reject the "Regency at Parkwood Lake" development proposal which is, to our knowledge, still in process. Together we have attended city meeetings regarding this proposal, done extensive research of the land use code and compared the proposal with other projects within our city. While we are prepared to provide more information if needed, the focus of this letter is on the following important issues 1. High Density Apartments Should Not Be Allowed In Low Density Residential Neighborhoods 2. Approval Of The Regency Development Plan Would Create Dangerous Precedent 3. Approval Of The Regency Development Plan Would Further Increase Already Poor Traffic Conditions A paper copy of the letter with original signatures is being sent to the Planning & Zoning board in care of Steve Dush. Also note that multiple copies of page 3 and its back sides are attached which include signatures. (Attached: <<regency20llO928.pdf>> is 3 page letter with 5 additional signature pages for a total of 8 pages) Please confirm that the attached letter has been received and will be utilized in the development review process. Thanks for you consideration, Doug Vander Wilt 2719 Brookwood Drive Fort Collins, CO 60525 970-797-2577 • doug.vanderwilt@gmail.com 1 Ile i i ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Extremely unattractive housing in a congested area adversely affecting all adjoining neighborhoods, north, south, east and west. This includes line of site degredation from any direction and any angle. So, it's all there. Increased noise and crime, traffic and traffic issues, lowering of housing values, and an obvious adverse impact on the environment of Parkwood. Question is, of course, does the City care. Of the last ten City projects that were cosidered by the City, all ten were approved and the city went ahead with the projects, even though some of them were "very contentious" to the public, The City didn't back off once. (Source: Ted Shepard). Further, the residents of Parkwood previously had a similar experience when the City proposed to build a facility for "the disadvantaged" (The Integrity Center) at this same location several years ago. That had great opposition from Parkwood (though less than this current proposal) and the City ignored the public input. That Center was not built because the City and the developer disagreed on a technicality involving "sales" by the Center (Source: Ted Shepard). The developer stated that they have had previous conversations with the City and the City had already said it would permit this use of the land. Hmmm? Yet, Ted Shepard said this is a "neutral process" totally dependent upon public input and City review procedures. Shepard also stated that another housing project is planned several blocks away (at Drake and Timberline - low-cost housing). Gee! What about the environment there and the impact of that additional X number of people and X number of cars on the development at Lemay and Drake. So, it appears to the Parkwood residents that there is every reason to reject this proposal, although the above would indicate that may not be the case, especially considering the City is considering another housing project close to the one that is discussed here. The Parkwood residents, of course, believe that the City as already ignored it's own zoning regulations for this area which state that `This zone normally does not allow MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING as a permitted use." (Source: Ted Shepard). So, it is now for us all to learn if the City will also ignore its own Section 1.3.2 of it's planning criteria. Future issue - Residents vs Officeholders? §h N Owen, Parkwood Planning Group 1240 Redwood, FTC b. When residents stated the population density is too high, the developer said we can't reduce the number of units to be built because they won't make enough money. Ahl The profit motive again. Seems to us not a good reason to destroy a community. c. The units will be rented for whatever the developer can get. (Quality of life issue?) d. People renting these apartments will fall in love with Parkwood and will want to buy our houses. So, what are the objections of the Parkwood Community. It should seem very obvious to anyone who is familiar with Parkwood. For example MUCH TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND RELATED SAFETY CONCERNS: The intersection of Drake and LeMay is a mess now. I have a dented fender as evidence. Also, it is difficult to enter East Drake or West Drake from any feeder roads at present. We were advised that the City Traffic Dept can do wonderful things (Source: Ted Shepard), but, if so, why is the LeMay - Drake intersection such a mess at present. The City frequently works on it. The City hasn't even responded to my requests (each of the last 3 years) to fix a broken culvert in the neighborhood. LOWERING OF HOUSING VALUES: No one can review this proposal and not realize that a rental housing facility of this type will lower property values in this community. And, this is coming at a time when we are already dealing with a low housing market. Ted Shepard advised that the City is not interested in this. Be Honest! This type of housing is low-cost housing, which brings truth to the rumors we have heard over the past years that Parkwood is to be the City's sacrifice area. And, as reported in the Coloradoan and on KCOL Radio 600, the Mayor's main platform plank when running for the job was to assure the building of low-cost housing. INCREASED CRIME: These units are not likely to attract the family community atmosphere that now exists in the Parkwood area, where neighborhoods are close knit and friendly. And, residents are adamant. We will absolutely not accept an increase in crime in these neighborhoods. We are capable of defending ourselves and of policing the streets if need be, but we prefer to keep the very low level of crime that now exists. Our houses can become fortresses, but we would prefer not to take that step either. IMPACT ON CITY POLICE: That many people crammed into a small area made up of very small housing units will undoubtedly impact the local police. If you know anything about group dynamics, you know such community projects have a reputation for becoming a tinderbox. It is rare now to see a police car in Parkwood. That will change. This proposed housing will impact the police. DISRUPTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: Considering the above, is it likely that neighborhood behavior will need to change. Just the very frequent neighborhood morning and evening "walks" by neighborhood elderly and children will be impacted. