HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE LODGE AT MIRAMONT PUD - PRELIMINARY - 54-87AP - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSr
ITEM NO. �
MEETING DATE �q
STAFF TPri She{��rd
Ciry of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
ST�FF REPORT
PROJECT: The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87AP
APPLICANT: Mr. Mike Sollenberger
C/o V-F Ripley Associates
401 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNER: Western Property Advisors, Inc.
3555 Stanford Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for Preliminary P.U.D. for 108 multi-family dwellings on 7.7
acres. There would be nine residential buildings and one office/community
building. The P.U.D. includes a combination of garages attached to the
buildings, detached garages and surface parking. The buildings are three-stories
in height (39 feet at the ridgeline) with the ends of the buildings dropping to two-
stories and one-story. The site is located at the northwest corner of the Lemay
Avenue and Boardwalk Drive and zoned M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The P.U.D. complies with the Oak-Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan,
satisfies the applicable All Development Criteria and exceeds the required
minimum score on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. Although the
P.U.D. is not "the same as" the surrounding land uses, the contextual location
and design combine to allow the project to be compatible with the neighborhood.
Bicycle and pedestrian connections are provided to Miramont neighborhood park
and the two perimeter streets. The traffic can be accommodated on the existing
streets and there is ample capacity at the Lemay/Boardwalk intersection.
COMMUNiTY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. Co]]ege Ave. PO. Box 5S0 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750
['LAti�NitiG DE_PARTMF\IT
The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87AP
August 17, 2000
Page 2 of 11
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: M-M-N; Collinwood Assisted Living Center
S: L-M-N; Vacant and The Hamlet Condominiums
E: R-L; Single Family Attached and Detaehed
W: M-M-N; Miramont Neighborhood Park
The subject parcel is designated as Parcel N on the original Oak-Cottonwood
Farm Overall Development, originally approved in 1987. This O.D.P. consists of
approximately 270 acres and features a wide variety of land uses. Parcel N
represents one of the last vacant pieces of property within the O.D.P.
The Oak-Cottonwood Farm O.D.P. was annexed as part of the Keenland
Annexation in 1980. Since the adoption of the O.D.P. in 1987, there have been
subsequent amendments and 36 filings have been finalized, including the 50-
acre Harmony Market Community/Regional Shopping Center. All of the O.D.P.
amendments and P.U.D.'s were reviewed and evaluated under the Land Use
Policies Plan and the Land Development Guidance System. The residential area
west and south of Boardwalk Drive is known as the Miramont neighborhood.
2. Oak-Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan:
As mentioned, the original O.D.P. of 1987 has been amended over the years.
Major amendments were approved in 1989, 1992 and 1997. The key
amendment was in 1992 which shifted Boardwalk Drive (collector street) further
east. This shift had the effect of creating more land area between Fairway
Estates (county subdivision) and Boardwalk Drive. This amendment was done in
conjunction with the planning for the Miramont residential neighborhood.
Parcel N remained designated "Multi-family" and "Business Services" throughout
all O.D.P. amendments as these uses continue to make sense for the
intersection of an arterial and collector.
(As the last residential parcel in the O.D.P., a brief reflection on the overall
density may be in order. Without Parcel N being factored in, the overall
residential density, as calculated over the residential parcels only, is 4.34
dwelling units per gross acre. With Parcel N factored in, the overall density is
4.80 dwelling units per gross acre.)
The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87AP
August 17, 2000
Page 4 of 11
w. Providing adequate, safe, and convenient pedestrian and bicycle
connections between the project and city sidewalks and an existing
neighborhood park.
The project earns 130 points, which exceeds the required minimum of 100
points. The P.U.D., therefore, complies with the variable criteria of the Land
Development Guidance System.
