The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTHE LODGE AT MIRAMONT PUD - PRELIMINARY - 54-87AP - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONAugust 5, 2000 1100 White Oak Court Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board 281 North College Avenue, P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 RE: Neighborhood Response to Staff Report on The Lodge at Miramont Dear Boazd Members: RECEIVED AUG Q 7 2000 CURRENT PLANNING The purpose of this letter is to try to summazize the considerable neighborhood opposition to this project as it is currently proposed. As the planning file indicates, numerous residents from all the adjoining neighborhoods have expressed major concerns in person at neighborhood meetings, in individual letters to the Board, and by signing petitions in opposition to the current proposal. It is our hope that you will all give serious consideration to their concerns and help us in coming to a comnromise solution that meets the needs of all parties. We hasten to state up front that opposition to this proposal is NOT based on an opposition to growth, multi-family development, or the interest of the city to encourage denser, infill development wherever �, S possible. In fact, your own Board records will show relatively little opposition to past staff and E h Board decisions which permitted other multi-family parcels in this immediate area to be `� 4�� Ks � deve lope d a t 1 7 7% o f p lanne d ca aci . I f not hing were ever bui lt on t he su bject pazce l, mu lti- �� 6„ApP� family development in the oardwalk corrido would already exceed the planned total of 350 units �,Na „ (current total is 372 units). In spite of this, the neighborhood residents fully expect and even welcome � x�`� � 9� a multi-family development on this pazcel of higher density than the surrounding neighborhoods. a'�' � We will not, however, accept a development that 1) is two to three times more dense than any adjacent development, 2) remains out of character with these existing neighborhoods, and 3) violates the requirements (and the intent) of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS). We direct your attention to the numerous other letters on this subject to provide background on these concerns (see, ,. oT s�. for e�.mple, our letter to Ted Shepard dated February 9, 2000). Virtually none of these and other r� 4s M`� s� neighborhood concerns have been addressed by the developer and most have been dismissed with little s" � or no comment by staff in their report for the August 17, 2000 Board meeting. Rather than repeat this `�' �a�� background information here, we ha.ve confined our comments specifically to the staff conclusions in °`s � their report to the Board. , COMMENT #1 and #2 (page 2 of 11) Staffcomments that the current O.D.P. was adopted in 1987 and that "Parcel N remained designated 'Multi-family' and 'Business Services' throughout all Of� amendments". This is not true. The current Oak-Cottonwood Farm O.D.P. was adopted in�' 1992` Prior to 1992, Pazcel N(then designated as Parcel2-C) was planned for "Business Services" ori��t was changed in 1992. This is significant because many purchasers of adjoining property were shown copies of the earlier Master Plan at the time of purchase decisions in the early to mid-1990s. ti � �a � • r`:� l� "'.rQ • , 's !�F-�` � �/ �, �. A ,v U � ! COMMENT #3 (page 3 of 11) �� " � �K� t � ��? �r� � �� Staffstates definitively that this site achieves a score of 130% on "Density Chart H", but fails to address the numerous neighborhood concerns with how this was to be scored. There has been �siderable confusion since the beginning of this process as to what the proper score should be. In fact, the first application for this development (see letter from VF Ripley dated September 21, 1999) scored this site at 78%. At the time, the applicant was proposing an 88 unit development. In stafFs letter to the applicant of October 28, 1999, Mr. Shepard pointed out that this score would permit only 7 to 8 units per acre as opposed to the 11.4 units proposed. Mr. Shepard then provided suggestions on how this score could be raised to 103%, thus allowing the 88 units. The applicant re- scored the site at 138% in their application for a 132 unit development on January 25, 2000. This was a surprising change since most points on this chart are awarded for proximity to other improvements � i'�►�� E and the site didn't move! When the applicant was asked at the February 8 neighborhood meeting how � o�.t �' these distances were determined, he replied "by measuring the distance along commonly traveled ��,,�, ��.