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Board of FTC City Hall 300 LaPorte Ave, PO Box 580 Ft Collins, CO 80522-0580 91150<"/ Subject: Proposal to the City of Ft Collins for the Housing Development called "Regency at Parkwood Lake" by Century Communities Corp. of California - Parent Company of Regency Residential Properties of Denver. The City of Ft Collins criteria for accepting or rejecting the subject proposal is as follows: "Such use does not create any more OFFENSIVE NOISE, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare OR OTHER OBJECTIONABLE INFLUENCES or any more TRAFFIC HAZARDS, TRAFFIC GENERATION, OR ATTRACTION, ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ADVERE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC OR QUASI -PUBLIC FACILITIES, UTILITIES, OR SERVICES, ADVERSE EFFECT ON PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, morals, OR AESTHETICS, etc. etc. etc." (Source: Ted Shepard -City Planner.) You certainly can understand why the Parkwood community, as a whole, expressed deep objection to this proposal at two well -attended public meetings on this subject 16 August and 31 August 2011. Not one voice favored this project, and many voices were extremely vocal in their objections. As the residents said, it is inconceivable that the City of Ft Collins would even consider dumping over 500 people and nearly 400 cars into the churchyard of Christ Community Church at the intersection of LeMay and Drake, already one of the most congested and dangerous intersections in this city. Most cars would not be housed in garages. This proposal consists of rental properties - mostly all one -bedroom units with a few scattered two -bedroom and three -bedroom units. It was stated that no unit will contain over 700 square feet, so presumably, some units will contain less than that. Nine 3-story VERY UNATTRACTIVE buildings are to be constructed in close proximity to one another with grassways in between. A swimming pool was mentioned. Even the Pastor of the Christ Community Church stated to me that he is very concerned about the congestion that will result from this project. It is assumed he will worry all the way to the bank as he is the seller of the property. The motive being money as it is common knowledge that that Church has been in internal discord for some time. The developer, Lisa Evans, representing Regency Residential Properties of Denver, made a completely ludicrous presentation (which brought jeers from the crowd), pointing out the following factors in favor of the project: a. There will not be nearly 400 cars parked at the development because they believe many of the renters will use bicycles. (?). They also said they expected 24-hour a day activity at the housing units. Page 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: johnmskones@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 10:45 PM To: Ted Shepard Subject: The Regency at parkwood lake project Dear Sir: I am writing to express my opposition to this planned multi-famliy project. Allowing a very high density housing project in an area zoned low density makes no sense. I believe this complex will cause the following problems: 1. This project will lower home prices in the surrounding area 2. It will have a negative impact on the traffic congestion at and around the intersection of Drake and Lemay(an intersection already rated a F). 3. It will make it more difficult to get out of both the church parking lot and the Scotch Pines shopping area. Making left out of these areas will be even more dangerous then they are now. 4. This incease in traffic will make it harder to get out of the neighborhood. Making lefts from Brookwood Dr and Centennial Rd on to Drake and Lemay will get more dangerous then it is now. 5. The nature of this complex will increase noise levels in the area at all times of day and night. 6. This project will increase the traffic on Brookwood Dr and Oxborough Ln These streets currently have a lot of foot traffic including children and people walking their dogs. The increase in traffic would pose a danger. 7. 1 also believe that this project will increase crime in the area. I believe there needs to be a compelling reason to allow this addition to the permitted use. I do not see a compelling reason for this complex to be allowed in an area zoned low -density, particularly when there is land available just a mile to the east that is zoned for apartments.) do not see how this project improves the neighborhood. Sincerely John Skones 2819 Middlesborough ct 10/10/2011 I hope the Planning and Zoning Board takes into account the nature of this neighborhood. I work out of my home and it is virtually silent around here all day. There is very little traffic and very little noise. I am very concerned that the high density of this project as well as the construction of it and the potential of up to 300 additional people and cars would be detrimental to the peace, quiet and safety that I experience now. Thank -you for your consideration, Sincerely, r Linda K. Harmon 3012 Eastborough Dr. Fort Collins, Co, 80525 Page ] of 1 Ted Shepard From: Kathryn Dubiel [kidubiel@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 2:43 PM To: Ted Shepard Cc: Paul at home; kidubiel@earthlink.net Subject: Statement from APOs for Regency Lakeview information meeting 2-9-2012 To: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner/City of Fort Collins Current Planning representative for the Regency Lakeview development review process From: Paul