Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOAKRIDGE CROSSING (AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING) - PDP - PDP160009 - REPORTS - (26)1 Ryan Mounce From: Sarah Burnett Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:27 AM To: 'Walter Hunter' Cc: Ryan Mounce Subject: RE: Thank Your for Opportunity! Mr. Hunter, Thank you for providing your comments regarding the proposed Oakridge Senior Apartment in the two email messages you sent on Saturday. I am including Ryan Mounce (the City Planner who will be coordinating the City’s review of this project) in this response so that he is aware of your comments as well. Comments from the public are an important part of the review process. I hope you will be able to attend the neighborhood meeting on June 24, 6 p.m., at the Holiday Inn Express at 1426 Oakridge Drive. You may already have the full meeting notice, but, if not, here is the link to the notice: http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/neighborhood‐ mtgs/oakridge_senior_apartments_neighborhood_mtg.pdf . Residents will have the opportunity to ask the developer questions about their proposal, and provide comments to City staff and the developer at that time. In addition, written comments provided to the City will be included in the package of information eventually provided to the Planning and Zoning Board if/when the proposal proceeds to a public hearing. Members of the public may also provide their comments in person to the Planning and Zoning Board when the proposal is reviewed by the Board. There is a webpage that is updated weekly that would note if an application is submitted for the project, and also when the proposal would be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. It is available at http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/weekreview.php . You can receive the same information in an email message each Friday if you would like – either by entering your email address in the orange box in the upper right corner of the webpage, or by letting me know and I can sign you up. In addition, either Ryan or I can help answer questions that you might have about the review process and how you can participate. Again, thank you for contacting me, Sarah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sarah Burnett City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Development Review Liaison 970-224-6076 sburnett@fcgov.com Your neighbors are connecting online. Have you joined NextDoor yet? From: Walter Hunter [mailto:wehiah@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 12:07 PM To: Sarah Burnett Subject: Thank Your for Opportunity! Hello Sarah: 2 Thank you for the opportunity to review the Proposal to Construct Oakridge Senior Apartments on the East side of McMurry Ave, North of Innovation Drive. As you know, the Mackenzie Place Retirement Cottages are located just west of McMurry. We live directly west of the proposed construction - backing to McMurry. [unit A Although we know that Fort Collins is motivated to build affordable senior apartments, and we endorse this activity, we are concerned with respect to two apparent parts of the proposed plan: 1. The allowance of a four story structure close to McMurry. No other structure on McMurry is as tall as four stories and we note that the H-C district limits residential units to three stories! 1 Ryan Mounce From: Sarah Burnett Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:28 AM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: 'Walter Hunter' Subject: RE: Automatic reply: Thank Your for Opportunity! Ryan, This is the continuation of Mr. Hunter’s email. Sarah From: Walter Hunter [mailto:wehiah@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 12:30 PM To: Sarah Burnett Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Thank Your for Opportunity! Sorry, I do wish to continue my email. We object to the proposed modification to allow a four story residential unit to be constructed on South McMurry - west of McMurry and north of Innovation - The construction of four stories would shade the back patios of all homes located on the west side and McMurry, thus, significantly affecting the property values of these homes and lowering the enjoyment of use of these living areas. It is important to note that the owners of these properties paid a premium price for the east patio location and effectively the proposed property height would cancel the additional investment [value of said property]. 2. We are concerned about the distance of the propose senior apartments from McMurry Street itself. It appears to be too close, therefore, further shading McMurry Street and, of course, the Mackenzie Cottages located on the west side of McMurry. We, as well as, our neighbors find the small businesses located north and east of Innovation/McMurry to be readily congruent with our Mackenzie location and would prefer that the City Planner not allow the modification to residential use to replace the previously approved employment use. Sincerely, Walter and Irene Hunter, Unit A 8. On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Sarah Burnett <SBurnett@fcgov.com> wrote: Greetings, I will be out of the office most of this week, and will be unable to respond to email. During regular business hours, you may contact Melanie Clark at mclark@fcgov.com or 970-224-6046. She will be able to assist you or to reach a staff member who can assist you. Thank you, 2 Sarah Burnett Neighborhood Development Review Liaision City of Fort Collins 970-224-6076 1 Ryan Mounce From: Bob Peterson <rpeterson@Abd-ltd.com> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 8:45 AM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: Robert Beccard; RICHARD AUST; Bruce Hendee Subject: 4600 McMurray Ave Ryan, First, sorry I was not able to attend last night's meeting on the proposed development at 4600 McMurray Ave. I am a co-Owner/developer and sole owner occupant of the building directly to the east of the proposed site at 4803 Innovation Drive. I have reviewed the documents for the proposal and I am opposed to the development as it is proposed. Reasons: 1. The Oakridge Industrial Park is just that. I am aware of other proposed development proposal that have been shot done previously and before they even got to this point who wanted to vary the usage purpose. I believe that if this proposed development is approved it will put many burdens on the current industrial park. Traffic, both auto and foot traffic. I am a senior, but the current industrial auto/truck traffic does not see real safe for senior foot traffic of that size potential. I personally had a preliminary residential use meeting with the city nearly 10 years ago on the same site and was told emphatically "no". Perhaps the current developer has more $ & clout. 2. I am against the 4 story proposal, again, against the current usage guidelines. I am a builder myself and I certainly get that with the 4th story, the project is more viable financially and also get the attractiveness of potential "affordable" units available in Fort Collins, where unfortunately nothing is really affordable anymore. But I also know that to make this proposal a reality just because it is labeled affordable is wrong. I have walked away from many projects over the years because it is not economically viable. The rest of the neighborhood should not be liable for making this project financially feasible. I understand the developer commented last night that he could build a six-story building if he wanted to???? Really, no that is an ego! 3. Parking change is unacceptable. This will cause any excess parking to be on McMurray Avenue adding to the already great risk to pedestrians and the bike paths. In conclusion, something needs to be built on the site, however that something should follow the same guidelines that the rest of us who have developed in the area had to follow. Thanks for listening and I sincerely hope logic and common sense rule here and the industrial park remains industrial as intended. This is the last piece of an otherwise beautiful industrial area of Fort Collins. Respectfully, Bob D. Peterson Bob Peterson, GMR, CAPS, CGP President 2 NAHBR 2007 National Remodeler of the Year CAHB 2008 Colorado Builder of the Year 2009 Northern Colorado Remodeler of the Year 2011 Chairman of National Association of Home Builders Remodelers Council 2013/2014 Colorado State Representative on NAHB Excutive Committee 2014 HBA Northern Colorado Chairman of the Board 2015 NAHB National Area Chairman 4803 Innovation Dr, Suite 1, Ft Collins, CO 80525 ph 970.225.2323, fax 970.225.2395, www.abd-ltd.com Interior Design • Remodels • New Construction • Paint 1 Ryan Mounce From: Bruce Hendee <b.hendee@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 11:54 AM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: Robert Beccard; RICHARD AUST; Bob Peterson Subject: Re: 4600 McMurray Ave Hi Ryan, I am one of the building owners along at 4803 Innovation Dr. I also am an owner in an adjacent building at 1603 Oakridge Dr. I struggle with this proposal for a couple of reasons: 1. This is a business park. The City inventory of available lands for business development has demonstrated that available land for business is limited. This is a remaining infill parcel along Harmony specifically designated within the Harmony Corridor Plan as Primary Employment. As you know the HC Zone District allows 25% residential and is a bit vague on how it is achieved but, the intent is to preserve land for employment uses. I think it would be appropriate to evaluate this proposal in the overall context of Oakridge as planned and see how the uses calculate with respect to the percentage requirements of the HC Zone District. When City Plan was developed there was an inventory for all of the various uses within the city limits and the growth management area. City Plan plan attempted to balance zoning within the city to allow for a balanced future for our community. At the time of City Plan , this parcel remained as an industrial/business use. Also, many years ago when Oakridge Business Park was developed it had residential, commercial, retail, and industrial uses as part of the PUD master plan. The Plan represented a good balance of uses. By and large development has played out pretty well according to the plan. In addition today there is little land left for small business along Harmony Road. Please keep in mind virtually all of the remaining land along Harmony is comprised of large parcels, mostly owned by large corporations such as UCH, HP, AVAGO, and MAVD. Their land for the most part does not allow for small businesses to build offices except as they support the mission of their respective organizations. This is one of, if not the last, available parcels that can be used for general small business development. The vast majority of business within Fort Collins is comprised of small business of 10 or less employees so it is important to retain parcels such as this one. As you know McKenzie Place was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Frankly, this was puzzling. McKenzie Place took a large chunk of the remaining available land for primary employment and turned it into senior living. This approval was the second approved by P & Z for senior living in Oakridge on land originally approved for business. The parcel now being proposed for more senior housing would, in essence, infill the last remaining available parcel within Oakridge Business Park which had originally been zoned for business. I don’t think this was appropriate in the first place and I hope P & Z does not consider the precedent established, as being a mandate to continue down the course already established. 2. The property is located and entirely within land developed and surrounded by industrial/office uses. At least with McKenzie Place there was some separation with streets. In this case the proposal proposal is right in the middle of surrounding industry. As you know industry has large truck traffic, noises at all times of the day and continuing operations that are disruptive to residential uses. The original Oakridge PUD developed during the LDGS period separated residential to the south for precisely the reason of keeping residences out of impactful 2 areas. If P & Z approves this, I believe it is setting up a zoning enforcement issue with difficult problems associated with noise, trash operations, and other normal considerations that go along with business. It also introduces problems for already operating businesses adjacent to the site. Industry needs to operate and should not be limited in operations due to adjacent senior residential. I don’t believe this is an appropriate use for the property. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Thanks, Bruce Bruce A. Hendee 2948 Skimmerhorn St. Fort Collins, CO. 80526 b.hendee@comcast.net (970) 227‐0834 On Jun 25, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Bob Peterson <rpeterson@abd-ltd.com> wrote: Ryan, First, sorry I was not able to attend last night's meeting on the proposed development at 4600 McMurray Ave. I am a co-Owner/developer and sole owner occupant of the building directly to the east of the proposed site at 4803 Innovation Drive. I have reviewed the documents for the proposal and I am opposed to the development as it is proposed. Reasons: 1. The Oakridge Industrial Park is just that. I am aware of other proposed development proposal that have been shot done previously and before they even got to this point who wanted to vary the usage purpose. I believe that if this proposed development is approved it will put many burdens on the current industrial park. Traffic, both auto and foot traffic. I am a senior, but the current industrial auto/truck traffic does not see real safe for senior foot traffic of that size potential. I personally had a preliminary residential use meeting with the city nearly 10 years ago on the same site and was told emphatically "no". Perhaps the current developer has more $ & clout. 2. I am against the 4 story proposal, again, against the current usage guidelines. I am a builder myself and I certainly get that with the 4th story, the project is more viable financially and also get the attractiveness of potential "affordable" units available in Fort Collins, where unfortunately nothing is really affordable anymore. But I also know that to make this proposal a reality just because it is labeled affordable is wrong. I have walked away from many projects over the years because it is not economically viable. The rest of the neighborhood should not be liable for making this project financially feasible. I understand the developer commented last night that he could build a six-story building if he wanted to???? Really, no that is an ego! 3. Parking change is unacceptable. This will cause any excess parking to be on McMurray Avenue adding to the already great risk to pedestrians and the bike paths. 3 In conclusion, something needs to be built on the site, however that something should follow the same guidelines that the rest of us who have developed in the area had to follow. Thanks for listening and I sincerely hope logic and common sense rule here and the industrial park remains industrial as intended. This is the last piece of an otherwise beautiful industrial area of Fort Collins. Respectfully, Bob D. Peterson Bob Peterson, GMR, CAPS, CGP President <image001.jpg> NAHBR 2007 National Remodeler of the Year CAHB 2008 Colorado Builder of the Year 2009 Northern Colorado Remodeler of the Year 2011 Chairman of National Association of Home Builders Remodelers Council 2013/2014 Colorado State Representative on NAHB Excutive Committee 2014 HBA Northern Colorado Chairman of the Board 2015 NAHB National Area Chairman 4803 Innovation Dr, Suite 1, Ft Collins, CO 80525 ph 970.225.2323, fax 970.225.2395, www.abd-ltd.com Interior Design • Remodels • New Construction • Paint 1 Ryan Mounce From: Walter Hunter <wehiah@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 10:40 AM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Formal Objections to Construction on MCMurry Attachments: objection 2.docx Please know that my wife, Irene, and I found the Proposed Construction....Meeting last evening informative. The developer, and team, did a good job representing the proposed construction on South McMurry. I am attaching a more specific statement outlining our personal objections to the project. Thank you for the opportunity! Walter Hunter, Mackenzie Cottage A 8 1 Ryan Mounce From: Carl Vlietstra <carl@mpoc-cottages.com> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 4:19 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Oakridge Affordable Senior Housing City of Fort Collins Mr. Ryan Mounce – Fort Collins City Planner 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Mounce Thank you for organizing and facilitating the meeting of June 24. Much was learned by all of us neighbors of the property in question. Thank you also for inviting our written comments and inputs. Several aspects of the proposed construction are of major concern to the neighboring community; many of them are already guarded against by the thoughtful planning and zoning restrictions of the City of Fort Collins. It is imperative that these be adhered to and not allowed to be circumvented. Among them: Residential buildings to be restricted to three stories as zoned. - Adjacent construction is mostly one story with a few two story structures. Anything higher on the property in question would esthetically clash and detract from the neighborhood values. City parking space requirements as zoned are understood to be 1.5 spaces per one bedroom apartment and 1.75 spaces per two bedroom apartments. Based on these well thought out City requirements the proposed 126 units will need 197 parking spaces. Any deviation from that, and especially down to the proposed 99 spaces, will incur major congestion problems on the site as well as undesirable long term street parking on McMurry Ave. and likely on Pleasant Oak Dr. interfering with overload parking needs of MacKenzie Place and potentially the movement of fire fighting equipment. As stated on the City website, ”A development should be in alignment with our Community Vision” and “Ensure consistent and high quality projects.” The proposed structure fails to meet these requirements as it will detract from neighborhood values, especially property values of the MacKenzie Place individual cottages. This would in turn lower property tax revenues for the City. While the construction of tax payer funded Affordable Housing is a noble endeavor, it should be done in such a way that it does not detract from the values of those funding it, i.e. the tax payer. Location is a big factor in this and the proposal in question clashes badly with the demographics of the area. The population density would increase dramatically for the entire neighborhood with numerous undesirable side effects such as noise, dogs and traffic. In view of each of the above, we strongly recommend that NO VARIANCES to the City zoning requirements be given for this project. Sincerely, 2 Carl Vlietstra – Board Member MacKenzie Place Oakridge Condominium HOA. 4751 Pleasant Oak Dr A9 Fort Collins, 80525 Walter E Hunter 4751 Pleasant Oak Drive A8 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Mr. Ryan Mounce City of Fort Collins, Regarding: Proposed Senior Apartments on South McMurry I would like to be more specific with respect to my personal objections to the proposed construction. 