�� streets and sidewalks - as if one were walking or bicycling. When neighbors actually measured these �M distances as he suggested, most measurements qualified as zero points and the total score was reduced ,��N� to 68%. �P�' This brings us to the latest attempt to score this site. Staff has since used an "as the crow flies" measurement to deternune the distance from the edQe of the proposed site to the stated improvements. Even using this approach, the measurements are us to awazd full credit in several key categories. For example, on criterion C, staff provides the maximum credit of 10% for being within 4,000 of Hazmony Marl�et. Using a straightline measurement, 4,000 feet would take one to the southeast corner of th� Home Depo�parking lot. Walking or biking from the entrance of the proposed development to the nearest entrance of a store covers 6,125 feet. Criterion E was scored at the maximum of 10% for being within 2,500 feet of Werner Elementary School. Students walking to this school will cover 3,220 feet to get to the door'.`�ritenon F was scored at the maximum of 20% for being within 3,000 feet of Oakridge Business Park while it would take at least 3,300 feet to cover any distance from door to door. Finally, Criterion Q overestimated both the size and value of the Community Building and should not be scored over 14 points. �� '�' =�� 3 ,��; �� While one might make an argument that some points should be awarded in these categories, we do not believe that "Maa�imum Credit" should be permitted. Allowing a more reasonable zero to half credit for the Criteria listed above yields a fmal score of between 87 and 107%. Clearly, scoring a Density Chart H is not an "exact science" and this more reasona.ble score would permit the development to go forward, but at a more reasonable 8 to 10 units per acre (62 to 78 units total). Density itself is not the key issue here, but questions of density impact all other concerns from traffic to pedestrian safety to school overcrowding. COMMENT #4 (page 4 of 11) Staff has correctly identified "neighborhood compatibility" as being the major source of concern for the area residents as these are addressed in the All Development Criteria. It should be understood that "the intent of these criteria is to ensure that development proposals are sensitive to and maintain the character ofexisting neighborhoods" (LDGS, p. 11). This is clearly where this proposal, in its current form, fails. Staff states that the buildings achieve a"maximum height of 38 feet nine inches" whereas proposed elevations show this height to be "+/-" �d the applicant could not provide a fixed benchmark from which this height could be measured when asked in a neighborhood meeting. Fill in this very low site could raise this elevation considerably. ��, ,�� ;, �, y ��,��, �� a Much has been made of the fact that these buildings "taper down to two and one-story at the ends." Careful attention should be directed to the "Typical Roof Plan" on Sheet 1 of the applicant's plans. This plan shows that the one story sections at each end of the building are less than S feet and that the two story sections aze less than 14 feet. With a total roof length of 140 feet, the three story section of each building is about 96 feet in length. The side elevation of each building presents a three story height for entire depth of the building. F r � 0 J,c`s � Staff has calculated on page 5 tha.t the entire "three story frontage along Lemay" is only 17'6 feet. This apparently was calculated from the ridgeline length of just the two buildings closest to L_�. The "view corridor" issue is much more significant than just these two buildings, however. When taking into account the east facing elevations of ALL buildings on this site, just under 500 feet of the 598 feet of Lemay frontage includes a three story height. Unlike the 28% of three story frontage reported by staff, the actual three story frontage is closer to 84%. The balance of the frontage w ich °'is either open or features one-story gazages and the one-story community building" is less than 00 feet (about 16%) of the total. This