Patterson and Kathryn Dubiel, APOs and residents of the Eastborough neighborhood Date: February 9, 2012 RE: Neighborhood information meeting concerning the Regency Lakeview We are unable to attend tonight's information meeting. However, we do want our objection to the Regency Lakeview development to be part of the public record for this meeting. We have studied the elements of the project and buildings as well as the attendant impacts. The Regency Lakeview is a residential development that is not compatible within the context of the surrounding L-M-N area. PINXIIIIINJ Pastor Dave Niquette 2/12 Christ Center Church Lemay - Ft Collins Reference construction of your apartments at Drake and Lemay. I'm aware of your letter of Jan 30th toParkwood Residents. Come on Rev! Give them a break! Your letter sends one clear message. "I want what I want and to hell with the neighbors". First of all, you know as well as they do their Homeowners Association is interested in only one thing - annual dues from residents. So, you know it's a waste to meet with them. Secondly, you know your claim that the project has been downsized is pure bullshit. It was surprising that you mentioned Lisa Evans, Manager of the developer Regency Residential - she clearly made an ass of herself in the last public meeting by demonstrating what an airhead she is in addition to being an obvious liar. Denver residents continue to insist the Regency Residential is a builder of slums - their first hand experience. Thirdly, the building of the right -turn lane on Drake to north -bound Lemay is a dead give-away that the city has always intended to approve your project. You don't think they did it for the Parkwood neighbors, do you? What are you worried about? The Mayor and City Council have a reputation for trying to screw up neighborhoods as long as they don't live in them. When the City Planning Staff shows up at a public meeting you know the City favors whatever project is being discussed. That group couldn't be less like "City Planners" - they are the "Early Warning System for Approved City Projects". Their public meetings are a known waste of time. So, relax! You got it made! If you go ahead and trash the neighborhood, some Parkwood folks have decided to help you do it. What else do you want? But ple?se, Rev! Don't throw the good deeds of the Church around like in that letter. We know your God. It has pictures of Presidents on it and folds to fit into your wallet. Parl*y Baor, Citizens Mouthpiece Observer and Writer of the Ft. Collins City Scene. (I say what others are too polite to say - the PC folks) 44 Estonia - 80526 e. Will there ever be a COMPARATIVE analysis done of the original approved 50 unit housing versus the Regency apartments? We know the choice is not "develop vs non - develop". But the choice IS between the original zoned use of about 50 houses and Regency's proposed apartment complex. Can we request that such an analysis be done? This is the type of information that the Planning and Zoning board, and certainly the City Council should have. It is standard in every Environmental Assessment and EIS I have ever seen (and I have seen nearly 100 and help write more than a dozen). Planning almost always compares a baseline future without change to a proposed change. I look forward to receiving the full list of criteria considered. It would be most useful to get your responses in writing so that they can be shared with others, rather than others getting them second hand from me. But if you need clarification of my comments I will be around the week of June 11-15 h. and should be most available Tuesday the 12`h. Thanks for your consideration of these requests. I know you are busy not only with this project but many others as well (judging by all the yellow signs around the southeast part of town). Sincerely, John B. Loomis 2930 Silverwood Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-226-4052 q May 30, 2012 Ted Shepard, Project Planner City of Fort Collins Ted: Thank you for making available the summary of comments from City staff and others regarding the Regency project. It was informative to read them. As discussed below, I was astounded by what was NOT discussed, particularly given all the public meetings, dozens of flip chart sheets on public concerns, etc. So my fast request is: Can you provide the checklists or criteria City Staff is supposed to use in evaluating projects, especially those that are requesting a "variance, addition of permitted use" or whatever it is called it. It would be helpful to see all the factors. Perhaps the criteria limit the staff to commenting on very small technical details at this time and all the staff can comment on is the color of the buildings, landscaping, existing trees, etc. But I/we would like to see this list. Concerns regarding the overall review comments: This review seems be based on the premise of "how should this project be built", i.e., what factors need to be considered such as color of buildings, wetland plants, bike parking, landscaping, etc. Nowhere did I see anything evaluating the big issues regarding whether this amount of development is appropriate for the site: a. I do not see any staff comments on traffic, crossing of Drake at Brookwood. Is the traffic study not done? When will the staff review that? b. Is this level of density consistent with the capacity of the site, particularly since it was originally zone for about 50 single family homes? How can the same set of criteria set a limit of about 50 single family homes (150 people as an upper bound) and now it can handle twice that many? c. Compatibility with surrounding neighborhood. This is not just a design issue of the size of the buildings next to existing homes. It is a social issue as well. (Please note, my house is not even within 100 yards of this development but this and other issues I raised are still of concern). d. Zoning Comment 42. Not sure what the first part means? There does not seem to be a park within a quarter mile of this development. Is the developer proposing a private park of 10,000 