Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDTAIL RESIDENTIAL - PDP - 26-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - (19)May we get together in the next day or two, in your office would be fine. Or wherever you suggest. You may reach me at 226-5000, or 377-1133. Thanks. b erelProuty JP/hlb P.S. My consultants are not all back in town until this week, therefore I have asked Troy to set up the mega -meeting that you (and Cam) have suggested for the following week, the week of September 16cn P.P.S. I look forward to lunch with you on Thursday. I'll stop by at 11:45. I hope that clarifies our reasoning on this. d. The second clarification relates to garage door requirements. We were hopeful that the excellent architectural and design features of our buildings, and in particular their front facades in which the garage doors become subordinate to such features, would justify our modification request. If you drive over and look at one of the Promontory or Landings Bay buildings, I think you may find this to be the case. So my clarification is that we will look at the idea of recessing the garages as an alternative to requesting a modification for this. 7. The complexity of the project is daunting. While there are existing platted lots, this is not the correct solution for this property, I believe. Numerous factors have complicated the project and caused changes and delays, including: a) physical constraints, b) single point of access, c) difficulty in solving water looping problem, d) difficulty in solving second point of emergency access problem, e) the difficulty of wetlands / natural areas impact and mitigation, f) change over the course of the project from part office to part affordable -in -perpetuity housing for purchase, g) the subsequent change to free market housing, h) the elimination of major walkway spines, and i) the change of streets from private to public. 8. So with such a complex project it is easy for all of us to lose the "thread" of the project over the course of two years, i.e., where it started, where it was originally, how it evolved, where it is now. 9. Engineering company disaster. Although JR Engineering has done several successful projects for us over the last 10 years, including the very complicated Horseshoe Lake project in Loveland, unfortunately our experience with JR on this project has not been satisfactory in my view. Please accept my apologies for the shortcomings of their engineering work. Perhaps they grew too big too fast. They experienced some major internal management problems. Two of the most competent engineers with whom we had worked left. And we are on our third project manager and are still getting unsatisfactory results, as you are painfully aware. I have a meeting scheduled this week with Dieter Upton, the president of Westrian in Denver,. the parent company which owns all the JR Engineering companies. I will request that he apologize personally to Cam McNair for the unsatisfactory quality of their work and will request a shake up and / or new personnel at JR to get this project expeditiously completed with attention to detail and without so many errors. 10.1 have a couple of other comments, Cameron, which I prefer not to put in writing, but would like to share with you not just for the benefit of this project but with an eye to specific problems in the overall process, in the overall system. provides, I think, the road map to reasonable solution of all problems and then approval for this project. 6. Our third submittal responded to the guidance provided. Most significantly we eliminated all major walkway spines and changed all streets from private to public (resulting in less green space). However there are two errors and two clarifications relating to our submittal which are in order: a. We neglected to show on our plans the emergency access easement between Fossil Boulevard and Coronado Court through the parking lot, which was requested. Please condition approval on this and we will make the correction. b. We neglected to include the necessary modification for use of multi- purpose courtyards in front of buildings for connectivity from the building and entrance to connecting walkways and will provide this to you ASAP. As you may recall, the need for and language relating to this type of modification was used successfully both in our Promontory and Landings Bay mixed -use projects, and in both cases our requested modifications received P&Z approval. c. The first clarification is with regard to the construction of a `ledge" on property owned by the railroad to the west of the northernmost pond. It is impossible for us to construct this off -site improvement because we do not own the property, nor does the City own the property or have an easement to same. While the City is negotiating with the railroad for easements from the railroad for the Mason Street Transportation Corridor, this complex legal work has not been completed. We believe it would not be fair for the City to require our project to be contingent upon building a "ledge" for a potential bike / ped connecting path between the future planned Fossil Creek bike / ped path and the future planned Mason Street Transportation Corridor south terminus, because there are too many related contingencies beyond our control. Furthermore, should not this off -site improvement for the benefit of the public at large not be paid for from Parks Department or Transportation Corridor funds rather than the developer, just because the developer happens to be adjacent? Accordingly, what we have proposed in our last submittal was to provide the City with a three-year letter of credit for an amount as agreed for our contribution to the construction of this "ledge" to be designed and built by the City in the future as part as the Fossil Creek bike / ped path and / or the Mason Street Transportation Corridor projects. Lagunitas Companies 3944 JFK Parkway, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-226-5000 • fax 970-226-5125 September 9, 2002 Cameron Gloss, Director Current Planning City of Fort Collins P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Redtail / A Few Summary Comments Dear Cameron: 1. This project is at two years now. While we all wish it would have moved more quickly, there is no need to throw bricks. There are a lot of reasons. 2. The project commenced at its genesis from the enthusiasm, with strong City support, of creating a private sector model for building affordable housing in perpetuity. 3. The second submittal was required because of HUD's noise abatement requirements and the difficulty in meeting them with the housing close to the railroad. Accordingly, the affordable housing portion of the project was moved east farther away from the railroad noise and the office park, at this location previously, was converted to residential. 4. Both the Cameron Mesa portion of the project (southwest of the ponds) and the Mills property portion of the project (northeast of the ponds) were planned with major walkway spines which permitted better planned, more aesthetic, higher quality sub -neighborhoods within the project, creating more central safe gathering areas, more green space, and less asphalt and concrete. Regrettably our attempt to use Land Use Code tools creatively to create something "good or better than" was viewed as more an effort to manipulate the system. This is unfortunate and bodes ill, I believe, for the future. 5. After a very productive meeting with most departments on March 22, 2002, a summary letter by Troy Jones and Dave Stringer dated March 12, 2002,