kind of misrepresentation is inexcusable in preparation for such a critical decision. If staff concluded that this proposal barely complied with this Development Criterion at a 28% obstruction of the Lemay frontage, how can it possibly comply with this Criterion at an 84% obstruction? �� ' H• � � �' , � :- � �' - c � � � :�. � � �,:, ;-� a � � � � � , Related to the traffic impact analysis, it should be noted that the 1992 traffic study did not take into � accownt the additional overdevelopment which was to occur on Parcels E and Q of the Master Plan. � All traffic studies since then simply compared the proposed development on Pazcel N with the planned development and, since it was always less, conclude there will be no problem. According to the traffic engineer at the last neighborhood meeting, actual current traffic counts and this new development will increase traffic to 5,000 vehicles per day along Boardwalk. We recommend that a full study be conducted taking into account the actual development as it has occurred in this corridor. This is clearly one of the most dangerous intersections in Fort Collins with two major injury accidents occurring within 24 hours of each other just this past week. Street parking and school children walking along this corridor only increases the risk. � � � �-P, t ; .� ,� , ; ;,, �, � ,. �. ,,,� Related to Development Criterion A-1.12, we understand tha.t the detention area can be iricluded in density calculations for this site. Our only point is that, when you lose neazly 30% of a site to detention azeas, the net effect is to increase the density and the height of any remaining building areas. Staff has frequently tried to compare this development to the Miramont (listed here as"Oak Hill") Apartments, which have a similaz overa.11 density. The difference here is that the Miramont Apartments are bordered by "Big Box" retail stores to the north and a large indoor tennis stadium to the east and distributes its density over the entire site without any reduction for detention. The `proposed Lodge at Miramont has a much smaller developable site and is surrounded by one and t�vo story residences and open parkland. No such reasonable comparison can be made. The essential requirement of Criterion A-1.12 (3.0 d.u./ac.) will be achieved for this O.D.P. no matter what is �velo ed on Parcel N. � �,, �,� �,�� ,o Z ��,; � � , P s � ,.. � ,Ns� ��-� Z,� ✓o,�J v ��'.— �s�;,� � �`� fU %/�RT J %�= TSJr� �� — .l �a�.� � `r? �- 1a �t'a �1 t �- /��Z R 71�'.r ?7 0/9 K R� o a f :• LC'�l A y 1'r(ieN �r a E� 3� v�l�- Y i�1'� rt I v 6 N O✓T %i1 E' � I 7'FGT . /4�t- E S/I ✓ ��— iJ'v66ESTs:°; < ?9tFr T 7'H E �-��-��r :—� � �.� € �' ,^ r� ,� -- - i�' _"—'�, �- — � ��" � e r t,Jit'� ; -�, � �$ � � ; � �,�.,•�,�-�" ��' ✓ � �j. �c �,�+r !�T " �( � � � `! ^,c.o r � F COMMENT #5 (page 9 of 11) �, � � �,, F. p t,.,��yrE» n or�+�� ffRi� �.�obf . No one is suggesting that this development be"the same as" surrounding neighborhoods. The existing mix of housing types, commercial developm�nt� d retail outlets in this azea clearly demonstrates that the residents are not looking for uniformity in a1I'�velopments. That is different from "compatibility", however. Criterion A-2.2 calls for an"edge context" t� transition from existing one and two story development to taller, more obstructi�ve developme�t: This cleazly has not been done in this case. On all sides, this site starts immediately wrt�i fult height, three story structures. In nearly all other locations, even along intersections between two arterials, multi-family developments transition up by placing two story units along the perimeter of the site. At minimum, we suggest that this be done in this case. Without it, this proposal fails to meet Criterion A-2.2. All residents at the neighborhood meetings expressed their disagreement with the staffs attitude expressed here tha.t "there aze no inherent land conflicts" and "the minimal exposure of the three-story height along Lemay and the view corridors through the site combine to create a well-designed multi-family project that meets the compatibility test." We strongly disagree with these conclusions! COMMENT #8 (page 11 of 11) As outlined in the sections above, we disagree with the staffs findings of fact in the following areas: I� : Development in this area has not complied with the Oak Cottonwood Farm O.D.P. No