4. Neighborhood Com�atibility and Applicable All Development Criteria:
The following neighborhood meetings were held in conjunction with this P.U.D.:
First at-large neighborhood meeting — February 8, 2000
Meeting with H.O.A. representatives — March 14, 2000
Second at-large neighborhood meeting — May 1, 2000
Third at-large neighborhood meeting — July 31, 2000
Minutes to the three at-large neighborhood meetings and the agenda for the
H.O.A. meeting are attached.
In terms of neighborhood context, the project is bordered on the east, across
Lemay Avenue, by Oak Ridge, and on the south, across Boardwalk Drive, by the
Hamlet at Miramont and a vacant parcel. The Courtyards at Miramont are
located to the northwest of the project across the park and does not abut the
project. The campus of Collinwood Assisted Living Center is located to the
north.
There were several primary issues related to neighborhood compatibility that
were raised by those attending the information meetings. These issues, the
applicable All Development Criteria, and the design resolution, are summarized
as follows:
A. Height, Mass, Scale and Bulk:
Issue:
The issue is the size of the buildings in relation to the surrounding area. Those
attending the neighborhood meetings expressed a strong concern that the three-
story buildings are out of proportion with the neighborhood, especially the one-
story ranch-style homes across Lemay in Oak Ridge. The concern is that the
height, mass, scale and bulk will present an unattractive streetscape along
Lemay and significantly change the character of the established neighborhood.
Finally, the three-story buildings do not integrate into the neighborhood.
The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87AP
August 17, 2000
Page 5 of 11
All Development Criteria:
The applicable All Development Criteria are A-2.2, "Building Placement and
Orientation," and A-2.7, "Architecture" and A-2.12, "Setbacks" which state:
"A-2.2: Are buildings and other site plan elements (such as fences and
parking facilities) oriented on the lot in a way that is consistent with the
established neighborhood character?'
"A-2.7: Is the architecture proposed for the project appropriate for the uses
and activities that are planned and does it contribute to the
neighborhood's appearance in a positive way?'
"A-2.12: Are the setbacks for the buildings and other site plan e/ements
(such as fences and parking facilities) consistent with the setbacks
established in the surrounding neighborhood? In cases where a definable
setback does not exist, is the proposed setback appropriate for the land
use and streetscape proposed?'
Design Resolution:
The buildings feature a varying roofline with the three-story element achieving a
maximum height of 38 feet and nine inches. (If the buildings exceeded 40 feet,
then a special height review would be needed. Since the buildings do not
exceed 40 feet in height, the L.D.G.S. All Development Criterion A-2.8 "Building
Height and Views" is not applicable.) The buildings taper down to two and one-
story at the ends. Three-story buildings that do not exceed 40 feet in height are
allowed and are found elsewhere in Oak-Cottonwood Farm O.D.P. (Oak Hill
Apartments.)
In terms of building orientation, only two of the nine buildings face Lemay. Each
building contains 85 feet of three-story frontage along Lemay for a total of 170
feet. The entire parcel contains 598 feet of Lemay frontage. Therefore, only 170
feet out of a total of 598 feet (28%) of Lemay frontage will feature the three-story
height. The balance of the frontage is either open or features one-story garages
and the one-story community building.
In terms of architecture, the buildings feature a variety of details that break up the
mass. There would be three exterior materials; synthetic stone, wall shingles
and stained or painted siding. Dormers are accented with rough sawn timbers.
The roof would be high-profile asphalt shingles. Balconies would be supported
by peeled logs. Chimneys provide horizontal relief.
The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87AP
August 17, 2000
Page 6 of 11
In terms of setbacks, the All Development Criteria makes a distinction between
urban and suburban character. Urban character is defined as:
"... relative/y high density, more intense activity, and is usually paved and
architectural compared to open, grassed and naturally landscaped."
Suburban character is defined as:
... lower density with open space between and around buildings."
Building I is setback from Lemay (as measured from the back of walk) by 62 feet.