square feet? rid To: Lauri Kadrich, Liaison to P&Z Board From: John Loomis, 2930 Silverwood Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: ency Ap is Drake and Lemay. Date June 11, 2012 I would like to register my opposition to the change of zoning density of this portion of the church property from R-L (approximately 50 single family homes originally approved by the P&Z for this site) to 175 units on just 11 acres —two of which are detention ponds. As discussed below in my letter to Ted Shepard (for which I have yet to receive a response back on from May 30`h), I think there needs to be COMPARATIVE analysis done of the original approved 50 unit housing versus the Regency apartments? We know the choice is not "develop vs non -develop". But the choice IS between the original zoned use of about 50 houses and Regency's proposed apartment complex. While the church should be allowed to develop the property, it should be developed within the capacity of the site. Is this Regency apartments level of density consistent with the capacity of the site, particularly since it was originally zone for about 50 single family homes? How can the same set of criteria set a limit of about 50 single family homes (150 people as an upper bound) and now it can handle four times that many? As a bicycle rider, I am very concerned what the additional traffic on Drake from this project and the Timberline and Drake project will do for crossing Drake on Brookwood. This is the primary way out of our subdivision going north toward Edora park & CSU. It is already very treacherous to cross there, and this project will make it deadly. Please see the attached letter for my particular concerns with the current City Departments review, which focuses far more on what color to paint the buildings and what plants to plant, then on the bigger issues of tripling the number of housing units in a small space next to single family homes (Please note I live three blocks so this is not a NIMBY issue to me, it is a broader neighborhood and City issue). Sincerely, John Loomis 2930 Silverwood Drive Fort Colllins, CO 80525 Page 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: bbkornfeld@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:17 PM To: Ted Shepard; 1 Kadrich@fcgov.com; 1 poppaw@fcgov.com Subject: The Regency Project To My City Officials, Please keep the Drake and Lemay area as it is, that is, an open feel with low density. This intersection still has a nice open feel. Keeping the surrounding neighborhoods low in density will reduce the impact on the entire area as the intersection funnels more and more traffic into the future between Timberline and College and Horsetooth and Prospect as well as into Northern Fort Collins towards the hospital in the years ahead. Open space was something the founding father of Fort Collins highly valued. This is the reason so many of the original streets were so wide, you needed that space to turn a wagon and it's team and it was just plain short sighted to build things too close together. Don't become short sighted now. The area east of the church is not nearly large enough for what they are proposing. Quality of life is something that once it's gone for the people in these neighborhoods, it will be gone forever. Thank you for your time. Bonnie Kornfeld May I please have a return receipt. Again, thank you. 6/13/2012 2. The proposed density of the Regency Lakeview project is consistent with MMN zoning standards. In their APPU (page 3, under 1.3.4), they note that an appropriate transition to R-L would be LMN- type density. So why are they proposing MMN density? Indeed in their submittal letter, they clearly expect to develop to MMN standards (see the "Multi -Family Standards" section). 3. In the APPU (page 4 paragraph 1), Regency asserts that they've worked with the City, church and neighbors to "design a project that complies with the applicable R-L standards." The density and height of buildings do not at all comply with R-L standards. All conversations about R-L type of density that I've had with Regency or the church officials have been dismissed out -of -hand, due to little current demand for such kinds of development. 4. On page 5 of the APPU, paragraph (3) sub paragraph 3, they state that the "Project will improve the environmental condition of the site by reducing the amount of blue grass (sic) and consequently the amount of water needed for irrigation." What is not mentioned that the grass is replaced with parking spaces for 316 automobiles, each emitting carbon monoxide and dripping oils and antifreeze onto the ground, which will end up in the detention pond and eventually in Lake Sherwood! Really, would anybody seriously characterize replacing grass with asphalt as an environmental benefit? 5. On page 6 of the APPU, first bullet point, they state that the site will increase opportunities to use alternative modes of transport (due to infill site location). This benefit is there no matter the level of density; the project itself does not encourage alternative transportation use. And suggesting in the next paragraph that people will take their "large item" castoffs to the church for use at their food and clothing bank instead of tossing them in the dumpster (thereby improving public health) is at best speculation. The church's clothing bank has very limited hours for receiving donations. 6. In the Environmental Health Principles and policies, Regency describes the proposed housing as "...luxury rental housing...," and that recent retirees are a target market (submittal letter page 2), yet there are no elevators in these buildings! How luxury can it be if one has to schlep up two flights of stairs? Will retirees really be attracted to such a property? 