development on this site will cause the gross residential density of the O.D.P. to fall below 3.00 units per acre since, with nothing on this site, it is already above 3.00! C. Scoring of the point chart has not been consistent throughout this process, but a score of 130 cleazly cannot be supported. Even at 130, past Board decisions would not permit a density greater than 13 units per acre. The "right answer" is somewhere between 8 to 10 units per acre. I� E. The proposed development clearly fails to meet All Development Criteria A-1.12, A-2.2 (no "edge context"), A-2.7, and no evidence has been provided in support of A-2.9. This is central to all other objections. Neighborhood residents do not feel this is "sensitive to and maintains the character of the existing neighborhood." In conclusion, we are not opposed to a multi-family development on this site, even one that is denser than surrounding multi-family developments. For example, the Hamlet adjacent to this site on the south has 8.6 units per acre and the Courtyards adjacent on the northwest have 5.3 units per acre. The problem comes down to a total lack of compatibility with and sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhoods. The neighbors have expressed from the beginning their willingness to work with the developer of this site to create a compromise solution that works for all parties. Virtually nothing has been done to facilitate this compromise. Hopefully you, as members of the Board, will help to create a solution that benefits all residen of Fort Co lins. Tha you for your consideration. ;� A1 and Linda Hauck � - � � � �� % , � � � , ��/ ?`` �� , � � � RECEIVED Au�ust 6, 2000 City of Fort Collins Plannin� and Zoning Board 281 North College Avenue P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CQlorado 805?2-0�80 Re. The Lodae at 1�tiramont Dear Board 1�lembers: AUG 0 7 2onn CIJRRENT PLANNING I am President of Oa1:RidQe Villa,e III �-Iomeow�ners :�ssociation. Ous neivhborhaod Es directly East of the proposed Lodae at viiramont. On behatf of the 73 homeow�ners of Oal:RidQe VillaQe III, I must advise you that we are opposed to this project as presently planned_ ��e believe the points made in :�I and Linda Hauck's correspondence dated February 9, 2000 and Auaust 5, 2000 clearly summarize our concerns. Once a�ain, we are not aQain�t the developme�t of this propertY — but rather the overatl size an� density of the project. Despite candid input from various officers and homeow•ners from surroundinQ �ssociations, little or no effort was made to address concerns. I echo the Hauck�s observation that "Virtuallv none of these and other nei�borhood concerns have been a�dressed by the ae�-eloger and most �a�•e been dismissed «�eh littte or no comment b� staff'. We feei that little or no consideration was �ven to density or size of project issues. We believe the project should not �o fonvard as planned. In conclusion, I would ask that each of you consider your position with care. Ask yourse�f if you would like this type of development adjacent to your lar`est investment — your home. I can only assume you vvould not. Sincerely, . %� ��L��..r r�' . �� John A_ Busby President, OakRid�e Villa�e III Association, Inc. NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED "LODGE AT MIRAMONT" R E C E I V E D May 1, 2000 AU G 0 2 200G CURRENT PLANNING We, the undersigned neighbors of the proposed "Lodge at Miramont" at the intersection of Lemay and Boardwalk, wish to express to members of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Boazd our strong disapproval of this development as it is currently proposed. We do not believe that it is compatible with the surrounding land uses and that, as proposed, this development fails to meet the most fundamental Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria: "The intent of these criteria is to ensure that development proposals are sensitive to and m$intain the character of existing neighborhoods." (Land Development Guidance System, p. 11) NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED "LODGE AT MIRAMONT" May l, 2000 We, the undersigned neighbors of the proposed "Lodge at Miramont" at the intersection of Lemay and Boazdwallc, wish to express to members of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board our strong disapproval of this development as it is currently proposed. We do not believe that it is compatible with the surrounding land uses and that, as proposed, this development fails to meet the most fundamental Neighborhood Compatibilitv Criteria: "The intent of these criteria is to ensure that development proposals are sensitive to and maintain the character of existing neighborhoods." (Land Development Guidance System, p. 11) NAME ADDRESS PHONE # DATE �,�� r � s� � C �a5—�'� s-. -�o ��ne-� /��%� /�o � u,�trrr� c� cT— 3 7 7 ��Y6 S=/-c� ��l�y^.