Building C is setback from Lemay by 110 feet. In this area of Lemay, a definable
setback does not exist. Although the O.D.P. represents a mix of land uses, the
development pattern is considered more urban than suburban, especially at the
intersection of an arterial and collector street. The proposed building setbacks
are considered appropriate for a multi-family project. The proposed streetscape
will include street trees planted in the parkway at 40-foot intervals. Staff
concludes that the orientation and design features allow the P.U.D. to comply
with the applicable All Development Criteria.
B. Traffic and Safety:
Issue:
The issues are that the proposed P.U.D. will introduce new traffic on surrounding
streets and cause congestion and delay at the intersections. Those attending the
information meetings expressed a strong concern about overflow parking on
Boardwalk mixing in with park users next to Miramont Park . Finally, there is a
concern about kids getting safely to Werner Elementary School.
All Development Criteria:
The applicable All Development Criteria are A-2.1 "Vehicular, Pedestrian and
Bicycle Transportation," and A-2.6 "Pedestrian Circulation" which state:
"A-2.1: Can the additiona/ traffic (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic)
generated by the land uses within the project be incorporated into the
neighborhood and community transportation network without creating
safety problems? Can impacts from the additional vehicular traffic meet
city traffic flow delay policies? Can pedestrian and bicycle needs be
addressed so that opportunities for these travel modes are integrated into
the overall city pedestrian and bicycle system?'
The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87AP
August 17, 2000
Page 7 of 11
"A-2.6: Does the pedestrian circulation system (a) accommodate
pedestrian movement from the neighborhood to the sife and throughout
the proposed development safely and conveniently and (b) contribute to
the attractiveness of the development."
Design Resolution:
The Lemay/Boardwalk intersection will be upgraded to a full signal (as opposed
to a pedestrian-actuated signal) as a result of this project. The 1992 traffic
impact analysis factored 140 dwelling units on Parcel N. The revised study of
January 2,000 factored 132 dwelling units. The latest study (108 units) indicates
that with the upgraded traffic signal, and factoring in the new traffic, there
remains ample capacity at the Lemay/Boardwalk intersection such that Level of
Service does not fall below "D." Thus the P.U.D. complies with the City's traffic
flow delay policies.
Boardwalk is designed as a collector roadway and features on-street parking
adjacent to Miramont Park. In fact, an off-street parking lot at Miramont Park
was intentionally not provided acknowledging the availability of on-street parking.
The P.U.D. meets the minimum requirements for off-street parking plus an
additional 14 spaces for guests and overflow. Parking on-street is expected to
be typical for a neighborhood park and not be impacted by spillover from the
P.U.D. In order to provide safety and visibility at the intersection for bikes and
pedestrians, parking on Boardwalk will be prohibited between the driveway and
Lemay, on both sides of the street.
In terms of safety for school children, there will continue to be a safe crossing of
Lemay. The crossing of Boardwalk at Highcastle will be marked with a striped
crosswalk and yellow caution signs. A raised cross-walk will be installed by the
City next year after a citizen input process conducted by the City's Traffic
Operations Department. There are numerous examples throughout the
community where school access is via a collector street and proper signage and
road markings are considered effective in promoting safety.
C. Calculating Residential Density:
Issue:
The issue is the method by which the applicant has calculated the residential
density. There was a concern by those attending the information meetings that
density was calculated by the applicant to include the stormwater retention
pond/water feature as part of the land area. This had the effect of increasing the
land area thus lowering the density. Rather, according to the neighborhood, this
The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87AP
August 17, 2000
Page 8 of 11
pond should have been netted out of the density thus revealing a higher and
truer measure of actual density.
Applicab/e All Developmenf Criterion:
The applicable All Development Criteria is A-1.12 "Residential Density which
describes the density calculation method as follows:
"The residentia/ portion of the development shall include the entire
property upon which the residential building is located including any
appurtenant driveways, private yards and open space, and any
communally owned open spaces, water bodies, recreation areas, parking
lots, private streets, etc."