7. In the same document, under Policy LIV 26.4, they state that the project is "served by major bus routes, the ease of alternate modes of transportation increases the use of such modes." A search of the Transport website shows that there is no bus service at all along Drake Road, and Lemay is served by only one bus each hour going north and south (route 5) and only six days a week. This hardly describes a "major bus route"!! Sure these are small points, but they point to a larger issue: if Regency will mislead you/us with these statements, how else might they be misleading us about things we don't think to look for? If there were a crying need for apartments in town and no other suitably -zoned parcels available, then perhaps this could be considered in good faith. But there are many new apartment projects being proposed, and many are in appropriately -zoned locations. I ask the City and P&Z board to please protect our neighborhood and the living standards we've come to know over the past 30+ years by rejecting this particular APU, and requiring appropriate density for any future proposals for this parcel. Sincerely, Mark Kenning 2613 Dorado Court 970.204.4352 yo�y 2eE`'• June 11, 2012 TO: Mr. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, City of Fort Collins Ms Laurie Kadrich, Staff support for Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) Ms. Lisa Poppaw; City Council Re: Regency Lakeview — proposed project near Drake and Lemay Hi Ted, Lisa and Laurie! Thank you for encouraging citizen input. Laurie, can you please see that this letter gets into the proper files for the P&Z people? I am writing in opposition to the latest proposal submitted by Regency for development of 11 acres east of the Christ Center Community Church. I appreciate that Ted shared their submittal documents with the neighbors near the project; I've reviewed those documents as well as the minutes from the October 15, 2009 P&Z meeting. You might recall that at that meeting, the P&Z board considered a Church request that their entire - parcel be rezoned to LMN. After a lengthy discussion but before a vote, the Church withdrew their request. Let me be clear that I object to the proposed development based on its density. 175 units on 11 acres (essentially 9 acres since two acres must be devoted to a detention pond) is a jarring contrast in density crammed in next to the adjoining R-L (3-4 dwellings per acre) neighborhoods. It can't help but negatively impact the existing residents. While I wish the field could remain a small park, I recognize that development is going to happen. I respectfully ask that the City protect long-time adjacent neighbors by holding the church and any partners they may contract with to the promises - expressed and implied - that have been made to neighbors over the years. We've understood that R-L zoning was in place, and (grudgingly) accept that development within those standards is now inevitable. As to this particular proposal, I ask that the City and P&Z consider these points: 1) This development is NOT at an arterial intersection. It borders only on Drake - not Lemay - and the bulk of the development does not even front on Drake. The church retains ownership and control of all land fronting on Lemay and the majority of the land fronting on Drake. To characterize Regency as a development at a major arterial intersection in order to justify density consistent with a theoretical MMN zoning that the entire site might have is erroneous. 2) Regency implies that the parcel retained its RL zoning due to a "unfortunate oversight" (final paragraph, submittal letter) on the part of the church administration and the City. In fact, Ted Shepard explained to the P&Z board at their October 2009 meeting that an informed decision was made by the Church at that time to retain the RL zoning (see page 10 of the minutes). To suggest that Regency is helping to rectify a past mistake is plain not true. Were the entire parcel were being developed (and rezoned MMN), it's likely that any approved plan would have the higher density buildings set closer to the arterial streets, with lower density dwellings transitioning to the existing neighborhoods. Thus it makes sense that any development of this particular infill parcel should follow that pattern, and include only lower -density housing adjacent to the single- family neighborhoods that border it. 3) I've successfully run a sales business for nearly 17 years. We salesmen often use puffery to make our products sound wonderful — and that's OK, provided we don't use it to obscure facts. I believe that the Regency submittal contains puffery that obscures facts: 1. in their Petition for Addition of Permitted Use (APPU), Regency states that the P&Z board supported more intense uses for this parcel. If one carefully reads the minutes of the 10/15/09 meeting, what little support they expressed for intense development was in context of redeveloping the entire 23 acre parcel. They were much more protective (pages 10 and 11) of the eastern portion that Regency has proposed developing. June 12, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board, City of Fort Collins Members of the Board: I am writing to express my opposition to the project proposed by Regency Residential Partners for the development of the eleven acre parcel located to the east of the Christ Center Community Church on Drake and Lemay. As you are probably aware, the proposed project is for a high density multi -family development to be placed in a neighborhood that is zoned as a low density residential area. The developer would like to appeal to the section of the Land Use Code known as "Addition for permitted use" in order to circumvent the zoning infraction. I have examined each of the ten applications for such a variance since the APU process was established in 2008. Roughly half of these were approved; most of those with modifications, and none involved variance anywhere near as drastic as what the Regency project envisions. The proposed development is more than four times the density that is allowed under the current zoning and there is no provision for suitable transition to the existing neighborhoods. Others have written to enumerate the various negative consequences of allowing this project to proceed. These include traffic and drainage issues, reduction of property values for adjacent homes as well as