1. Real property values in the area: Home values will be adversely affected by tens of thousands of dollars per home. Thus, the accumulated wealth of the several hundred home owners will be decreased by thousands of dollars. 2. Increased entropy: Adding some 150 seniors – automobiles – dogs – services - to the South McMurry area will sharply attenuate the quality of life due to increased randomness 3. Architectural misfit: Both the size and the appearance of the proposed construction is a significant misfit - not congruent with the present “park- like” size and appearance of the existing small businesses. 4. Misappropriation of Federal Funds: Funds appropriated for Flood Relief should not be diverted to other needs! Such divergence is, in my opinion, blatant malpractice on the part of any agency – including the City of Fort Collins. 5. Reduced property values in area: As property values are lowered, so will the total tax revenue collected by the taxing authorities! Please allow a personal comment: We, like the majority of the Mackenzie Place Cottage Owners, have invested a major portion of our fiscal resources in our home, with the assurance at this investment would be an emergency source of dollars to fund end-of-life expenses. Therefore, any loss in the value of our cottage reduces this vital resource. It is our hope that City Planners will not approve this construction! Sincerely, 1 Ryan Mounce From: Robert Beccard <bob@aquaengineering.com> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 8:37 AM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: Bob Peterson; Bruce Hendee; Richard Aust; Stephen Smith Subject: Comments regarding 4600 McMurray Ave Ryan: I attended and spoke at the neighborhood meeting on June 24, 2015 so you should have these comments in your notes. However, I wanted to email you these comments as well. I am one of the building owners at 4803 Innovation Dr, Suite 3. We built our building in 1997 with the understanding that is and was to be an industrial park. I am against the proposed development for the following reasons: 1. Impact on existing business: The site plan shows a 4 story building within 20' of our property line. We have large windows on the west side of our building that allow for views to the west and passive solar gain in the winter. The proposed development will eliminate those amenities of our building and negatively impact our property value. During the neighborhood meeting, a graphic was presented showing a 90' shadow will be created by the proposed building. Although the architect discussed how this impacts the proposed development he did not discuss how this impacts the existing neighboring buildings. It is obvious that the developer has no concerns for those of us who already own property in the industrial park. 2. Inappropriate use of the site: This is an industrial park. A residential development is not a compatible use of the site. It appears that the developer is trying to shoehorn a building onto the site where it does not fit. The modification for use as a residential should not be granted. 3. 4 Story Building: Modification for a 4 story building should not be granted. It will be completely out of place with the existing 1 and 2 story buildings. 4. Parking: When we built our building we had to find ways to meet the parking requirements. So should this developer. There were many other comments made at the neighborhood meeting that I agree with that I won't bother repeating here but all point to the fact that this is an industrial park and should remain such. One note for future mailings, I signed the attendance list using the address of 4803 Innovation. Please send any future mailings to: Suite Water Oakridge, LLP P.O. Box 1338 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Respectfully, Bob Beccard Robert W. Beccard, P.E. | President bob@aquaengineering.com | 970.372.6104 direct 2 Aqua Engineering, Inc. 375 East Horsetooth Road, Bldg. 2-202 Fort Collins, CO 80525-3196 1 Ryan Mounce From: Kristina Lorson <klorson@sitzman-mitchell.com> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 5:38 PM To: 'Wolfgang Becker'; Ryan Mounce Cc: 'dan'; 'pat'; 'Vlietstra, Carl' Subject: RE: Parking for Affordable Housing Attachments: Oakridge Senior Apartments Proposed Project.pdf Hi Wolfgang, The spaces that are currently being used by the neighboring business are actually on the development site (1 full row of stalls plus ½ of the other row – See attached referencing “existing spaces” and outline of development site). The vacant lot owner granted permission for the 2 adjacent buildings to the North to allow for tenant parking on the vacant lot. Along the way, they ended up installing asphalt for added convenience to their tenants, but those spaces do belong to the development site. However, a cross‐easement agreement also exists that would allow for the businesses to park on the development site, and the development site to park on the existing business lots (for 4700 McMurray and 1609 Oakridge). I do agree that the spaces are fully occupied on a daily basis, and should not be counted for exclusive use of the proposed development. There is also an access easement to grant ingress/egress through to Oakridge Drive to the North. When considering the secondary use, I believe it would be a prudent for Ryan to visit the properties during the day to observe the typical business activities which take place in this industrial setting and consider the impact of residential traffic (pedestrian foot/bicycle and vehicular) through the current business traffic from the position of the business owners as well as from a residential use. Kristina Lorson Property Manager Sitzman‐Mitchell & Co. 3500 JFK Parkway, Suite 220 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970)223‐5500 Fax (970)223‐5587 Email KLorson@Sitzman‐Mitchell.com www.Sitzman‐Mitchell.com From: Wolfgang Becker [mailto:wolfgang@mpoc‐cottages.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 4:38 PM To: Kristina Lorson; Ryan Mounce (rmounce@fcgov.com) Cc: dan; pat; Vlietstra, Carl Subject: Parking for Affordable Housing Hi Kristina and Ryan, I have checked the parking claims for the affordable senior housing development across from MacKenzie Place Oakridge Condominium and, unless I am mistaken, the developers claims are false and misleading. 2 They claim 99 parking spaces when, by the city code, close to 200 are required. However, 35 out of 99 belong to businesses to the north of the development and most of them were occupied earlier today. This leaves only 64 parking spaces by the new development or about 32% of the required total. Arthur McDermott admitted during the Q&A session that they had some problems with parking at another development and that they took pictures at night, when only 65% were occupied. Whom does he think he can fool? I trust it is not the OBPA board or the City planners. There is only one solution ... deny the request. Thanks, Wolfgang Becker MPOC Home Owners Association 970-672-8836 wolfgang@mpoc-cottages.com www.mpoc-cottages.com 1 Ryan Mounce From: Wolfgang Becker <wolfgang@mpoc-cottages.com> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 4:38 PM To: Kristina Lorson; Ryan Mounce Cc: dan; pat; Vlietstra, Carl Subject: Parking for Affordable Housing Hi Kristina and Ryan, I have checked the parking claims for the affordable senior housing development across from MacKenzie Place Oakridge Condominium and, unless I am mistaken, the developers claims are false and misleading. They claim 99 parking spaces when, by the city code, close to 200 are required. However, 35 out of 99 belong to businesses to the north of the development and most of them were occupied earlier today. This leaves only 64 parking spaces by the new development or about 32% of the required total. Arthur McDermott admitted during the Q&A session that they had some problems with parking at another development and that they took pictures at night, when only 65% were occupied. Whom does he think he can fool? I trust it is not the OBPA board or the City planners. There is only one solution ... deny the request. Thanks, Wolfgang Becker MPOC Home Owners Association 970-672-8836 wolfgang@mpoc-cottages.com www.mpoc-cottages.com 1 Ryan Mounce From: Kristina Lorson <klorson@sitzman-mitchell.com> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:36 AM To: 'Wolfgang Becker'; Ryan Mounce Cc: 'dan'; 'pat'; 'Vlietstra, Carl'; 'Wilson, Kieley'; 'Kathryn Bullington' Subject: RE: My retirement Hi Wolfgang, Thank you for the email. I will forward it on to the Board. Kristina Lorson Property Manager Sitzman‐Mitchell & Co. 3500 JFK Parkway, Suite 220 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970)223‐5500 Fax (970)223‐5587 Email KLorson@Sitzman‐Mitchell.com www.Sitzman‐Mitchell.com From: Wolfgang Becker [mailto:wolfgang@mpoc‐cottages.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:17 AM To: Kristina Lorson; Ryan Mounce (rmounce@fcgov.com) Cc: dan; pat; Vlietstra, Carl; Wilson, Kieley; Kathryn Bullington Subject: Re: My retirement Hi Kristina and Ryan, Here is an excerpt from an email I received from a MacKenzie Place Oakridge Condominium cottage owner. Quote June 29, 2015 Dear Wolfgang, Before I express my feelings about this high rise apartment building, I would like to give you a little background as to why I am so vehemently opposed to it. ... I was pleasantly surprised at just how peaceful MacKenzie Place was, and the low amount of road traffic and noise back here on McMurray Ave. Surprisingly, I got to enjoy the large amount of bicyclists traversing McMurray Ave. and just how many families with young children are riding right along with them! It is sweet to see and realize these families can go for a substantial bike ride without having to load their bikes onto the back of their vehicles and going to a park somewhere! Fortunately, the traffic back there is pretty sparse compared to other streets; there is not parking on both sides of the street as a rule, and the biking families have a safe amount of space to enjoy their outings. An 2 increase in traffic density back there (McMurray Ave) will increase noise,affect safety issues to both bikers and walkers, not to mention the danger of opening your car door to get out and people are riding their bikes by at that moment. Making turns will become more difficult and hazardous, vehicle noise will increase and McMurray will change in character. This does not even address winter snow mitigation and the logistics of plowing vs parked cars! How is it that folks can come into a peaceful neighborhood and create such upheaval for their almighty dollars without the tax paying residents having a say in protecting their "habitat" that they have been enjoying and keeping in "peaceful tact" . They do not care about the integrity of our neighborhood, they are focused on the bottom line and their own interests, only to leave us with the problems after they are gone! Thanks for letting me vent on this issue....we have all worked hard in our younger days to be able to have a peaceful environment in our retirement years and I feel strongly about us working as a team to continue this life! Sincerely, .... Cottage A-7 Unquote Thanks, Wolfgang Becker MPOC Home Owners Association 970-672-8836 wolfgang@mpoc-cottages.com www.mpoc-cottages.com 1 Ryan Mounce From: Bernie <bshafer@frii.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:32 AM To: KLorson@sitzman-mitchell.com Cc: Ryan Mounce Subject: McMurray Ave. Development Proposal We live in the Oak Ridge 8th filing and have been here for 24 years. We are very concerned about the proposed Senior living apartment proposal on McMurray as presently designed and in our opinion should only go ahead with the following caveats: 1. The onsite parking requirements should remain in accord with the current city codes and not be reduced. We have watched what happens when there is insufficient parking onsite which is what has happened with the Columbine Rehab facility on Rule and Lemay. On many days there are literally scores of cars parked on Wheaton because there is insufficient parking onsite. And with all the young children in the Oak Ridge neighborhood, more on street parking poses an increased hazard. 2. We moved into our neighborhood in part because we were aware of and supported the employment development zoning for the site where the senior apartments are now planned. We did not want to live in a high density housing area and if we did, we would have chosen another area. 3. We don’t know what “urban style” design looks like exactly, but if it resembles the apartments on the west side of South College that looks like a jumble of shipping containers piled on top of one another, we are adamantly opposed. It would seriously detract from the look and feel of the Oak Ridge residential community we now have and want to keep. A design more in keeping with the neighborhood architecture of the current Oak Ridge community, including Mckenzie Place, should be mandatory. Respectfully Submitted; Bernie & Connie Shafer 1318 Red Oak Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 1 Ryan Mounce From: Douglas Hopton <dhopton@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 2:26 PM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: klorson@sitzman-mitchell.com; kwilson@associacolorado.com; Wolfgang Becker; vlietstra@juno.com; pat@tritoncommunities.com; dan@tritoncommunities.com Subject: Senior Apt. Project McMurry Ave Hello Ryan: Thank you for holding the Neighborhood Meeting the other week at the Holiday Inn Express to review the proposed senior affordable apartment project in the Oakridge Business Park Association. Given the negative feedback received, the developer stated that its proposal would be redrafted and the project redesigned. Please keep all neighboring entities informed when the next public meeting will be held. This project is getting a lot of attention! Although Fort Collins is in need of more affordable housing, this site and project does not seem appropriate. For economic feasibility, at least three waivers from code would be required, as you recapped at the meeting--height, density and parking. Without the 4th floor the developer said the project would not work. With the 4th floor the parking is a mess and way below requirements. As submitted, the project seems to be little more than a shoe horn into an inadequate lot which by itself is scheduled for an employment type business, not a densely packed residential site. McMurry Ave for onstreet parking is out and the congestion at Harmony and McMurry is not a senior friendly crossing. It was also disturbing to hear that the project feasibility rests on receiving not only the waivers but also $1.7 million in disaster relief funds granted after the 2013 floods---which never touched Ft. Collins. Shameful to take this amount of relief from those that really suffered and need it! The developer is obviously an opportunist and sees a vacant property and the ability to garner several financial discounts, or subsidies, for the project. Hopefully a more suitable site, perhaps one of the land banks of the city, can be found for affordable housing. Again, thank you for arranging the neighborhood meeting. I know all of us are looking forward to the next one. Douglas Hopton, 4751 Pleasant Oak Drive, Unit C74 Ft. Collins 80505 1 Ryan Mounce From: rickwilsonrph@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:38 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: re affordable housing proposal, McMurry Ave. Ryan, I believe there is a deep need in our community for all levels of quality senior housing. This project seems to be well planned, funded and ready to proceed. Seems like a good opportunity for our community. Thanks, Rick 1 Ryan Mounce From: Kristi & Tom Aberle <ktaberle@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 8:07 AM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Development Proposal on McMurry Avenue Mr Mounce, I received a forwarded email from a neighbor concerning the Development Proposal on McMurry Ave., and would like to have my name added to your email list for that project. Please keep me informed about upcoming meetings, etc. The concern that I have would be the amount of parking available in the area. I don't believe street parking is allowed along McMurry, as it has a bike lane, and is too narrow to accommodate parking also. We don't want a situation to arise like the one at the Summit apartments by Prospect and College. Thank you for your time. Tom Aberle 970-225-2939 1 Ryan Mounce From: Carl Vlietstra <carl@mpoc-cottages.