Since the retention pond/water feature will not be dedicated to the City and
remain under the communal ownership of the homeowner's association, its
inclusion into the density calculation is indeed appropriate.
D. Compliance with the Overall Development Plan
Issue:
The issue is that the proposed density is not supported by the Oak-Cottonwood
Farm O.D.P. For those attending the information meetings, the proposed density
of 14 dwelling units per acre is considered excessive, especially for the
geographic area defined by Lemay, Boardwalk and Oak Ridge Drive. As a result
of The Lodge P.U.D., this area will have an excess of dwelling units over what
was estimated on the O.D.P. Over the years, the Miramont neighborhood
developed in a less dense fashion than called for the on the O.D.P. The result is
that density is being improperly shifted to the Boardwalk area.
Applicab/e All Development Criterion:
The applicable All Development Criterion is A-1.12 which describes how density
is considered in the context of an O.D.P. that is built in phases as follows:
"The average residential density of an overall development plan may be
considered in meeting the residential density criteria for individual phased
developments. (For examp/e, an individual phase of development may be
approved at less than 3.0 d.u./ac if the average density of the overall
development plan is at least 3.0 d.u./ac)."
The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87AP
August 17, 2000
Page 9 of 11
Resolution:
The underlying geographic basis for determining compliance with the
O.D.P. density estimates is the entire residential component of the 270 acre
O.D.P., not an arbitrary sub-area within the O.D.P. The fact is that over the
years, the O.D.P. has been amended and housing types and density were shifted
among the various phases.
Basically, the re-alignment of Boardwalk Drive to the east (1992) allowed less
density to be placed next to Fairway Estates (county subdivision) on the west.
Also, the sloping terrain to the southwest on the south side of Mail Creek Ditch
allowed for larger walk-out lots. These two changes were supported as a
sensible transition for an existing county subdivision and an appropriate use of
natural terrain. This resulted in less density than what was originally envisioned
to be in these areas and slightly more density to be placed near Boardwalk Drive.
Such adjustments were reviewed and approved at both the O.D.P. amendment
stage and on a per filing basis under All Development Criterion A-1.12.
Based on the latest amended O.D.P., the residential component (171 acres) was
estimated to support 849 dwellings for a density of 4.96 d.u./ac. With the
development of Parcel N, the actual number of units will be 827 for a density of
4.83 d.u./ac. Thus, with Parcel N, the O.D.P. remains consistent with the O.D.P.
and the proposed density associated with the Preliminary P.U.D. complies with
both A-1.12 and the Residential Point Chart H.
5. Staff Finding on Neiqhborhood Compatibilitv:
The L.D.G.S. states:
"The intent of the (neighborhood compatibility) criteria is to ensure that
development proposals are sensitive to and maintain the character of
existing neighborhoods. "Compatibility,"as used in this section of the
criteria, does not require that development proposals be "the same as,"
but that they must fit in with, be sensitive to, and complement their
surrounding environment and neighborhood."
The key fact is the project's contextual relationship with the surrounding area.
Staff finds that the P.U.D. is bordered on the north by an institutional use and on
the west by a neighborhood park. The east and south boundaries are an arterial
street and collector street respectively. The arterial separation from the single
family ranch-style homes in Oak Ridge is significant in that arterial streets are
effective boundaries between dissimilar land uses on a community-wide basis.
In fact, many zone district boundaries are formed by arterial streets.
�� ► S O �
�
The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87AP i s vw-� �°`�
August 17, 2000
Page 3 of 11 �� G� �
The Lodge at Miramont features multi-family dwelling units at 14 dwelling units
per gross acre. Therefore, the Preliminary P.U.D. is in conformance with the
Overall Development Plan.