numerous others. In my opinion these reasons simply illustrate the point of the zoning concept, to provide a framework for planning a coherent community as opposed to chaotic unregulated development. If the Planning and Zoning Board were to approve this request for "Addition for permitted use", it would establish a precedent that would render the zoning concept essentially meaningless. I urge the board to reject this proposal on those grounds and to preserve Fort Collins as the excellent community it is now and should continue to be in the future. Respectfully, Paul DuChateau Page 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: cravenschlag@r-omcast.net Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 1:22 PM To: City Leaders Cc: Ted Shepard Subject: Regency Development for Christ Church Attention: City Leaders As homeowners of 2619 Dorado Ct. in the Lake Sherwood subdivision, we wish to express our concerns over the development plan submitted by Regency Residential Partners for the Christ Community Church property adjacent to ours. The proposed development exceeds the low density zoning designation given to this area of town. The low density residential district R-L designation was upheld again in City Plan as of Feb. 15, 2011. Regency has asked the city to overturn or make an exception to its 25-year City Plan in the interest of making a profit. If the City makes an exception for this development, it will seriously undermine years of community planning and public comment and set a precedent that could jeopardize the future vision of Fort Collins. City Plan does identify areas within the city for developments such as the one proposed by Regency, but this is not one of those locations for good reason. The surrounding roadway infrastructure at Drake and Lemay cannot handle this level of increased development due to the existing low density development and the newer high density development near Timberline and Drake. Property values will be negatively impacted due to the loss of views, open space, and ease of travel. The proposed development currently serves as a neighborhood park as there is not one located within our square mile of development; the loss of that use will also severely impact property values within Lake Sherwood. Decreased property values typically leads to non -owner occupied residences, un-kept properties, and the depletion of school aged children to support our neighborhood schools. The only winners in this proposal would be the Christ Church and Regency. We wish to register a strong NO to this Regency project on Christ Church property. We really can't understand why the city would even consider this project considering the impact on all the established neighborhoods which have been there for so many years and allowed a great environment for families to raise their children, not to mention make an exception to the years and years of planning and public comment. Why not have the church sell the property to the city for a neighborhood park to continue the long accustomed use of this property if it must be sold? This would benefit a larger number of people in the long run. With great concern, Ralph and Cheryl Ravenschlag Ph. 970-223-0664 6/15/2012 " G*n City Structure Plan CoWns rL111. For, cams eounAa.msDomrs 1 .�1 Cram uMA de lbMna.n [M0n POIMCLLGMaeyMlYpn 0J Car.nurriry CanrnuM P.n•_I �004 dyfiYa T+ fiw'..M �M.AO. [au.. Lf M1.+o n.s• T Meo^.r•rrnw co-..r.rr Nn,.:i aNLfMtMWM.O rrIY. � dMpM dMIS1 4F eP.rr.Mm dM.<+ Mwrr drn Mslaneornoo0s E9Yta Cort eani U�Wn L.w Cpnniurrry$grwy •. f "lw+n Pen. wq VMn CrmrM. Ia U.nM Mi.IfUM Loo1M1. � L`rxMaPmr CorWrr M.ru.. [}nuh Y..J W. RwM IMM. �•Lrrnrrcee l�wM Cniea ifrvMi ! Figure LIV 3 •ptyYJ F.bI re !ml M1�110.e F. l6 2011 PYrYY W w m11 Addition of Permitted Uses section, the Board should deny the Regency request to build an apartment complex in a Low Density Residential neighborhood. The Regency development is not one which would have little to no impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, and the Addition of Permitted Use should not be allowed. Additionally, such an unpredictable change, in direct contradiction to the City Structure Plan Map, would erode the community's confidence in our City officials and their interpretation of City Structure Plan Map and the intended implementation of the Addition of Permitted Uses section. Sincerely, Andrew Lewis 2707 Brookwood Court Fort Collins, CO ' http://www.fcgov.com/advancentanning/studenthousing.t)ht), Student Housing Action Plan, Development Projects List, June 28, 2012. "htty://citvdocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=show related&vid=72&dt=SUMMARY+AGENDA&rid=June +3%2C+2008, Agenda for City Council meeting June 3, 2008, First Reading of Ordinance No.73, pages 11-14 of 39, Staff Report. "' http://ciI3docs fcgov com/?vid=17&cmd=search&scone=doctvve&dt=MINUTES&q=JUN-03- 2008, City Council Minutes, June 3, 2008, Page 19 of 26. '" City Plan Fort Collins, February 15, 2011, pg. 9. "City Plan Fort Collins, February 15, 2011, pg. 66. and soccer fields which the Church has been renting to the Storm Soccer Club for the past year. The Regency's proposed use would be to add 175 dwelling units, thus increasing the hours of use, traffic, lighting, evening and nighttime noise and have other unwanted impacts on the neighbors. This sort of change is not predictable and unfairly impacts the neighbors that live here and have relied upon the Land Use Code as an assurance that the place they choose to live would remain a peaceful and private neighborhood. City Structure Plan Man: a euide for future development and zonine decisions Just one year ago, on February 15, 2011, the City of Fort Collins adopted its most recent City Plan. This comprehensive plan was created after input from city officials and the community to "provide direction for the vision for the next 25 years and beyond."" As part of this vision, a City Structure Plan Map was approved and adopted. See attached City Structure Plan Map, from the City Plan, page 71. As stated: "The City Structure Plan