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 9:57 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Re: McMurry Ave & Pleaseant Oak Dr Project Proposal Update Dear Mr. Mounce, Thank you for your message of March 22 last. I look forward to further details as they develop. Comments from some of my neighbors give the gist of the proposal. Three stories in place of four is certainly a positive. Parking space appears to still be a major problem. A couple of items I find strange, the Developer last year indicated that the Federal funds were only available until some date in the fall of 2015. How did these magically reappear a year later? Also, he had indicated that four stories were needed to make the project economically feasible. Some more magic? Do we have a credibility problem? Sincerely, Carl Vlietstra On March 22, 2016 at 1:17 PM Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> wrote: You are receiving this message because you attended the neighborhood meeting for the Oakridge Senior Apartments proposal located near McMurry Avenue & Pleasant Oak Drive in June 2015, or provided written comments. Dear Oakridge Neighbors, A development application has been submitted to the City of Fort Collins for a mixed-use project known as Oakridge Crossing, located at the intersection of Pleasant Oak Drive and McMurry Avenue (across the street from MacKenzie Place). You may recall this site was the subject of a neighborhood meeting last June at the Holiday Inn Express. A yellow “Development Proposal Under Review” sign will be posted on the property within the next several days indicating the City’s review of the development application. The project applicants are planning a follow-up meeting to share information about the project in the coming weeks. If you received a written notice for last year’s neighborhood meeting or signed-in and provided a mailing address, you will receive another mailed notice approximately two weeks in advance of the upcoming meeting. 2 Key changes to the development proposal from last June include the addition of office space along McMurry Avenue and residential units above, creating a mixed-use building. The proposed building height has also been reduced from 4-stories to 3-stories. Additional project information will be available at the upcoming meeting. If you have questions or comments regarding the development proposal or are looking for status updates, I encourage you to contact me. Any written comments received are shared with the project applicants and the decision maker for the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Board. Regards, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com 1 Ryan Mounce From: Patricia Friehauf <pfriehauf5@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:44 AM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Proposed Oakridge Crossing Project on McMurray My only concern with the project on McMurray is that it be required to have sufficient parking spaces on the property, rather than require residents or employees to park along McMurray. The Columbine Rehabilitation Hospital built at the west end of our neighborhood was woefully lacking in parking, requiring employees to park up and down Rule as well as along Wheaton Drive. Thanks for taking residents' concerns into consideration. Patricia Friehauf 1317 Red Oak Ct. Fort Collins 1 Ryan Mounce From: Douglas Hopton <dhopton@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:47 PM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: Pat Ferrier; klorson@sitzman-mitchell.com Subject: RE: McMurry Ave & Pleaseant Oak Dr Project Proposal Update Thanks for your heads up Ryan: I look forward to learning more about this project at the forthcoming neighborhood meeting. I will also alert our HOA Board of Directors, and also the management of MacKenzie Place. At the June 2015 meeting, it was revealed that the project required waivers from City Codes regarding height, parking, and density‐‐also, the zoning requirement for "employment" type business at this location. Additionally, this site is squarely within the Business Park Association which has governing documents and CCR's which need to be respected. From information in your email and, in an article in the Coloradoan by Pat Ferrier, it is not clear how the revised project overcomes these issues. Especially troubling was the inadequate parking slots allotted for the number of apartments. Questions that should be answered at the forthcoming neighborhood meeting include: ... Viability was earlier cited as requiring a 4th floor and 128 apartments‐‐and $1.7 million in disaster relief funding granted by September, 2015‐‐not 2016. What assumptions are now made for occupancy and the split in viability between 1st floor commercial office space and the 110 apartments now proposed? ... Why are funds earmarked for the 2013 flood disaster still available for an unrelated project? Does this smack of "disaster capitalism" earlier reported in the Coloradoan"? ... What waivers are still required and what are the assumptions regarding parking‐‐not possible on McMurry Ave. itself and with setbacks needed from this street? Is the developer still trying to shoehorn this project into inadequate acreage? ... What assurance is given to maintaining the affordable rents and how will the project be managed? ... What other senior, affordable housing projects has McDermott done, and where? Has the neighborhood meeting been scheduled yet? Am sure it will be well attended. Thanks again Douglas Hopton dhopton@msn.com 2 From: RMounce@fcgov.com Subject: McMurry Ave & Pleaseant Oak Dr Project Proposal Update Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:17:02 +0000 You are receiving this message because you attended the neighborhood meeting for the Oakridge Senior Apartments proposal located near McMurry Avenue & Pleasant Oak Drive in June 2015, or provided written comments. Dear Oakridge Neighbors, A development application has been submitted to the City of Fort Collins for a mixed‐use project known as Oakridge Crossing, located at the intersection of Pleasant Oak Drive and McMurry Avenue (across the street from MacKenzie Place). You may recall this site was the subject of a neighborhood meeting last June at the Holiday Inn Express. A yellow “Development Proposal Under Review” sign will be posted on the property within the next several days indicating the City’s review of the development application. The project applicants are planning a follow‐ up meeting to share information about the project in the coming weeks. If you received a written notice for last year’s neighborhood meeting or signed‐in and provided a mailing address, you will receive another mailed notice approximately two weeks in advance of the upcoming meeting. Key changes to the development proposal from last June include the addition of office space along McMurry Avenue and residential units above, creating a mixed‐use building. The proposed building height has also been reduced from 4‐stories to 3‐stories. Additional project information will be available at the upcoming meeting. If you have questions or comments regarding the development proposal or are looking for status updates, I encourage you to contact me. Any written comments received are shared with the project applicants and the decision maker for the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Board. Regards, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com 1 Ryan Mounce From: Bruce Hendee <b.hendee@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:23 PM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: Bob Peterson; Robert Beccard Subject: Re: McMurry Ave & Pleaseant Oak Dr Project Proposal Update Ryan, Yesterday I went to the City Planning offices at 2PM for a meeting that had been placed on my calendar for Oakridge Crossing. I must have been in error though because no one else appeared to be there waiting for the meeting. I am therefore forwarding my comments via email on the proposed revision to Oakridge Crossing. 1. I have concerns which were the same as I mentioned the last time this project was reviewed. Specifically, they are in regards to the proposal to build residential in an area that has long been established for business. This particular location along the west side of McMurry has been established for business use for some time and is surrounded on three sides by business uses. I believe the appropriate land use for this location is business based on compatibility. Because it is has not yet been developed for business does not mean that it is an inappropriate use. The applicant cites the importance of affordable housing in the community. I certainly agree that affordable housing is a need however, because of the fixed urban growth boundary of the city, all uses, whether residential or business take on added importance since the community is land locked. The City, through the Structure Plan and Zoning Plan has established a mix of residential and business parcels for ultimate land uses. In order for a residential use to be applicable here it is appropriate to understand the larger mix of available land in the community for various uses. 2. The proposed mixed use plan of the applicant with 5,000SF of business use is less than the parcel would accommodate were it to develop with even a single story office building. Even at an FAR of .2 a 7 acre site could accommodate 60,000SF of business use. 3. The Harmony Corridor Plan specifies 75% primary employment and 25% secondary uses. MacKenzie Place, hotels, retail and other secondary uses have become the predominant form of use in Oakridge which was originally planned as a business park. While the Harmony Corridor Plan is admittedly out of date, the intention of the plan which had substantial public input at the time of adoption, was to ensure adequate employment land. My concern is the loss of this valuable infill parcel which is available for business, to yet another use which does not preserve available land. 4. I understand the proposed requested modification to the parking standards. I take issue however with the evidence being used to support lower parking standards. The study cited by Mr. Delich uses one case study in Chicago as an ITE reference. This may or not be applicable based on the location and nature of the site in Chicago. The additional references in Denver do have some merit. In doing a Google Earth review of these properties they do appear to have fewer parking spaces than one would expect in a traditional apartment project. However, I am not sure I agree with this particular project’s proposal for such a substantial reduction. Most people that are 65-75 still drive and this project is located in a suburban setting in which driving is most convenient. Granted, shopping is close by ( across Harmony) but it is dangerous for pedestrians to cross this street and for someone concerned with safety, they are more likely to drive. I have asked the applicant if they intend to provide a shuttle like with MacKenzie Place and at the time I asked, it was not their intention. Regardless, if fewer parking spaces are permitted, the loss from 172 to 80 represents a reduction of 92 spaces which seems like an excessive reduction. 5. The proposed architecture scale is better than the initial proposal. I would ask that materials be discussed. An all EIFS style building would not fit the character of the business park. In accordance with City Standards, I think their should be differentiation in materials rather than simply a color change. 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Bruce Hendee b.hendee@comcast.net (970) 227‐0834 On Mar 22, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> wrote: You are receiving this message because you attended the neighborhood meeting for the Oakridge Senior Apartments proposal located near McMurry Avenue & Pleasant Oak Drive in June 2015, or provided written comments. Dear Oakridge Neighbors, A development application has been submitted to the City of Fort Collins for a mixed‐use project known as Oakridge Crossing, located at the intersection of Pleasant Oak Drive and McMurry Avenue (across the street from MacKenzie Place). You may recall this site was the subject of a neighborhood meeting last June at the Holiday Inn Express. A yellow “Development Proposal Under Review” sign will be posted on the property within the next several days indicating the City’s review of the development application. The project applicants are planning a follow‐up meeting to share information about the project in the coming weeks. If you received a written notice for last year’s neighborhood meeting or signed‐in and provided a mailing address, you will receive another mailed notice approximately two weeks in advance of the upcoming meeting. Key changes to the development proposal from last June include the addition of office space along McMurry Avenue and residential units above, creating a mixed‐use building. The proposed building height has also been reduced from 4‐stories to 3‐stories. Additional project information will be available at the upcoming meeting. If you have questions or comments regarding the development proposal or are looking for status updates, I encourage you to contact me. Any written comments received are shared with the project applicants and the decision maker for the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Board. Regards, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com 1 Ryan Mounce From: Jason Holland Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 9:04 AM To: 'Walter Hunter' Cc: Ryan Mounce Subject: RE: Regarding the proposed Low Income Housing at Oakwood Walter, I have forwarded your message to Ryan Mounce. Thanks, Jason Jason Holland, PLA | City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.224.6126 jholland@fcgov.com From: Walter Hunter [mailto:wehiah@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 7:15 PM To: Jason Holland Subject: Regarding the proposed Low Income Housing at Oakwood Dear Ryan: As a neighbor - just across McMurry - we are gravely concerned with respect to the limited parking. With the proposed retail space and the 110 senior apartments, the 88 spaces will force residents to seek street parking or to an intrusion on the adjacent properties. Please note: The McMurry location almost demands access to an automobile by residents in order to obtain their basic needs. Walt and Irene Hunter, 4751 Pleasant Oak Dr. Unit A 8. 1 Ryan Mounce From: Douglas Hopton <dhopton@msn.