3. Residential Uses Point Chart:
The request for 108 dwelling units on 7.7 acres represents a gross density of
14.02 dwelling units per acre. In order to justify this proposed density, the P.U.D.
must exceed 40% on the "Base" criteria and a minimum combined total of 100
points under the "Base" plus "Bonus" criteria under the Residential Uses Point
Chart of the L.D.G.S. The P.U.D. achieves a score of 90 on the "Base" criteria
which exceeds the required minimum of 40%. In addition the P.U.D. achieves a
total score of 130% which exceeds the required minimum of 100 points. Points
were awarded as follows:
c. Being within 4,000 feet of an existing community/regional shopping
center. (Harmony Market).
d. Being within 3,500 feet of an existing neighborhood park. (Miramont
Park).
e. Being within 2,500 feet of an existing school. (Werner Elementary
School).
Being within 3,000 feet of an existing major employment center.
(Oak Ridge Business Park).
Having greater than 30% of its perimeter boundary contiguous to
existing urban development.
q. Devoting part of the total development budget on neighborhood
facilities and services, which are not otherwise required by Code.
(Community Building*).
*Points for the community building are calculated as follows:
Community Building: $187,500 (1,500 square feet @ 125.00 per
sq. ft.)
187,500 / 108 =$1,736 x.01 = 17 points
u. Providing 39% of the parking in structures.
v. Providing automatic fire extinguishing systems for all dwelling units.
The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87AP
August 17, 2000
Page 10 of 11
By virtue of this context, there are no inherent land use conflicts. The setbacks
and streetscaping along Lemay, the quality of the architecture, 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. Although multi-family dwellings are not the same as the
existing single family homes, the P.U.D. is found to complement the surrounding
environment and neighborhood.
6. Transportation:
The site gains vehicular access from Boardwalk Drive only. The access on
Lemay is for secondary emergency use only and will be blocked by a barrier
acceptable with Poudre Fire Authority.
There are two pedestrian connections to Miramont Park, two connections to
Boardwalk and one connection to Lemay. Internally, the sidewalk system is
detached and protected from the drive aisle by a parkway featuring street trees.
As mentioned, an updated transportation impact study was completed for this
project. The key finding is that the Level of Service for the Lemay/Boardwalk
intersection does not fall below "D" for the peak times. In addition, there is
sufficient distance between the intersection and the driveway so that cars
stacking to turn northbound from Boardwalk to Lemay do not block the driveway.
With the proximity to the neighborhood park and the neighborhood school, there
are acceptable Levels of Services for bicycles and pedestrians. There is no
transit service on Lemay at this time. The closest bus route is the southside
shuttle on Harmony Road, about one-half mile to the north.
Staff finds that the transportation impacts associated with this P.U.D. can be
accommodated by the existing public improvements. In addition, there are
opportunities for travel by multiple modes to such destinations as a neighborhood
park an elementary school and a health club.
7. Other Design Features:
In addition to the design features discussed in the context of neighborhood
compatibility, the P.U.D. includes the following:
There will be 36 parking stalls located attached to the residential
structures. There will be 40 stalls located in detached garages and
118 surface stalls.
The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-87AP
August 17, 2000
Page 11 of 11
• The existing stormwater detention pond will be upgraded to a
retention pond and feature enhanced landscaping on the side
slopes and a circulation and aeration system to prevent stagnation.
Perimeter fencing will be five-foot high wrought iron. This includes
the frontage along Lemay and the shared boundary with the park.
The side and rear elevations of the garages will be feature both
synthetic stone and painted siding. The roof pitch will match the
buildings.
8. Findings of Fact/Conclusion:
A. As a multi-family project, the P.U.D. complies with the Oak-Cottonwood
Farm Overall Development Plan.
B. With the development of Parcel N, the gross residential density for the
O.D.P. does not fall below the required minimum of 3.00 dwelling units per
acre.
C. The P.U.D. exceeds the required minimum score on the Residential Uses
Point Chart for both the "Base" and the total. The proposed density of
14.00 dwelling units per acre is supported by the score of 130 points.
D. The P.U.D. complies with the All Development Critieria of the L.D.G.S.,
particularly such criteria as Density, Building Orientation, Architecture and
Setbacks.