Map provides direction about how the City will change over time — how to grow, where to develop, and how to shape growth so that it benefits overall quality of life. It focuses primarily on the physical form and development pattern of the City, serving as a blueprint for the community's desired future. The City Structure Plan Map provides a geographic depiction of how these City Plan Principles and Policies are to be applied throughout the City. Page 68 of the City Plan discusses the application of the City Structure Plan Map and indicates that the City Structure Plan Map "establishes the desired development pattern for the City, serving as a blueprint for the community's desired future." It further states that it represents "a guide for future land use" and "guidance for future zoning decisions." A review of the City Structure Plan Map shows us that this particular area has been designated for future use as "Low Density Mixed -Use." A review of the Land Use Code, reveals that under this designation, the maximum units allowed in a multifamily dwelling is 8 units, with a maximum of 9 dwelling units per acre. The Regency proposal does not fit within the "low density" criteria and greatly exceeds it in both the number of units per dwelling and the overall density allowed per acre. Since predictability is a goal of our City, and the City Structure Plan Map is to be used as guidance for "future land use" and "zoning decisions" it is clear that the Regency development proposal is not one which should be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Acceptance of this proposal would be in direct contradiction the City Structure Plan Map, and eliminate any predictability and guidance for which it was created. Conclusion In adopting the amendment to the Addition of Permitted Uses section, there was concern that predictability would suffer at the cost of flexibility. The Staff contended that introducing such flexibility in limited situations would not reduce predictability and would not undermine the City Plan or the City Structure Plan Map. The examples given showed that it could be used to allow a change in current use in circumstances where there would be little to no consequence to the surrounding community. Further, the City Structure Plan Map is the guide for future land use and future zoning decisions. That Map specifically designates this particular piece of land as Low Density Mixed -Use. Given these guiding principles and the intended purpose of the be an acceptable use of land. However, with predictability came a level of inflexibility concerning new emerging uses or changing market conditions." To address this inflexibility, an amendment to the Addition of Permitted Uses was proposed. In support of the proposed amendment, the Staff contended "that introducing flexibility, on a limited basis via the Addition of a Permitted Use, does not come at the expense of predictability" and that it "will not undermine" the City Plan and the Structure Plan Map. As an example of why the amendment was needed, the Staff gave examples of proposals in which houses, located on arterial intersections and operating "small businesses that may fit the specific property" are not allowed because the use would be inappropriate to allow throughout the entire zone district. The Staff specifically listed eight different properties by way of example: (1) a drug and alcohol treatment center to be used as a group home, child care center or small private high school; (2) a large nursing home attracting uses that would exceed the maximum allowable clients for the zone; (3) a wholesale distribution center that had to be vacated because it was no longer allowed in the area as zoned; (4) a building used by a sheet metal contractor could not be changed to allow whole sale distribution; (5) a single family home with a detached office on a nine acre plot, located next to railroad tracks and a shopping center, which had to reject proposals because they would slightly exceed the Home Occupation Limits; (6) a single family home on the comer of Taft and Harmony was denied becoming a bicycle repair shop; (7) a preexisting home fronting Prospect that had been used as a machine shop and transitioned to a small company that restores homes after flood and fire damage would no longer be allowed in that zone; (8) a preexisting home that had been used by a photographer operating a home business and transitioning to other small business related activities that would no longer be allowed under the area as zoned. Of note, each of these examples are of preexisting properties being used as businesses and, due to a change in zoning or a change in use which would have "few" to no consequence on the surrounding community, could no longer be used in that location as zoned. The Staff ended the proposal with this: the proposed revision would provide for a reasonable approach that would allow properties with unique attributes to be eligible for a wider range of land uses subject to conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Board" and "would allow existing buildings to adapt to changing market conditions over the life of the structure." Based on these Staff comments, we can see that the stated goals of the amendment was to allow some flexibility to the Addition of Uses without sacrificing predictability and without undermining the City Plan and City Structure map. In fact, this concern for predictability was reiterated by council member Kelly Ohlson, who in comment to the proposal stated that City Plan "was developed to provide predictability to developers and neighborhoods" and questioned whether allowing such additions not currently allowed on a particular parcel might remove the predictability provided by the City Plan."' Indeed, Mr. Ohlson's concern for predictability would seem to be at the heart of the development Regency is requesting: allow an apartment complex with three story buildings and a density of 16 units per acre to be placed into an area zoned as Low Density Residential and directly adjacent to single family homes. Was