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:44 AM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: klorson@sitzman-mitchell.com Subject: FW: Oakridge Apartment Project Attachments: Oakridge Crossing Neighborhood Meeting Letter.pdf Morning Ryan: Thanks for the meeting notice. I have advised our HOA Board, MacKenzie Place management, and the Oakridge Business Park manager, Kristina Lorson. Please note the comments about the inadequate parking proposed by the developer‐‐below copy of email. If I misrepresent anything about the parking issue, please let me know. Thanks again. Douglas Hopton From: dhopton@msn.com To: klorson@sitzman‐mitchell.com CC: carl@mpoc‐cottages.com; saundrabbrown@msn.com; pat@tritoncommunities.com; sambonnell@liesurecare.com Subject: Oakridge Apartment Project Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:33:51 ‐0700 Morning Kristina: Here's the notice about the Neighborhood Meeting June 28. Assume you will alert the Board of the Oakridge Business Park Association. This project has inadequate parking (among other issues) and apparently a waiver from parking code is being requested, with Planning's approval. As I understand it, only 86 spaces are proposed for 110 apartment units and an unknown number of commercial offices. There is no parking on McMurry so overflow re residents, visitors, service vehicles, etc. will park on nearest side street‐‐‐Pleasant Oak Dr‐‐in front of our HOA and MacKenzie Pl. This inadequate parking is in direct conflict with the Oakridge Business Park regulations as well as City Code. This is my biggest objection‐‐the project remains oversized for its available space. Please make sure the Business Park Board is looking into this. Also, I assume the City knows about the Business Parks CC&R's. Regards Doug From: RMounce@fcgov.com Subject: Proposed Oakridge Crossing Project ‐ Upcoming Neighborhood Meeting Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 20:21:38 +0000 2 Dear Oakridge Neighbors, A follow‐up neighborhood meeting is planned for the Oakridge Crossing project located on the east side of McMurry Avenue near the intersection with Pleasant Oak Drive. The meeting will take place on Thursday, April 28th from 7‐9pm at the Council Tree Covenant Church, 4825 S Lemay Ave. The meeting is an open house format; please drop by at any time. The project applicants will be present to discuss project details and design, and I will be in attendance to share information on City codes and standards, the development review process, and to collect comments. A summary of the meeting comments from the meeting will also be forwarded to the Planning & Zoning Board. If you’re unable to attend the meeting or have comments or questions related to the project, please feel free to contact me at the email or phone number listed below. Additional project and meeting details can be found on the attached meeting notice, which is being mailed to property owners near the project site. These notices should be arriving within the next day or two. Regards, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com 1 Ryan Mounce From: Carl Vlietstra <carl@mpoc-cottages.com> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 3:27 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Proposed Oakridge Crossing Project - Neighborhood Meeting of April 27 Mr. Ryan Mounce – City Planner, Thank you for your availability at the meeting of April 27 and inviting our written comments and inputs. The format was quite different from last year’s meeting; I sense that the developer learned from the latter and made it a point to be more in control this time. Extensive handouts were made available, all carefully edited to promote a positive message. Despite the questionable contents, I must admit that the proposal in general is an improvement over last year’s. Several aspects of the proposed construction are of major concern to the neighboring community; some of these are already guarded against by the planning and zoning restrictions of the City of Fort Collins. It is imperative that these be adhered to and not allowed to be circumvented. Among them: City parking space requirements as zoned are understood to be 1.5 spaces per one bedroom apartment and 1.75 spaces per two bedroom apartments. Based on these well thought out City requirements the proposed 110 units will need 171 parking spaces plus an additional 13 for the proposed commercial space. Any deviation from that, and especially down to the proposed 88 spaces, will incur major congestion problems on the site as well as undesirable long term street parking on McMurry Ave. and Pleasant Oak Dr. interfering with overload parking needs of MacKenzie Place and potentially the movement of fire fighting equipment. Even if the car ownership averages and parking needs of other developments, as portrayed by the developer, were taken at face value (remember that averages can be very misleading as they hide a high and a low), the approximate 75% number cited by him would still equate to 171 x 75% = 128 plus the 13 commercial ones; ergo 141 spaces. A long ways from 88. As stated on the City website, ”A development should be in alignment with our Community Vision” and “Ensure consistent and high quality projects.” The proposed structure fails to meet these requirements as the adjacent construction is mostly one story with a few two story structures. Anything higher on the property in question would esthetically clash. Furthermore, it will detract from the neighborhood values; especially property values of the MacKenzie Place individual cottages. This would in turn lower property tax revenues for the City. While the construction of tax payer funded Affordable Housing is a noble endeavor, it should be done in such a way that it does not detract from the values of those funding it, i.e. the tax payer. Location is a big factor in this and the proposal in question clashes badly with the demographics of the area. The population density would increase dramatically for the entire neighborhood, with numerous undesirable side effects such as noise, dogs and traffic. 2 In view of each of the above, we strongly recommend that NO VARIANCES to the City zoning requirements be given for this project. Sincerely, Carl Vlietstra - MacKenzie Place HOA. 4751 Pleasant Oak Dr A9, Fort Collins, 80525 1 Ryan Mounce From: Diane Cohn <Diane.Cohn@lfsrm.org> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 10:45 AM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: jon@atrainmarketing.com Subject: Oakridge Crossing Dear Mr. Mounce, Lutheran Family Services, Older Adult & Caregiver Services (OACS) program supports wholeheartedly the construction of Oakridge Crossing, the affordable senior housing community proposed in south Fort Collins. OACS works directly with seniors and their families on common issues facing seniors as they age, which often includes the need for housing transitions. Our grant‐funded care management program specifically works with low‐income seniors to ensure they have appropriate support as their needs change. Seniors with low incomes are more likely to rent than own their homes. OACS has seen an increase in the number of seniors who have no retirement savings (nationally, it is over 50%, according to a recent GAO report), and are living on fixed monthly social security incomes in the $700‐$1200/month range. As local market‐rate rents have risen dramatically in the last year, we see more seniors who are not able to meet their basic needs of rent, food, medical care/prescriptions, utilities, etc., as the gap between expenses and income grows. Time on waitlists for subsidized or reduced‐rent housing has increased, and in the meantime seniors are living in less‐than‐ideal, and sometimes unsafe, situations. Often these individuals have complicating medical issues such as diabetes, struggles with decreasing cognitive abilities, and need for equipment such as oxygen or walkers. Those who cannot pay increases in rent can be evicted and have very few options, and not enough time to find an alternative place to live. Additional housing options for low‐ income seniors in Fort Collins would be a tremendous relief to those of us struggling to assist these older clients. Oakridge Crossing will assist our work by providing 110 new senior apartments with rents ranging between about $550‐ $750 per month. We know that in about 4 years, one in every five residents in Larimer County will be over the age of 65. OACS has seen a significant increase in numbers of clients over the age of 80 in the last two years. It is crucial that we have appropriate housing for all our local seniors, regardless of their income level. Please help ensure this development project, and those like it, are not only supported, but encourage and incentivized, by the city. Please let us know if you have any questions. Warm regards, Diane Cohn on behalf of Carri Ratazzi, Program Director Older Adult and Caregiver Services Lutheran Family Services Rocky Mountains phone: 970‐232‐1180 or 303‐217‐5864 email: diane.cohn@lfsrm.org Web: http://www.lfsrm.org/caregiver‐services 2 Providing quality and affordable Care Management and Counseling to older adults and families living in Northern and Central Colorado 1 Ryan Mounce From: Wolfgang Becker <wbecker@live.com> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 5:22 PM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: cody.fullmer@bankofcolorado.com; dpalmer@palmerpropertiesco.com; bkemp@floodpeterson.com; 'Carl Vlietstra'; 'Doug & Joan Hopton' Subject: Oakridge Crossing Attachments: 150620 Senior Housing.pdf; 2015 Comments.pdf Hello Ryan, Arthur A. Mcdermott wrote, among others, in an article published by the Colorado Real Estate Journal about Zoning, subdivision and design controls, the following: These controls, imposed by cities and counties, are a major deterrent to construction of more affordable housing. Many zoning restrictions are outdated and don’t take into cosideration changes in society. Local governments also control standards for infrastructure construction, which can be very costly and are frequently required to be “overbuilt”. A simple reduction in street width requirements, for example, would lower actual construction costs, increase the supply of buildable land, reduce future maintenance costs and create a greater sense of neighborhood. Design standards for water and sewer could be altered to lower costs. Allowing for common trenching, smaller pipe diameters and nerrower easements would aid affordable housing. Sidewalks could be allowed to just one side of the street. Allowing for accessory dwelling units would also allow for more affordable housing. These controls make Fort Collins one of the Nation’s best cities to live in, the Oakridge Business Park a well maintained area and the MacKenzie Place neighborhood a top choice for retirement. Please don’t change that for someone else’s profits by approving the Oakridge Crossing (Affordable Senior Housing) project. Changing a name from “Subsidized, Low Income Senior Housing” to “Oakridge Crossing (Affordable Senior Housing)” does not change the facts. However the number of stories has been reduced to three, but the parking problems still remain. Excerpts of comments I received or were copied on after last year’s meeting are summarized in the attached “2015 Comments.pdf”. Also attached is a copy of the letter sent last year to the Executive Board of the Oakridge Business Park Association. Thanks, Wolfgang Wolfgang Becker 2 4751 Pleasant Oak Dr. C71 Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-672-8836 ^^acK^nzie Tiace^ MacKenzie Place Oakridge Condominium AittVi- N^'KU'/ t..)*f.M, II, June 20, 2015 Messrs. Cody Fullmer, Jim Palmer, and Brett Kemp Board of Directors Oakridge Business Park Association 3030 S. College Ave. #200 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Ref.: Affordable Senior Apartment Housing Gentlemen, The Executive Board of the MacKenzie Place Condominium Inc home owners association strongly recommends and asks you to deny the approval of the generally known as : "Subsidized, Low Income Senior Housing" project, which has been suggested for the undeveloped area across Mcmurray Ave from the MacKenzie Place neighborhood. The developer's presentation is based on an outdated, about eight years old aerial map. MacKenzie Place is a close to rented or built out development with about 170 apartments and 80 cottages. Their residents' affluent lifestyle and mandatory membership in a quality "Lifestyle Membership Community" will be in stark contrast to the subsidized, low income housing development for seniors. Rent for subsidized, low income senior housing starts around $400 per month. In contrast, low end rent at Mackenzie Place is about $4,000 per month. These side by side communities with vastly different interests MacKenzie Place Oakridge Condominium 4751 Pleasant Oak Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Stephanie Freier - Community Manager Colorado Association Services 1063 W Horsetooth Road - Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Phone (970) 407-9990 ^IMacK^rizie Tlacc^ MacKenzie Place Oakridge Condominium and living arrangements will lead to dissatisfaction and frictions, property devaluations, and a decline in present neighborhood appearance. About 250/0 to 300/0 of MacKenzie Place's independent living residents require walkers or wheelchairs and one should expect a similar number of the new development's residents. Where do they go shopping? About a mile to the shopping center across Harmony Rd? There is no other transportation infrastructure close by. Parking is always a problem. What appears to be ample parking space at MacKenzie Place requires overflow parking on Oakridge Dr, Pleasant Oak Dr and Macmurray Ave at times. This will also be the case for the new development. Besides parking for the residents, they require parking spaces for visiting relatives, caretakers, cleaning personnel, and other service providers. Instead of reducing general parking requirements ... they should be increased. Lastly, a four story structure at that location would not harmonize with the adjacent single story structures. Again, we respectfully ask that the new development request will not be granted. Sincerely, The Executive Board MacKenzie Place Condominium Inc Wolfgang Becker Secretary MacKenzie Place Oakridge Condominium 4751 Pleasant Oak Ehive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Stephanie Freier - Community Manager Colorado Association Services 1063 W Horsetooth Road - Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Phone (970) 407-9990 Relevant Comments from 2015 “Given the negative feedback received, the developer stated that its proposal would be redrafted and the project redesigned. Although Fort Collins is in need of more affordable housing, this site and project does not seem appropriate. For economic feasibility, at least three waivers from code would be required, as you recapped at the meeting--height, density and parking. Without the 4th floor the developer said the project would not work. … the parking is a mess and way below requirements. As submitted, the project seems to be little more than a shoe horn into an inadequate lot which by itself is scheduled for an employment type business, not a densely packed residential site. McMurry Ave for on street parking is out and the congestion at Harmony and McMurry is not a senior friendly crossing. It was also disturbing to hear that the project feasibility rests on receiving not only the waivers but also $1.7 million in disaster relief funds granted after the 2013 floods---which never touched Ft. Collins. Shameful to take this amount of relief from those that really suffered and need it! The developer is obviously an opportunist and sees a vacant property and the ability to garner several financial discounts, or subsidies, for the project.” “I have checked the parking claims for the affordable senior housing development across from MacKenzie Place Oakridge Condominium and, unless I am mistaken, the developers claims are false and misleading. They claim 99 parking spaces when, by the city code, close to 200 are required. However, 35 out of 99 belong to businesses to the north of the development and most of them were occupied earlier today. This leaves only 64 parking spaces by the new development or about 32% of the required total. Arthur McDermott admitted during the Q&A session that they had some problems with parking at another development and that they took pictures at night, when only 65% were occupied. Whom does he think he can fool? I trust it is not the OBPA board or the City planners. There is only one solution ... deny the request.” “I had a nice chat with Cody Fullmer, Manager of the Bank of Colorado who, as you know, was elected to the Business Park Board a few months ago. Cody is not adamantly opposed to the idea of this project. His main objection is the parking--grossly inadequate by his own experience with the Banks two properties. Several aspects of the proposed construction are of major concern to the neighboring community; many of them are already guarded against by the thoughtful planning and zoning restrictions of the City of Fort Collins. It is imperative that these be adhered to and not allowed to be circumvented. Among them:” “The spaces that are currently being used by the neighboring business are actually on the development site (1 full row of stalls plus ½ of the other row – See attached referencing “existing spaces” and outline of development site). The vacant lot owner granted permission for the 2 adjacent buildings to the North to allow for tenant parking on the vacant lot. Along the way, they ended up installing asphalt for added convenience to their tenants, but those spaces do belong to the development site. However, a cross-easement agreement also exists that would allow for the businesses to park on the development site, and the development site to park on the existing business lots (for 4700 McMurray and 1609 Oakridge). I do agree that the spaces are fully occupied on a daily basis, and should not be counted for exclusive use of the proposed development. There is also an access easement to grant ingress/egress through to Oakridge Drive to the North. When considering the secondary use, I believe it would be a prudent for Ryan to visit the properties during the day to observe the typical business activities which take place in this industrial setting and consider the impact of residential traffic (pedestrian foot/bicycle and vehicular) through the current business traffic from the position of the business owners as well as from a residential use.” “City parking space requirements as zoned are understood to be 1.5 spaces per one bedroom apartment and 1.75 spaces per two bedroom apartments. Based on these well thought out City requirements the proposed 126 units will need 197 parking spaces. Any deviation from that, and especially down to the proposed 99 spaces, will incur major congestion problems on the site as well as undesirable long term street parking on McMurry Ave. and likely on Pleasant Oak Dr. interfering with overload parking needs of MacKenzie Place and potentially the movement of fire fighting equipment. As stated on the City website, ”A