� �� i f �� .L✓ h�-1,--j Gl ":.�: �� -i� ��. 7�L � �� , �. �C'� J �S: �=F'�i�.� ` /��1�: .� %�"/ .C3r�-� �-'��.� S' � 3>� �%�� 5 /'C� ,/ ' ' '�� I ;:L V'' A �� ,�� , .� J��.i 4'(�� l.t C�(.�-� C ' a� r� � �L� _, �� U .-1_.� j ' / � �:. (,��. `�/;_ :�1.,� )1 /� <',y'�i. ;�x; '�,r r��y'� �- -� � Z.G; % 1�' ti � - �' �''� �11i { ��0��.:f.;�� '!��i�' = �U:.-+-,i�L=!;�.'-�'_l. ��- �2J�-C;`i '�S� �- I -'`�, ..i J .' �• =� - � Harold R. Moore, DPM August O1, 2000 Planning and Zoning Department City of Fort Collins Attn: Ted Shepard PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Complaint about proposed Lodge at Miramont Dear Mr. Shepard and Planning and Zoning Department, RECEIVED AUG 0 2 z0p0 CURRENT PLANNING As I wilI be out of town on August 17, I will be unable to share my opinion regarding the proposed Lodge at Miramont. As has been shazed in the three town meetings(the traffic department was on vacation for meeting #2 so a third meeting had to be scheduled), the local residents have multiple complaints regarding the proposed 3 story multi-unit dense development on Lemay. One of my most pressing irritations regazding the developer is the gross misrepresentation depicted by their proposed "digital photo" representation indicating an artificially low building horizon indicating the faint possibility that the neighborhoods to the east might still have a view of the foothills. I personally waIked to the site of the photo and using the 3 story gym on the north side of the project drew an artifical horizon which does NOT match the developer's "elevation photo". ANY CHANGES OR INCREASED ELEVATION OF T� BASE GROUND LEVEL (SUCH AS ADDITIONAL FII.L" WILL MAKE TF-� PROJECTED BUII.,DING HORIZON TOTALLY IJNACCEPTABLE. I encourage the building and zoning people to personally compare the view from the same angle and VERIFY that this is indeed a mis-Ieading construct. As an owner of a home on White Oak Court, I feel the impact of this overly dense development in an already overly developed azea presents multiple problems including: 1.-Increased traffic congestion on Boardwalk and Lemay 2.-Unsafe pedestrian(child) use of the boardwalk corridor for Werner elementary students(NO light is planned at Highcastle and NO guard)(maybe a speedbump) 3: Overcrowding of the overly crowded Werner School 4.-Overflow street parking from the development onto Boardwalk S: Incompatability of the high 3 story structures creating a"canyon" effect �nd noise pollution on Lemay. 1217 East Elizabeth Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 472-8700 � L� Harold R. Moore, DPM 6.-Overly dense development of the proposed site which is already located in the densest corridor in Fort Collins. 7.-Potential problems of overflow parking/RVBoat pazking due to lack of parking in the complex. 8: Misleading information visual "elevation" picture showing a"small size lodge" out of proportion to the eaisting 3 story strncture already there. THE SOLUTION: Obviously the board gets tired of complaints but I propose a relatively benign simple solution to the biggest problem which is the height of the two buildings closest to LEMAY. Most of the homeowners are upset with the HEIGHT which will block a11 of their view of the foothills and create an UNNATURAL arrifical 3 story horizoa If only those two buildings which border Lemay could be changed to 2 STORY and let the westem buildings remain 3 story, I imagine I could live with development. The developer would only lose 4 units but the benefits to the neighborhood would be substantial. This minor change would enhance the natural upward slant to the foothills and "fit" with the neighborhood. Ptease consider these suggestions and comments from a concemed citizen. Sincerely, Harold R Moore DPM, FACFAS, FACFO 1106 White Oak Ct ,i . M . � � 1 1217 East Elizabeth Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 472-8700