E. The P.U.D. is found to be sensitive to and maintains the character of the
existing neighborhood.
F. Bicycle and pedestrian connections are provided to the neighborhood park
and public streets.
G. The P.U.D. is found to be feasible from a traffic operations standpoint.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D., #54-
87AP.
VICINITY MAP
#54-87AP The Lodge at Miramont
Preliminary LDGS
09/28/99
1"=1000'
VlCINITY MAP
09/28/99
#54-S7AP The Lodge at Miramont PUD
Prelimir�ary LDGS
� "= 600'
�
. ,. , ,
i a:„K , ..�„ �,..o.�: r i i � ��. r�o .."' ' 40-
;
. � ^ i � �.R�A.a _o.ce M - - - - — - - - — M 'I
' I—'---'-'_.'a+aow -" ��- --' ���.
_ � vtnvr, y ,NAP
� � � �� � �
� � � `� �
I : w�MwOI�Y I'i'. � I�' l( � �, � . �! . •; .% .
I.� l to�� ~` . l. � _ , " .
/ I �..� • �nu ��I .' � I� 'J � �\ ', � > >�� j � � �JwlSO w' � \� ���M1i Z /� ���
' I :owlo�a `� il . �'� i � � �` � ' � � � I. 4��, j, �� ST �C _ I
— l'' - � � � ' _ � �� I � �I � I� -� � ` � �' � '� ��� �
_ ; � ,�exe -e_ s��-�- »,__ � ,�-�.
— 1 _ I -; � N ; i _ �t '} - `
�:':' � i ' ' ��_.___� .i ' � � i�'r � r;r 4�� ' i
< <L �`I � — -`-� � — � ; � I � 1. �-. � j � ; i
�' �. •u ..T ` II = -� � : a.r;` ` ' ;� . .—� .,��' ;'`��,; � * -- � .. �'.., . ;--� r, ` i
�, -; —..,�_. = I
�;%---
;
� ----
_ �,
�. ,-- � '
�� '�.��
- ��
�—I i`— �
� �
� i�
� ;
I
���.Y�p �
'3
z; , I 4� .,�_,- �- -
� 9.3'w:OSS �CPESt
\� \ � GOw �EMS�7v ••
��``\ R�$IDEM���L
\ # �m m[[r co..�ciw. rossa C+ta
w+wMn .u.
wac s¢ wrt :aao +.
� L ONn f_ICF RAFAKOOWN _
I . �_ .__ __ "_ _.
I. _ ... ' ' _ .� _ '
i. � .. � .� � ... � '� '
' v Y •. �.r ur�.�. m� '+
�.. r.,.� ae�.
P�/+� a O�� 0��+. �4�i'C tip1
AIIt! 11/.)r. M� lflfAt�r�C
i�'� �
i � '�
�, ,.b
, w(D »
�I' ���� � � � � �� ,.
��-__� �����.�.� .�.....�__�_��� �i
p', _ _ _ _ _ �_ � � _ . , �
� . _ �_��'� � �� ��� I
� � �� �� '— �� �� I
• � � ��� � � � �� �. ��� 'I�
� I
•�� � � ���== � =-���=���� �..�. �
� ; -- _ _ _ -- -=_= I��
� ; � � =_"�— =-_•----___— li
� ..� �.,.a
�.f��\=� C.FNFASL NnTFS
��.�\ �. . � _ _���_ � _.���
� ; � ��'� �� �
�� �
\�_ =�
i� �
:Jau*M� �'.�tdf �—
I .yy : �S[ ��
ro [0 ��
I� `•v� ��
l � � � -- � � --������
II� '- �_ ���= � ���� ....�
o..weu nr.rts -- — -- — '
',.�r.uc ' . __ _� "�"'��
I•� —��
,'� .. � =� �� � _ � �
!� ,z ,a�.«.,...r � ..a...�r./......w �n)
i �... ..,a .1..`y.'-..,:5.7... ..�..�....