development should be in alignment with our Community Vision” and “Ensure consistent and high quality projects.” The proposed structure fails to meet these requirements as it will detract from neighborhood values, especially property values of the MacKenzie Place individual cottages. This would in turn lower property tax revenues for the City. While the construction of tax payer funded Affordable Housing is a noble endeavor, it should be done in such a way that it does not detract from the values of those funding it, i.e. the tax payer. Location is a big factor in this and the proposal in question clashes badly with the demographics of the area. The population density would increase dramatically for the entire neighborhood with numerous undesirable side effects such as noise, dogs and traffic. In view of each of the above, we strongly recommend that NO VARIANCES to the City zoning requirements be given for this project.” “Real property values in the area: Home values will be adversely affected by tens of thousands of dollars per home. Thus, the accumulated wealth of the several hundred home owners will be decreased by thousands of dollars. Increased entropy: Adding some 150 seniors – automobiles – dogs – services - to the South McMurry area will sharply attenuate the quality of life due to increased randomness Architectural misfit: Both the size and the appearance of the proposed construction is a significant misfit - not congruent with the present “park-like” size and appearance of the existing small businesses. Misappropriation of Federal Funds: Funds appropriated for Flood Relief should not be diverted to other needs! Such divergence is, in my opinion, blatant malpractice on the part of any agency – including the City of Fort Collins. Reduced property values in area: As property values are lowered, so will the total tax revenue collected by the taxing authorities! Please allow a personal comment: We, like the majority of the Mackenzie Place Cottage Owners, have invested a major portion of our fiscal resources in our home, with the assurance at this investment would be an emergency source of dollars to fund end-of-life expenses. Therefore, any loss in the value of our cottage reduces this vital resource. It is our hope that City Planners will not approve this construction!” “General Objections: This proposed construction significantly changes the suburban character of the Oakridge Neighborhood: 1.The moderate high rise construction and the proposed site plan, are simply not consistent with existing construction in the Oakridge Neighborhood. [Construction would require the change is present building codes for this area.] 2. The addition of more than 126 residents, and their vehicles and dogs, would nearly double the present traffic and entropy of a normally quiet suburban neighborhood. 3. The proposed plan, as distributed, does not match the actual existing property sites and may be misleading to the observers. [ie, distance from Streets, correspondence with existing homes on the west side of McMurry.] Nor does the plan detail the architecture, or general appearance of the proposed construction. 4. Location – Location – Location is the most significant factor in the value of real property. The proposed construction will undoubtedly lower residential property values by millions of dollars overall and thousands of dollars for individual owners of homes. Specific Objections: The writers own a home just across McMurry from the proposed development. As such, we will be impacted more than most residents in the Oakridge Neighborhood: 1. We will be most directly impacted by the morning shade on our patio [This location was selected at a premium cost because we cherish both flowers and outdoor access.] 2. In addition, the increased traffic and loss of privacy would present unanticipated problems. 3. A Realtor friend has suggested that the value of our property will decrease by as much as thirty percent if the proposed construction is allowed.” "Subsidized Low Income Senior Housing" “How much will this affect our property values? It will "tower" over our houses down here!” 1 Ryan Mounce From: pwindler@comcast.net Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 7:20 PM To: Sarah Burnett; Ryan Mounce Cc: pwindler@comcast.net Subject: Oakridge Crossing Development Proposal Hello, I was recently out of town for the Oakridge Crossing Development Proposal public meeting. However, in reading the letter describing the project, it appears substantially similar to the last proposal a couple months ago, where I did attend the meeting. One of the fundamental issues with the last proposal was the lack of parking. The new proposal does not address this serious flaw, with only 88 spaces for 110 units plus office spaces. I am irritated that such a similar proposal to the one which so many neighbors were against was even under consideration. It appears that the developer is merely trying to wear the public down through repeatedly trying nearly identical proposals. I strongly object to the proposal, and sincerely hope the city defends property rights of homeowners, who will certainly see property devaluation if this development is allowed. -Peter Windler Adjacent homeowner 1436 Last Oak Court 970 556 5860 State Senator Member: JOHN KEFALAS Local Government Committee Colorado State Capitol Member: 200 E. Colfax Ave, Room 338 Capital Development Committee Denver, CO 80203 Member: Capitol: 303-866-4841 Health Insurance Exchange Oversight Committee COLORADO State Senate State Capitol Denver May 25, 2016 To: Ryan Mounce, Planning Service, City of Fort Collins Re: Letter of Support for Oakridge Crossing Senior Housing Development Dear Ryan, As a proponent of affordable housing, I am pleased that a new reduced-rent senior apartment community called Oakridge Crossing has been proposed for McMurry Ave. near Oakridge Dr. in Fort Collins. This thoughtfully planned mixed-use community would provide older adults on fixed incomes a safe, enjoyable lifestyle at a location that gives them convenient access to services they need and community amenities they desire. While Oakridge Crossing cannot by itself provide all of the affordable housing needed by the senior citizens in our community, such a project helps move the dial in the right direction. In my opinion, approval of the project by the City Council would set an example for the rest of our state and send a clear message that Fort Collins is truly committed to social sustainability and advancing innovative solutions for meeting citizens’ needs. I strongly support the development of much needed affordable senior housing in Fort Collins and urge you to recommend City Council approval of Oakridge Crossing. Thank you for your consideration and for your good works. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call, and take care. Sincerely, John M. Kefalas State Senator, Fort Collins (District 14) 720-254-7598 (c) 1 Ryan Mounce From: Saundra B Brown <saundrabbrown@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 8:47 PM To: Sarah Burnett; Ryan Mounce Cc: Saundra B Brown Subject: Oakridge Crossing proposal To Whom It May Concern, I attended the Oakridge Crossing Neighborhood meeting 4/28/16. I have since done more research and would like to share my opinion. The Oakridge Crossing should not be built on McMurray Street due to the lack of adequate parking on the site. McMurray does not allow parking on the street even though the Developer was telling people at this information meeting that McMurray allows parking. The street is designed with bike lanes not parking lanes. Also, the Business Park is not a suitable area for Apartments. Thank you for sharing this information with the Planning and Zoning Board. Sincerely, Saundra B Brown 1 Ryan Mounce From: Walter Hunter <wehiah@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 1:30 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Re: Oakridge Crossing Project Update Hi Ryan: As a nearby neighbor, we are disappointed to learn that the Builder is now asking for a reduction in the number of parking spaces at the proposed Oakridge Crossing development. As you know, most of the neighbors felt that the original number of 88 was too few! Unless the developer has solid and objective evidence to support the request for fewer spaces, we hope that the Planning and Zoning Board will deny the request. Although we understand the need for senior housing, we are concerned about trying to "shoehorn" any development inappropriately. Walter and Irene Hunter, 4751 Pleasant Oak Drive, A 8, F.C., CO On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> wrote: You are receiving this message because you have attended neighborhood meetings or provided comments for the Oakridge Crossing development proposal. Dear Oakridge Neighbors, I wanted to let you know the Oakridge Crossing proposal for office space and senior apartment units near the intersection of McMurry Avenue and Pleasant Oak Drive has been scheduled for consideration by the Planning & Zoning Board at their June hearing. The meeting will take place on Thursday, June 9th at 300 LaPorte Avenue (City Hall), in Council Chambers, starting at 6:00p.m. If you own property within 1,000 feet of the development site, you should also be receiving a mailed notice within the next several days. A copy of the notice is attached to this email. Elements of the proposal include:  Three-story building, containing ground floor office space along McMurry Avenue and 110 apartment units for seniors age 65 and older  New site improvements for drainage areas, landscaping, parking lot, and plaza space  Installation of street trees and sidewalk along McMurry Avenue 2  Proposed vehicle parking spaces: 88 The proposal includes two requests for a Modification of Standard to the Land Use Code. The first modification is for a reduction in the required amount of vehicle parking spaces, and the second modification requests the use of land not accessible to the public to meet accessibility requirements for a park, central feature, or gathering area. At the public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Board will provide the opportunity for public comment and testimony regarding the project. I anticipate a large number of individuals will attend the hearing and provide comments, and the board may place time limits on the length of individual testimony. If you have a lot of comments or information you would like to share with the board, or are unable to attend the public hearing, I recommend providing me a letter or email prior to June 9th that I will pass directly to the board in advance for their consideration. If you have previously sent me comments or feedback in written form, those comments have already been included as part of the board’s information packet. Preliminary agenda materials for the June hearing should be available this weekend on the Planning and Zoning Board webpage. If you are unable to attend the hearing, you can also stream the meeting online from the Cable14 webpage. If you have any questions about the project, the public hearing process, or have difficulty accessing materials, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com 1 Ryan Mounce From: DONALD BEARDSHEAR <donbeardshear@msn.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:52 PM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: Don Beardshear Subject: Re: Oakridge Business Park Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions Ryan, I read paragraph 2.6 of the Business Park Declaration of Covenants several times. I believe it does not support the claim of the applicant that the detention pond is available for private gathering space. The reason I believe this is because the Common Area described in paragraph 2.6 “shall mean those portions of the Oakridge Business Park”. Even though the Oakridge Business Park Association owns 50% of the detention pond (Tract A), the detention pond is not in the Oakridge Business Park. It is within the boundaries of Oakridge Village VII PUD. Thank you for submitting this comment to the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration. /S/ Donald L Beardshear President Oakridge Village VII Home Owners Association From: Ryan Mounce Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 11:40 AM To: donbeardshear@msn.com Subject: Oakridge Business Park Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions Hi Don, Please find attached a copy of the Business Park Covenants and Restrictions document the applicants sent to me. Thank you, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com Mr. Ryan Mounce City or Fort Collins Planning Dept. 281 N. College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Mounce I am so pleased to see that the McDermott Properties is planning to build well-planned, quality affordable senior housing. There is a critical need in our area for this. The number of seniors in our community is increasing rapidly, and affordable housing for those with low income has not kept pace with the growth. Ft. Collins recently was designated an Age Friendly Community, so this development is essential in providing housing for our older residents. The Oakridge Crossing project is ideal and meets the criteria we want in affordable housing for seniors. It is long overdue, and it would be a disservice to our community to deny their proposal. I am 100% in favor of it. Most of the current building is at the expensive high end, so we need to support this kind of affordable housing. I urge planning and zoning to approve this while the opportunity is there. We are fortunate that McDermott is willing to help with our needs. Marilyn Heller 4888 Glen Isle Drive Loveland 80538 1 Ryan Mounce From: Alice Caputo <gomollie@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 9:16 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Re: Oakridge Crossing Project Update Thank you. I have to be away and will miss the hearing. I remain concerned about the project's density/ simply too large for the space. Also, there is inadequate parking for the residents and the commercial space. I would favor reducing the size of the project ‐ fewer apartments and less commercial space. It is simply too large for the space and it will cause significant traffic and parking problems. Please consider scaling it back. Thank you. Alice and David Caputo 4751 Pleasant Oak Drive, B 38, Fort Collins, Co. 80525 Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Ryan Mounce <RMounce@fcgov.com> wrote: You are receiving this message because you have attended neighborhood meetings or provided comments for the Oakridge Crossing development proposal. Dear Oakridge Neighbors, I wanted to let you know the Oakridge Crossing proposal for office space and senior apartment units near the intersection of McMurry Avenue and Pleasant Oak Drive has been scheduled for consideration by the Planning & Zoning Board at their June hearing. The meeting will take place on Thursday, June 9th at 300 LaPorte Avenue (City Hall), in Council Chambers, starting at 6:00p.m. If you own property within 1,000 feet of the development site, you should also be receiving a mailed notice within the next several days. A copy of the notice is attached to this email. Elements of the proposal include:  Three‐story building, containing ground floor office space along McMurry Avenue and 110 apartment units for seniors age 65 and older  New site improvements for drainage areas, landscaping, parking lot, and plaza space  Installation of street trees and sidewalk along McMurry Avenue  Proposed vehicle parking spaces: 88 The proposal includes two requests for a Modification of Standard to the Land Use Code. The first modification is for a reduction in the required amount of vehicle parking spaces, and the second modification requests the use of land not accessible to the public to meet accessibility requirements for a park, central feature, or gathering area. At the public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Board will provide the opportunity for public comment and testimony regarding the project. I anticipate a large number of individuals will attend the hearing and provide comments, and the board may place time limits on the length of individual testimony. If you 2 have a lot of comments or information you would like to share with the board, or are unable to attend the public hearing, I recommend providing me a letter or email prior to June 9th that I will pass directly to the board in advance for their consideration. If you have previously sent me comments or feedback in written form, those comments have already been included as part of the board’s information packet. Preliminary agenda materials for the June hearing should be available this weekend on the Planning and Zoning Board webpage. If you are unable to attend the hearing, you can also stream the meeting online from the Cable14 webpage. If you have any questions about the project, the public hearing process, or have difficulty accessing materials, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins 970.224.6186 | rmounce@fcgov.com <Oakridge Crossing P&Z Hearing Notice.pdf> 1 Ryan Mounce From: Lynn Christy <lynn.christy@live.