this the intent of the passage of the amendment to the Addition of Uses section? Is this dramatic change predictable? Surely not. Taking the examples given by the Staff as to potential uses for the Addition of Permitted Uses and comparing them to the Regency proposal leaves no doubt. In the examples, a current use would have been modified to a slightly different use with little impact to the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, there is no existing building and under the Regency proposal they would be adding multiple 2 and 3 story buildings onto the property. Similarly, the current use of the property is as a place to play sports. There currently exits a baseball diamond 06w,� 9I,,q iv June 28, 2012 TO: Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Council Member, Andy Smith, P&Z Board Chair Gino Campana, P&Z Board Vice Chair -Member Jennifer Carpenter, P&Z Board Member John Hatfield, P&Z Board Member Kristin Kirkpatrick, P&Z Board Member Brigitte Schmidt, P&Z Board Member Butch Stockover, P&Z Board Member CC: Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director; Ted Shepard, Chief Planner; Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor; Darin Atteberry, City Manager Dear City Representatives, I am writing to you concerning the upcoming planning and zoning hearing concerning the development project known as the Regency Lakeview. This project is seeking to put apartment complexes on the 11 acres adjacent to the Sherwood Lake neighborhood located along Brookwood Drive and Drake. Currently, this 11 acre parcel, located between the Christ Center Community Church and single family homes, is a grassy field which has been traditionally been used for playing soccer, flag football and baseball. The Regency is seeking to build 175 units on adjacent to this neighborhood even though the lot in question is specifically zoned as Low Density Residential. The Regency is asking the City to approve this project as an Addition of Permitted Uses pursuant to the Land Use Code § 1.3.4. While I believe that a medium density apartment complex (at 16 units per acre, this would be more than double the minimum density of 7 units per acre listed for developments under 20 acres as listed in a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood) is not "appropriate in the zone district" and that it would increase negative factors above an "amount normally resulting from other permitted uses listed in the zone district," thus disqualifying this project based on the requirements of § 1.3.4(A)(1-5), the focus of this letter is to address the history behind the adoption of the Addition of Permitted Uses and its role within the City Plan of Fort Collins. What was the purpose or goal behind the Addition of Permitted Uses? Was it intended to be used in such drastic fashion? Wouldn't the acceptance of this proposal run counter to decisions already made by the City, not only in zoning this area as Low Density Residential, but contrary to future expectations and the desire for predictability? Currently, the City has under review 20 different development projects to build 2,741 units.' Why should this project, at a location which is not zoned for apartment complexes, be allowed? Those are questions I sought to answer for myself and now seek to share with you. Adoption of the Amendment to the Addition of Permitted Uses, July 2008: Predictability v. Flexibility The current form of the Addition of Permitted Uses was adopted in July, 2008. A review of the Staff Report concerning the amendment to the then pre-existing Addition of Permitted Uses section indicated that goal of the Land Use Code was predictability concerning what would To: Mr. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, City of Fort Collins my 5, 2012 1 Ms. Laurie Kadrich, Staff support for Planning & Zoning Board Ms. Lisa Poppaw, City Council I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed Regency Lakeview project near the corner of Drake and Lemay. The area in question is zoned for Low -Density Residential use. This designation was included and approved as part of the recently adopted City Plan and City Structure Plan. The proposed apartment complex clearly does not fit in the R-L zoning. The applicant's petition for Addition of Permitted Use (APU) is also not appropriate. An apartment complex does not conform to the basic characteristics of the zone district and it does create more offensive noise, other objectionable influences and traffic generation than low -density residential development. A reading of Planning and Zoning Board minutes finds that APU has been used when a change in use of an existing structure is requested. The City Plan states that even proposed improvements of other compatible uses are limited by the extent that they reinforce, and do not detract, from the primary low density, residential function of the neighborhoods. While APU does provide the City with flexibility in implementing the City Plan, it is not intended as a way to get around the plan. The City Plan has a process for review and amendment. I live on Dorado Court, on the east side of the proposed project. While I might not be aware of this project if it wasn't abutting my backyard, I am also a resident of the City of Fort Collins and I have interest in the overall development plans for my "home town." Change and growth are a part of life in Fort Collins, including infill. I do not believe that means that every development that can be wedged into a lot should be! This corner is still zoned R-L. It is not part of the city "spine" and is not targeted for immediate infill development. At the time of the adoption of current plan, the area residents were told that the lot on the corner would remain R-L for the present. Can residents not rely on the plan of the City Plan? Because of the mis-fit of the project with the R-L zoning and the mis-application of the APU, I urge the Planning and Zoning Board to deny this project. Sincerely, Diane Kenning 2613 Dorado Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80525 970.204.4352