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 12:36 PM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: Lynn Christy Subject: Oakridge Crossing Public Input Hello, Ryan, My name is Lynn Christy, and I live in the Oakridge VII area in Fort Collins. Don Beardshear is our HOA President, and I have been discussing the new Oakridge Crossing Low Income Senior development proposal with him. I have a few concerns that I would like to pass on to you via email, as I will be unable to attend the meeting on June 9th. It is my understanding that I can deliver public comment with this method. I am concerned that the purpose for this development, a viable low income senior housing facility, contradicts its design in a way which will be very detrimental to the future senior citizen residents. As currently designed, I believe the developer is doing a huge disservice to the seniors that would end up living in his development. My concerns are centered around what appears to be an urban development design that is ill-fitted for the targeted property, a suburban Oakridge area. To my point: 1. Required use of city transit: Because the developer is stating that folks won't need/have their own automobiles, he is minimizing parking. There will be 77 parking spots for 110 apartments. If we go with his logic, that means that many of the seniors in this development will need to take the bus or walk. They are "low income" so I can't believe they will continually be able to afford taxi or uber. The nearest bus stop is .4-.5 miles from the McMurry entrance to the development (using google maps for all calculations to the bus stops just south of Safeway on Harmony Road). So, in all forms of weather, rain, snow, cold, heat, the seniors will need to walk a 1/2 mile to the bus stop for any and all services. Round trip walk = 1 mile. 2 The nearest walkable doctors' office is .7 miles away (Associates in Family Medicine), but it is unlikely they will all be patients there, so that means the bus again when ill. Round trip=1.4 miles The nearest grocery is Safeway. This store is .5 miles away if walking, 1 mile round trip. Shoppers from this proposed development will need to carry groceries home for a 1/2 mile. This situation gets worse in the snow, rain, heat, ice. Round trip = 1 mile. This pedestrian requirement does not seem like a viable living situation for senior citizens, and certainly not for any with physical ailments. The safety of the walking route for these seniors to required services is also a concern. The Harmony Road/McMurry crossing traverses a 6-lane, heavily travelled road, with a 45 mph speed limit. Are you aware that in one of the past Poudre School District boundary changes, one of the proposed changes was to have the children from Oakridge who were currently attending Werner Elementary (south of Harmony Road) be switched to attend Kruse Elementary (north of Harmony Road)? The proposal was not pursued at length because it was deemed too dangerous to have children crossing Harmony road twice/day to get to/from school. This anecdote is to emphasize the point that the crossing at McMurry and Harmony is dangerous, as it is a 6- lane, heavily travelled road, with a 45 mph speed limit. It will not be a safe situation for seniors any more than it is for children, and especially those with physical issues. 2. Gathering Space and Density: It is my understanding that to comply with city code, the developer reduced the original number of stories from 4 to 3, and included office space. In doing so, the number of apartment units was barely reduced. I believe the numbers were 128 originally reduced to 110 unit. I also understand that the units were changed to many more single occupancy apartments from multi-bedroom. This single-bedroom set-up is a very isolating situation for seniors unless they have useful gathering places to socialize. I haven't seen plans, but I understand that the private property gathering location is meant to be in a detention pond, outdoors, and not on the facility's property. Do these seniors not have a facility/location to gather in their complex? If not, must they gather outside at a location not even on their property? This solution is very isolating, does not address bad weather (cold, icy, wet, heat), and does not accommodate those with difficulties in mobility. This proposed development, Oakridge Crossing, appears poorly conceived to address the needs of those it is being built for, senior citizens. 3 Thank you for allowing me to give input. Sincerely, Lynn Christy 1527 River Oak Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 June 2, 2016 Ryan Mounce Planning Services City of Fort Collins I am a resident and homeowner in the Oakridge Village community. I am aware of the proposed Oakridge Crossing proposal and attended the public open house on April 28th, 2016. I am very concerned with the proposed development and hope the zoning change request be denied for the following reasons: 1) The proposal is not consistent with the current zoning requirements nor is it consistent with the Harmony Road Plan. When I moved into the neighborhood I thought the current light industrial zoning would stay in place. Changing the zoning is inconsistent with the current businesses. 2) Parking in the proposed Oakridge Crossing is woefully under estimated. The overflow would have to park along McMurry Street or in the MacKenzie Retirement Community. 3) Addition use of our HOA would compromise the current use. We pay some of the highest HOA fees in Fort Collins. These new residents would add additional impact the use of our HOA. The developer’s proposal to use the Oakridge detention pond as the development’s private gathering space was done without asking our HOA for permission as co-owners and manager. 4) The proposal would add additional traffic on Harmony which is now extremely congested. I certainly realize the need for affordable housing in Fort Collins, and am supportive of the City looking at opportunities. Unfortunately this location will have negative impacts on our community and neighborhood and I request the proposal be denied. Sincerely, /s/ Steve Ambrose 1 Ryan Mounce From: Carl Smith <ftc80525@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:53 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Oakridge Crossing proposal for office space and senior apartment units near the intersection of McMurry Avenue and Pleasant Oak Drive Ryan, I live in Oakridge Filing 8 and am opposed to the two modifications to the Land Use Code. The reduction in the required vehicle parking spaces will be a major traffic hazard on McMurry. The same thing happened when Columbine put the senior units in at Rule and Lemay. Many days there are more than 65 cars parked on Rule and Wheaton. 88 spaces are inadequate for 110 apartments and office space. McMurry is one of two access points from the North to the Oakridge subdivision and is used by both bicycles and cars, parking on McMurry will be a hazard to both. Snow removal in the winter will also be hindered the same way it is for the Columbine facility. The modification for accessibility for a park is also inappropriate. The land not accessible to the public in Oakridge Filing 7 is managed by that HOA but Oakridge Filing 8 pays half of the expenses for that open area. Oakridge Crossing should not be allowed to use that property to meet their park requirement when our filing is paying for the maintenance. Carl Smith 970.225.8143 DOUG HUTCHINSON 1 a 1 5 W II K I) 15 K K S T R K K T • V O R T (' () R R I X S. C O R O R A D O • 8 0 5 2 4 - 4 1 Ml P II O X K : i) 70 482 - 1 5 I 0 K M AIR: 1> () I' Cr P II I T C II @ A O R . (' () M May 31,2016 Mr. Ryan Mounce City of Fort Collins Planning Dept. 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Oakridge Crossing Dear Mr. Mounce: 1 am pleased to learn that an application to develop a new affordable senior housing community called Oakridge Crossing has been submitted to the city. I plan to attend the Hearing on June 9^'^ and will speak enthusiastically in favor of this much needed project. During my three terms as mayor of Fort Collins, issues concerning seniors were major concerns of mine—especially the complex challenge of affordable senior housing. The lack of affordable housing in Fort Collins is well documented, and the problem does pose special challenges for seniors on fixed incomes. Beyond that, safe communities designed for seniors to live and retire are also becoming increasingly difficult to find. Those wishing to downsize are often forced to stay in homes that are too large and difficult to maintain, or worse, leave the area. Our aging population should not be an afterthought. They provide countless benefits to our city through their wealth of knowledge and experience. They mentor, advise and inspire us; and fill the ranks of volunteers serving at schools, hospitals and non-profit organizations. I believe that supporting our growing senior population is one of our strong community values, and we should do everything we can to keep our senior citizens from leaving Fort Collins. That includes building quality and affordable housing like Oakridge Crossing. Doug Hutchinson Mayor of Fort Collins 2005-2011 Mr. Ryan Mounce City of Fort Collins Planning Dept. 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Oakridge Crossing Dear Mr. Mounce, I am writing in regard to Oakridge Crossing, the Mixed Use Community containing affordable senior homes and commercial space that is proposed for south Fort Collins. As a nonprofit organization located in the Oakridge Business Park we welcome this project to our neighborhood. The Oakridge Business Park is an ideal location for seniors as witnessed by Mackenzie Place, which is just across the street from the Oakridge Crossing site. Home prices and rents are at an all-time high, which is especially hard on aging adults that must live on fixed incomes. Seniors are a critical and rapidly growing component of our community and we must make sure there are places where they can afford to live. This should not be too difficult for a city with a reputation for finding innovative solutions to meeting citizens’ needs. Oakridge Crossing is a senior housing community that will provide more than 100 apartments for older adults living on fixed incomes, and will include amenities designed to provide a safe, comfortable, and affordable living environment. Most importantly, rents will be quite a bit lower than for almost any other apartments currently available in the city, and plans show that Oakridge Crossing is not sacrificing quality to meet affordability. The 5,000 square feet of commercial space included in this project is an added benefit, and will foster job growth in the Harmony Corridor. The Community Foundation is nonpartisan and we do not take positions on political issues. However, speaking only for our 12-person staff who work in the Oakridge Business Park, I can say that we would feel very comfortable welcoming this development to the area. Sincerely, Ray Caraway, President Community Foundation of Northern Colorado June 2, 2016 Mr. Ryan Mounce City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Oakridge Crossing Dear Mr. Mounce: I’m writing this letter in support of the Oakridge Crossing development. Fort Collins needs to plan for the future wave of older adults who will comprise a large segment of our population. Everyday, for the past 4 years, 10,000 people in the United States are turning 65. Fort Collins is not immune to this age wave. In fact, Fort Collins is considered a highly regarded place to age – a university town, wonderful health care services, great recreational opportunities, close to the mountains and the amenities of Denver, and a wonderful aging services network. I have been with Columbine Health Systems for the past 25 years. My daily work with older adults and their families provides with me insight into the housing options needed for our citizens as they age. As our community is made up of diverse citizens, there is also the same diversity within older adults. The housing options available to older adults must meet many levels of financial and psychosocial needs. Housing options for older adults must also be available throughout all parts of our community. Currently, our variable income senior housing is located primarily in the north side of Fort Collins. Oakridge Crossing location is situated near a grocery store, shopping, and restaurants. These amenities are highly sought out for older adults when making housing choices. The Harmony Campus and free-standing emergency room of UC Health, the Kaiser medical practice, and the Banner Fort Collins Hospital are all located within a few miles of Oakridge Crossing. The location is highly beneficial for older adults to age well and safely. Fort Collins has always taken care to ensure all of its citizens have options to meet their needs. Oakridge Crossing provides for a segment of older adults in a south location in our community. Let’s not miss this opportunity to support the needs of older adults in Fort Collins. Sincerely, Yvonne D. Myers Health Systems Director Columbine Health Systems 802 West Drake Road, Suite 101 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 • Phone 970-482-0198 • Fax 970-482-9148 • www.columbinehealth.com COLUMBINE HEALTH SYSTEMS 1 Ryan Mounce From: Steph <smmrph@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 11:00 AM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Concerns Regarding Oakridge Crossing Potential Development Dear Mr. Mounce, I am writing to you to express my concern with the potential development of Oakridge Crossing. I am a resident of the Oakridge Village VII Neighborhood. My concerns with the development proposal as it currently stands are; 1) The lack of off-street parking in relation to the potential number of residents. - There is not street parking on McMurry in front of this potential development area. The curb in front of the development is a bike lane which my family, including my young sons, use regularly to travel. The potential, given the inadequate number of off-street parking spaces provided by the development, for illegal on-street parking, blocking the bike lane, is significant. When cars park illegally on McMurry this forces bikers to move into the traffic lane. This is not safe for the children in our neighborhood. and 2) The use of our detention area as the "private gathering space" for the potential residents of this development. - While this area is landscaped it is subject to significant flooding and cannot be regularly relied upon as a gathering space. It also doesn't provide any shelter areas or bathroom facilities. Please share my written concerns with the board prior to your meeting on June 9th. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Campbell 1620 River Oak Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 1 Ryan Mounce From: Debbie Swann <debbie.swann24@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 1:44 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Oakridge Crossing Dear Ryan Mounce, I am writing in regards to the proposed development of Oakridge Crossing - Affordable Senior Housing just off of McMurry Ave. in Fort Collins. As a resident of Oakridge, I am well aware of this location and know that this development, as proposed, would have a severely negative impact on the current residents and businesses. The most pressing issue, in my opinion, is parking for this complex. McDermott Properties has proposed that this new apartment complex hold 110 units but only 88 parking spaces. Where do the other residents go? Where do their friends and families go? What about the staff? While there may be some street parking, it is not enough for the MINIMUM of 22 extra vehicles. Zoning rules dictate that this kind of facility offer 1.5 parking spots for each unit. McDermott is proposing only half of this. Is the overflow going to park on my street and clutter up my neighborhood, making it unsafe for the kids to play on their own streets? Will residents and guests be forced to park at the businesses next door? McMurry is currently a street where families go walking and bike riding. School buses do their daily pick-ups and drop-offs on this street. I personally walk from my home to the daycare on the corner of Oakridge and McMurry to pick up my young boys. The increase of traffic, noise, and people will change this way of life. Zoning rules alone should be enough to prove the parking accommodations are unacceptable, not to mention the negative impact on those of us that live in the area. The other troublesome item on the proposal is that of the "gathering space". It is my understanding that McDermott Properties wants to utilize our HOA maintained green belt and park area in order to be compliant with city rules. Will McDermott or the apartment residents chip in annually for the added maintenance required? What kind of financial obligation will they have to maintain the park? Should they or their friends and families misuse the area, who will hold them accountable? What is equally troubling is that McDermott Properties is already boasting about this "Picnic Area w/Gas BBQ Grills" on their website. We do not have a picnic area, only a couple small tables spread out along the green space. Nor do we have gas BBQ grills. To mislead the community and prospective residents about the amenities they are supposedly providing is very troubling. What else might they be lying about? (Their website also boasts about mountain views, which, in my experience, are no where to be seen on McMurry.) Believe me when I say that I understand that Fort Collins is in need of more affordable housing. I teach at CSU and am constantly hearing students complain about the rising housing costs and know the same applies to seniors on a fixed income. That being said, McDermott Properties cannot bend the city and zoning rules to suit its needs and bottom line. The complex they are proposing is simply too big for the area. It does not and cannot provide the spaces necessary for the residents without relying on other businesses' parking lots or nearby neighborhood streets and our private, HOA park. We cannot set a precedent that a company can simply piggy- back on established neighborhoods and private spaces in order to cram too many people into too tight of spaces. Senior citizens deserve better. Fort Collins residents deserve better. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. I hope you take them to heart as you evaluate the plans. Sincerely, 2 Debbie Swann 1 Ryan Mounce From: Rhys Christensen <rhys@rpcprop.com> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 5:52 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Senior housing proposal Oakridge Ryan, I am the owner of the Wolf Robotics building at 4600 Innovation. Having been in the real estate business for 30 years, my opinion is that the proposed project is woefully under parked. There should be a minimum of 110 spaces for residents and guests and at least 20 spaces for the 5100 SF office space. Thanks, Rhys Christensen, CCIM 2038 Vermont Drive Fort Collins, Co. 80525. 1 Ryan Mounce From: Eric Bloedorn <emb25@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 7:37 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Oakridge Crossing This development is NOT welcomed by any of their neighbor's. It would make MCMurray extremely congested with street parking because they don't provide enough spaces for their tenants as well as their staff. It would be an eyesore as well as not conducive to our family neighborhood. The developers will tell you everything that you want to hear to make it but I can tell you THEY won't be personally living next to it! Thank you, Abby Bloedorn A Oakridge Family Sent from my iPad 1 Ryan Mounce From: Jeff Cross <j2cross1@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:00 AM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Oakridge Crossing Good morning Ryan - I hope to attend the hearing on the Oakridge Crossing project on Thursday evening but I thought it might be best if I expressed my opposition to this development in an e-mail. I suspect there will more people at the meeting who wish to speak than there will be time to hear them. My thought is that the very exceptions being requested of the City to allow this development to go forward are the best evidence that the project is inappropriate for this location. Thank you for your consideration. Best Regards, Jeff Cross President, Tuckaway, LLC 1101 Oak Park Drive, #101 Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-481-9410 1 Ryan Mounce From: patrick.kimmitt@tobha.com Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 9:46 AM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Feedback on proposed development Oakridge Crossing Mr. Ryan Mounce, City Planner: I am opposed to approving the development Oakridge Crossing because of the following reasons: 1. Cyclists along McMurray bike path face more safety risk with increased traffic and parking along McMurray, which is now a dual‐use bike path/parking lane. Cars will block the bike lane when parked there. 2. Safety of children playing in the neighborhood with the potential increase of traffic volume 3. Safety at bus stops in the morning and afternoon with the increased traffic 4. Potential dog waste issues in the detention pond (pets allowed in this facility) 5. We will potentially see increased foot traffic in our neighborhood. 6. Wear and tear on our existing playground equipment, soccer posts, benches, etc. which is owned and maintained by 7th filing (no financial support from 8th or Business Park for this) 7. Potential increased parking within our (7th filing) neighborhood streets when people come to use the area. 8. Potential financial impact to 7th filing (upkeep/maintenance/repair costs to amenities in the detention pond area owned exclusively by 7th filing /insurance policy premium increase) 9. The design style does not blend in with the aesthetic/character of the homes in the neighborhood. It is in an urban/contemporary style which does not blend with the traditional style and character of the homes in Oakridge I live in the neighborhood just south of this proposed development and I feel it will negatively impact the quality of life for my family and neighbors if allowed to proceed. Please do not approve the development Oakridge Crossing. Sincerely, J. Patrick Kimmitt 1612 Redberry Ct 1 Ryan Mounce From: Jason Reed <jreed@slrconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:01 AM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: ksessions@gmail.com Subject: Oakridge Crossing development Ryan, I would like to submit the following questions and comments regarding the above‐referenced development and meeting this Thursday, June 9, 2016. I will be unable to attend the meeting, so please consider this email as my formal comments about the project. I am a resident of the Oakridge Village 7th filing (1525 Redberry Ct.) and have the following questions and comments about the two requested variances:  Variance to LUC 3.2.2(K)(1)(a): i. The above‐referenced code would require 172 off street parking places for 110 units. The proposal is for 80 off street parking units, or only 46% of the requirement. Is this type of variance typical in Fort Collins? If so, examples of such development should be provided and compared to this proposal. b. It is unclear how a building could be built with less parking spaces than potential tenants. Will the rental contract stipulate which tenants can have spaces and which tenants cannot? c. Regarding the justifications of the proposed variance, the referenced study (Corcoran) is for Chicago. The applicant also references their own studies in Denver. Neither study is applicable to the city the size of Fort Collins, which likely has less public transport options than larger cities. Consistent with comment (a)(i) above, local‐scale information for parking per unit should be used, or collected. This Fort Collins‐specific information could be used to better plan for future developments within the city. d. As a resident of the area, the proximity to public transportation or trails will not preclude the need for car ownership. What is the distance from the proposed site to the nearest bus stop? The use of trails for senior population, outside of recreational use, is dubious. e. McMurry has recently been repaved with the bike zone now adjacent to the curb/sidewalk thereby eliminating 850’ of parallel parking space referenced in variance request. f. In summary, the applicant seems to be relying on data from larger, metropolitan areas for the parking per unit requirements. Most concerning is that there is no provided alternative if their assumptions are not correct. An unplanned, overflow of vehicles will cause additional traffic, congestion and confusion to the area. This could cause safety concerns, which is counter to LUC 3.2.2(A) which “is intended to ensure that parking and circulation of all developments are well designed with regard to safety…” The applicant’s reference to parking on McMurry (despite parking not being allowed or possible with the bike lines) demonstrates the lack of planning with this regard.  Variance to LUC 4.26(D)(6): a. The applicant should propose a variance to the 2 acre development requirement such that the on‐site private ‘park’ (already proposed by the applicant) be sufficient to meet this LUC requirement. Access to Tract A will thusly supplement the on‐site ‘park’ proposed by the applicant easing burden on existing agreements and usage on Tract A. The applicant should also consider enhancing their proposed on‐site ‘park’ to better meet the needs of tenants and visitors, which will also reduce the burden on Tract A. This effort could be less expensive than renegotiating the land‐management contracts for Tract A (discussed below). b. The applicant does not seem to be working fully in good‐faith with respect to the existing land‐ management contracts that exist between the three associations that hold title to the Tract A. Currently, the Business Park Association does not have any full time tenants that would use the park 2 during non‐business hours. However, the applicant proposes to add 110 full time tenants to the Association, thereby dramatically increasing the potential usage of the park. This additional park usage has been proposed with no proposed changes to funding for park maintenance or recognition of liability and insurance requirements. The significant change to the existing use of Tract A should trigger a review of the existing contract and insurance policies held between the three parties, at the expense of the Applicant. Please clarify the responsibilities of the Applicant to consider the impact to existing agreements if the proposal is approved. c. Tract A is not designed or maintained as a public park, thus access to it necessarily requires it is through a private easement. Consistent with comment (b) above, the applicant should negotiate the terms of the existing land‐management agreements with the existing parties. Thank you for your consideration. Jason Reed Jason Reed, CCM Senior Scientist SLR International Corporation Direct: 970-999-3970 Office: 970-494-0805 Email: jreed@slrconsulting.com 1612 Specht Point Road, Suite 119, Fort Collins, CO, 80525, United States www.slrconsulting.com Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer This communication and any attachment(s) contain information which is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please email us by return mail and then delete the email from your system together with any copies of it. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not represent those of SLR Management Ltd, or any of its subsidiaries, unless specifically stated. CAMBX1S 1 Ryan Mounce From: Fred Stone <fred.stone@rocketmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 12:05 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Oak Ridge Crossing Development Dear Mr. Mounce, I am writing to express my concern about the Oak Ridge Crossing Development. After looking at the proposal and discussing this development with my neighbors, I have several concerns. 1. The proposed parking space is inadequate for the number of tenants. I have been told that a study has been conducted that supports the current plan, but a quick review of parking space literature shows that no one has been able to accurately predict parking needs. As a researcher, I have reviewed the parking literature and found not a single published study or even recommendation with ratios of units to parking spaces that the Oak Ridge Development proposes. Most of the recommendations are about 1.33 to 1.5 spaces per unit. My understanding is that the plan has about .75 spaces per unit. This is significantly lower than any study I could find. A study may have been conducted support this low ration, but one study is hardly convincing especially when it involves estimations of the behavior of unknown tenants. 2. I have been told that the builder is assuming that the tenants will not have as many cars as other apartment complexes. Frankly, this is unfounded, wishful thinking. The proposal is not a retirement community, and while Fort Collins has some public transportation, it is far from being adequately for exclusive use. Having a car in our city is essentially a necessity. 3. Anyone who goes by this property will see that the space will not be able to accommodate the required number of cars. The space is not very big for the number of units the developer is proposing. In the end, my neighbors and I are worried that cars will be illegally parked on the thoroughfares and in our housing area. This will only create more problems and animosity as we will complain about the traffic and call the police regularly to issue citations. I have one other concern. Zoning boards have an obligation to homeowners. I bought this house assuming that the zoning board would enforce its own rules. If the rules can be routinely changed as appears happens in Fort Collins, then private citizens are at the mercy of developers wishes to the detriment of our property's value and the accompanying life style that we thought we were purchasing. I appreciate your consideration and hope that the zoning board will disapprove this development. Sincerely, Fred P. Stone 1 Ryan Mounce From: Ells, Jason <jason.ells@cushwake.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 4:30 PM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: Kristina Lorson (klorson@sitzman-mitchell.com) Subject: Village Senior Cooperative Housing / 2800 Taft Hill Age Qualified Apartments Attachments: 20160607094150465.pdf; 2800 Taft Hill.pdf Ryan, Attached is a neighborhood meeting notification I just received for another age restricted senior housing development at the NE corner of Horsetooth & Stanford. As a matter of full disclosure, this is a parcel of land that my office has listed, the seller is now under contract to sell to Real Estate Equities Development (http://reedevelopment.com/). According to their website, REE has developed over 40 projects in a variety of states, it would seem they would be a reliable source for information related to senior housing development. Note the 87 parking spaces for 52 proposed units (1.67 spaces per unit). I spoke with this developer and asked generally about the parking trend in senior housing in the various markets they have/are developing in, with shared rides, zip cars, mass transit, etc. Their feedback was that many of their residents are coming into senior housing projects from detached single-family houses, where the residents are used to having 2 vehicles per household. They get many requests from residents for 2 parking spaces per unit, and have to temper their residents to keep them happy with the ratio they build. They are able to make a <2/unit ratio work due in part to alternative seasonal living (i.e. snowbirds going to AZ for the winter), but this is a far cry from the ratio proposed at Oakridge Crossing. Another project currently in the development process in the City is the site at 2800 Taft Hill Road (see attached). This is another Age-Qualified apartment community being presented by an experienced senior housing developer, and the parking they are proposing is 259 spaces for 170 units (1.52 spaces per unit). I know staff has been studying parking ratios for senior housing projects, encouraged by the data presented by the developer of the Oakridge Crossing project, which is proposing 88 parking spaces for 110 units + 5,100 SF of commercial space (88 spaces total - 5 commercial spaces which is not sufficient, but apparently satisfies the code = 83 residential or 0.75 spaces per unit at best). I am curious about staff's findings and how the Oakridge Crossing project relates (or doesn't) to these other two proposed senior housing projects with more than double the parking ratio of Oakridge Crossing. If these are not reasonable comparisons to Oakridge Crossing please let me know, but they appear to be very similar concepts the staff and P&Z would be considering. Thank you. Jason Ells, CCIM Vice President Direct: 970-267-7722 Mobile: 970-231-7513 Fax: 970-267-7419 2 jason.ells@cushwake.com This email (including any attachments) is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. It may be subject to legal or other professional privilege and contain copyright material. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this email has been sent to you by mistake. Access to this email or its attachments by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, copy or distribute this email or its attachments, nor take or omit to take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. We accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unauthorised access. Any views or opinions presented in this email or its attachments are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. 1 Ryan Mounce From: Dan Carter <dclydec@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:19 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Oakridge Crossing development proposal Dear Mr. Mounce, I am writing this email to voice my opposition the the proposed Oakridge Crossing development proposal. I am a property owner in the nearby Oakridge neighborhood and am very concerned about the impact this development, if allowed, will have on local congestion and nearby property values. It seems apparent to me that the developer is stretching the existing plan for this area to a point that I feel should not be allowed. I am most concerned about the number of residences that are being proposed on this size site and the resulting request for variance on parking. If this development is allowed I feel it will add a level of congestion and crowding that the planning and zoning requirements are in place specifically to avoid. To allow such a variance goes against the principle of having these requirements in the first place. I appreciate your time to review my concerns and respectfully request that you consider them in the decision making process. Sincerely, Dan Carter 1436 Silk Oak Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 970‐226‐0516 1 Ryan Mounce From: T L GRIZZLE <tedlg@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 4:36 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Oakridge Crossing Proposal Dear Mr. Mounce, This E‐Mail is to express strong opposition to the Oakridge Crossing project as currently proposed. As proposed, the project requires major variances to Land Use Code requirements which, if allowed, would place undue burdens on the surrounding business and residential areas. 1. Inadequate onsite parking. The developer’s plan only 88 on‐site parking spaces for 110 residential units, plus their visitors, plus a few employees, plus service and repair contractors. This shortage of on‐ site parking will create a large overflow of vehicles onto the adjoining streets and business parking lots. This increase in traffic and parking on neighborhood streets will: a. Adversely impact the safety of children in the neighborhood due to increased traffic and strangers parking in front of their homes. b. Adversely impact the safety of children at school bus stops. c. Violate the city parking rules regarding vehicles left on streets for multiple days without being moved. d. Require existing adjoining business who build adequate parking under the Land Use Code to provide “free” parking for the new development. This seems unethical and unfair. e. It should also be noted that McMurry, which borders the West side of the development, is now a no parking street. Therefore, the entire overflow of vehicles will seek parking on neighborhood streets. 2. Proposed use of private land as a public park or gathering place. Currently, the detention pond/park in Oakridge Village HOA 7th Filling is private land. We question the city’s right to declare this private land to be a public park. Additionally, public use of the area would; a. Increase insurance costs with the potential increased liability and land use. b. Increase wear and tear on existing playground equipment and maintenance cost of the area with increased foot traffic. c. Potentially financially impact the 7th Filling (upkeep/maintenance/repair cost) 3. Other Objections: a. The design style of the project does not blend in with the traditional aesthetic/character of the homes in the neighborhood. While we agree this project has a worthy objective, it should be reduced in size to fit the space selected without the need for Land Use Code variances. Thanks for your careful consideration of these negative impacts on the quality of the existing neighborhoods. Sincerely, 2 Ted and Murlene Grizzle Oakridge Village Sent from Windows Mail June 7, 2016 Dear Mr. Ryan Mounce and the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Department, I’m writing this letter because I support the development of Oakridge Crossing, which I view as a much needed, new kind of senior housing. Senior citizens are important to our community and their health and welfare should be priorities for us all. As a city that prides itself for innovation and enjoys consistent recognition as one of the best places in the nation for seniors to retire, Fort Collins has the opportunity to redefine how seniors live and thrive. Oakridge Crossing’s plans offer not just housing, but also community. Including a number of lifestyle amenities such as a library, fitness center, game room, and a community kitchen, residents will be able to enjoy gatherings that foster a sense of community and belonging. Providing opportunities for social interaction is vital because many seniors feel become isolated as their lives and social network change. And it is often reported that loneliness is linked to physical and mental health problems like high blood pressure, long-term illness, and depression. As a provider of the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), we at InnovAge are committed to giving seniors the chance to “age in place” – remaining active contributors to our community in late adulthood. Health care is one of the most important components to making this vision a reality; yet without stable, affordable and quality housing, health care can only go so far. Oakridge Crossing is essential to ensure that our “Choice City” offers a sustainable choice for affordable housing to our community’s seniors. It is our entire community’s responsibility to do more to help our seniors live happy, healthy lives. I feel that Oakridge Crossing and more community’s like it are a great next step to building the infrastructure we need. Sincerely, Emily Dawson Petersen Center Director InnovAge Greater Colorado PACE - North 1 Ryan Mounce From: Brad Bischoff <Brad@bdbischoff.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 10:45 AM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: Marty Thomas; Lorson, Kristina; Eric Markley; Lowell Volk; Brad Bischoff Subject: Oakridge Crossing Dear Mr Mounce, I am the owner of 1/2 of the building at 1300 Oakridge Drive as a condominium in the name of Riverdance LLC. I am writing to express my concern about the modification of parking for the above referenced development. This project is no different than any other in that the City required number of parking spaces must be provided in order to prevent overflow parking on neighboring residential streets and in neighboring commercial private property. This is not a transit oriented development and we certainly don’t need a replay of the issues surrounding the Summit. Please reject the modifications requested and require that the developer meet the standards established by current City and neighborhood association guidelines. Thank you. Brad Bischoff Brad Bischoff 7901 Eagle Ranch Rd Fort Collins, Co 80528 cell 970‐227‐9400 office 970‐223‐9400 home 970‐226‐0444 1 Ryan Mounce From: RICHARD D SEIFERT <richard_seifert@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 12:44 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Oakridge Business Park - Proposed Development My name is Richard Seifert. I am a resident of MacKenzie Place. My major issue is the available parking. From everything I have heard there will not be enough parking. If cars are parked on McMurry I feel that it will cause problems. The residents are also worried that people will park in and around the MacKensie property. Regards: Richard Seifert 1 Ryan Mounce From: Margieann Seifert <margeseifert@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 5:13 PM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: klorson@sitzman-mitchell.com Subject: Oakridge Crossing To whom it may concern, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed building of Oakridge Crossing. They are asking for several exceptions to current zoning regulations that I feel would hurt our current neighborhood. My main concern is the parking. 88 parking spaces is not even close to the number of spaces that would be needed. With not enough available spaces people will be parking in the surrounding areas and creating hazzards to everyone. With 110 apartments and 5,100 sq ft of commercial space propsed, nothing less than the current parking guidelines should be considered. We already have a Senior complex and adding another would be saturating the area. The area is currently zoned for commercial use and should stay that way. Thank you for listening to my concerns, Marge Seifert 1 Ryan Mounce From: RICHARD SAUNDRA BROWN <RICHSB@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 5:28 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Oakridge Development on McMurray I find it hard to believe the City would even consider the development with the current proposed number of parking spaces. Surely problems such as snow removal, pedestrians, bicyclists and overflow parking into other facilities waves a red flag in front of those who will be making the decision regarding the proposed development. Please defend the current quality of office/industrial/private home entities by disallowing this development. Richard Brown 4751 Pleasant Oak Drive, #C‐64 Fort Collins, CO 80525 1 Ryan Mounce From: tw <tw@wohlersassociates.com> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 6:51 AM To: Ryan Mounce Cc: Diane Wohlers Subject: OakRidge Crossing Development Hi Ryan, We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed OakRidge Crossing Development. Our primary concerns are that 1) the space is not zoned for this type of building, 2) it will increase traffic and parking on McMurry, 3) our OakRidge Village 7th Filing insurance policy costs could rise due to increased use and liability of our detention pond space, and 4) it could increase dog waste, smoking, littering, and wear and tear on our 7th Filing playground equipment in the detention pond space and neighborhood. Sincerely, Terry and Diane Wohlers 1511 River Oak Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 1 Ryan Mounce From: Bernie <bshafer@frii.com> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 11:54 AM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Oak Ridge Crossing Development Proposal My name is Bernard Shafer and I live at 1318 Red Oak Ct. in the Oak Ridge subdivision. I don’t know whether I will be able to make the next public forum on this proposed development so I wanted to share with you some concerns my wife and I have. Our major concern is the amount of traffic and congestion the new facility will bring to our neighborhood, and specifically the lack of off street parking being proposed by the developer. We are strongly opposed to a waiver for Oak Ridge Crossing reducing the amount off street parking below city codes and policies. Our neighborhood is already congested with excessive on street parking due to the Colorado Early Colleges school and Columbine Rehab facility. What was once a quiet predominantly residential community is clogged with traffic and parked cars on the street. This represents an increasing danger to young children (we have many in our area) as they cross the street. The city, it seems to us, continually underestimates the need to have adequate off street parking when considering development proposals, to the detriment of neighboring residents and their quality of life. Sincerely, Bernie and Connie Shafer 970‐225‐2482 1 Ryan Mounce From: Mary Jane Bartley <bartleymj64@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 3:27 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Proposed development on McMurray To whom it may concern, I am opposed to the development on McMurray primarily due to parking issues & increased use of the park for the Oakridge neighborhood. The developers have not provided enough designated parking spaces for the number of units proposed thereby increasing the possibility of tenants parking in our neighborhood. Also, considering there will be commercial stores, what parking is provided for that. I am also concerned about our park wear & tear. The 7th filing(of which we are members) is monetarily responsible for the park maintenance. I'm not in favor of tenants in that development being able to use the park for functions with no financial responsibility on their part. I am not opposed to affordable senior housing but the proposal should enhance our neighborhood not burden it. I understand that the exterior of the units is also not in keeping with the natural look of its neighboring buildings. Paint colors should complement the area. Thank you for considering this. MJ & Gary Bartley Homeowners in Oakridge 7th filing 1 Ryan Mounce From: Michelle Glisan <m.glisan12@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 4:34 PM To: Ryan Mounce Subject: Oakridge Crossing Development Dear Sir, I am writing this e‐mail as a concerned neighbor. My family and I purchased our home on the cul‐de‐sac of Redberry court in the summer of 1997. We chose this neighborhood because it had the feel of a safe, small town community. Our concern with the new development comes with several points:  Increased insurance rates to cover increased liability on our park  Increased foot traffic on our street (on our cul‐de‐sac we have 12 children under the age of 12 who play in and on the street daily) I am concerned about their safety!  Increased parking on our street to reach the park (same safety concerns for the children as mentioned above)  Increased parking on McMurray could cause safety concerns for the kids who catch the bus to school  Concerns about the wear and tear of the playground equipment and benches on soccer field and playground  Potential increase of dog waste in the park area The number of parking spaces being allocated to the square footage of this building does not add up and we are concerned about how the lack of parking will affect our neighborhood. Please take into consideration the whole neighborhood when planning and approving this site. Thank you for the consideration. Billy and Michelle Glisan and family Right-click here to download pictures. To help p ro tect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com A subsidiary of Mile High Community Loan Fund June 22, 2016 Ryan Mounce Development Services City of Fort Collins, Colorado Via email: rmounce@fcgov.com Mr. Mounce: Due to a schedule conflict I will be unable to participate in the re-scheduled hearing before the Planning & Zoning Board of the Oakwood Crossing Apartments application. In lieu thereof, please accept this letter in support of the proposed project within the public testimony file. As a matter of full disclosure, Funding Partners, through its parent entity, Mile High Community Loan Fund, recently extended acquisition financing for the subject parcel. Collectively we hold a mission to promote the creation and preservation of safe, decent housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households across Colorado. Furthermore, the two entities have a well-established business relationship with McDermott Properties and its affiliates as a premier owner-operator of multifamily rental properties along the Front Range. We are very proud of this association. Mr. McDermott and his team of professionals exhibit a high degree of personal integrity and collective empathy for a segment of our community that is unaccustomed to the dignity his residents enjoy. The matter before the Board concerns the merits of the project relative to compatibility with City zoning requirements. The Board must further consider the allowance of modification of standards regarding minimum parking requirements and access to minimum parkland space within the project site. It must be noted the purview of the scheduled hearing does not include consideration of extraneous issues that often predominate public testimony surrounding subsidized housing developments. Compatibility with zoning requirements Located within an Employment Zone district, the applicant has proposed a mixed-use property that incorporates street front office/retail space that will complement a residential component that targets senior households. Given the direction provided by Funding Partners 330 S. College Avenue, Suite 400 Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 494.2021 (970) 494.2022 Fax www.fundingpartners.org A subsidiary of Mile High Community Loan Fund City staff as to an acceptable ratio of commercial and residential uses, the applicant is in compliance with standards established for this district. Fort Collins has experienced significant population growth without a corresponding increase in housing inventory. Consequently, the cost of all housing has ballooned well out of proportion to prevailing wages. This dynamic is attributable to numerous and complicating factors, not least of which is the cost of meeting local code and zoning requirements. To further apply ill-defined or subjective standards beyond already stringent requirements exacerbates these difficult conditions. As the proposed project achieves the definitions provided within City code, it must be found compliant. Minimum Parking Requirements As proposed, the project will provide 0.80 spaces per residential unit. Staff recommendation to permit the modification is well justified given the nature of the proposed use. With several local examples and numerous statewide, the population served by this project exhibit a very low dependency on personal-use vehicles. Not only is it an expense that is difficult to justify while relying a fixed income, residents will enjoy convenient access to public transit, abundant amenities within close proximity, and supplemental programming offered through property management. Noting commercial tenants will be carefully screened for compatibility with the residential component, low trip generation businesses will be of high priority. Furthermore, a land use restriction agreement will be recorded to maintain the proposed use and resident demographic for a minimum of 40 years. There is abundant evidence to suggest parking demand will be well below that of other residential properties and decrease over time. Minimum Parkland Access Although it is not clear to me at this point whether a modification of standard is necessary regarding access to a park or gathering area, it appears the standard has been met through site design and common parkland space. The site plan under consideration clearly demonstrates compliance, though I understand statements to the contrary have been raised. Such assertion appears limited to a technical, perhaps defective, interpretation as functional access is clearly achieved. Thank you for your consideration and appreciate your support of this vital addition to our community! Respectfully, Joe Rowan Joe Rowan Director of Programs and Development