' ����a J[�i.an Kswcnn � Mo � /�-����� Q D o
. �, ' - . _ ` S[J C A:,
1t• GRLLSS �CREi' "� ""_ urean ,feaqn.
�u.n� �ru �" x�u��-<,.
: o
SIGNATUFEAOCK O�K/COTTOVW00D F�R�i
- -- --- —.-.:. _--_-_-_ A.rfENDED Ot�ER,1I.L DEVELOP'.4fE:`7T PLAPI
_� _ === =— .� +�
,.acc: .o. ' -+ys
� �..,��.,.,. � suar: r=:or
— ..+�. n eern
".^���"..'���'�—� _ U�!�.\
_. �__— !!i I
E� .�..� ...a. J�J .�..� .�. 0 :0 -r�
� n.,m a„�.,,� •� ,n. � —
y� I ` _�
���� iov�Y� .�r � ii Iwn �4rV
�.rt � .+v.,.noR s-a._az
Yvrsi°".m..� '
..:.� —
� �w�' � �
/99�
� i � � � `-� `.' � �� C� '�
iW�d��G 61YApN�1O
Com
\
�IIIIIIII'.
'11111111'
,� '—
�
. i//�`�'�� ����r1
� � � ����/��1�� �1�/I,
` �� • j ��� ���I� j ��`�I
r �� � j�� ��� ����r� II��
1/� �111� �� � rrr�t��\`�
��� 1 �1 ! ` � �
�► �1�� �i .i��� ��������
-�//1����'�.,���i������
��
�
�
�
SITE
�
�
��..-�
'� � Oak-Cottonwood Farm Parcel N
� o�� o,��
O COMMUNITY PARK � ��5 MUe Buffer
� GOLF COURSE Wafer FeaLues 8� 0 8� FNt
OMIN� PARK ��8
� NEJGHBORHOOD PARK N Paresb
�
�
N
�� I a
a
i
�
W � ��
LL � ���
W � o ��� a
Q e a �!�
� �
2 $ a s �t
�g
N S � W �,I �a�
p{ gp�
O 2S � U "�
�', �
� � 6I � w � �
Z
� �
a �e � �I, �n� �
�
I
�
;
o Z '
3 � �
z W �.
U N&
� I i�
1
� �
�I �'
d[!��(
f
���
bl
C : �ai�€�11'd^
�: E��a,���i
� -E�,r.�st'r��b
� t � �� �a�sr�
s i, L��g�,°bg�y96
g1 {� $q5s4��:3
f�7 �� :�`salfs��s
�S 8i Endt°� j?,
a � E�B^?-a��Y*
`5 d'[3e
68 s �iy�3�at��'�
aC �� �3jsa:!�t.�n
�F � 3 �'� B
Z s� �fi �'';�aJF�4s' a
� ��g �6�x0�i.j�F F
d '� °3 A jg.��g�� 7
V S� � �ijx�=�i%?1 a
m ', :s E�:°s.ii61��� a
� �' `� '�e`� a�ca�g LL
� Yt 7g 2;9,$ae�g�� u
< #� -9 `'��`.='"'� { C
s��';i�ee
W E` a{ �[�..@4g^aG�a7 ;
J :6 �@ 9�Al�e°Ca}� _
I
S� �� � �
�6� ���� i
���q���
c �9 � 1 I
e � °� e I
e e
Q�
��� eE 4�� � � ��
RE
� b�6€ ���i� �i
Z ��a�¢��'�������.�gpp
¢ e7�'�€g���9�@g�g���s'
� e �
a ��i�a���ae?����i�
2�
��
`�w r¢'
� � _ $ � � a x
- �� ��
e
�
� ��
�s����� �
�@i�@�G �
���I�
tl ..: s @
� �
�g
a dii O
J
W
>
� Z
W
s �� �� Z
0
i ! �� �p � �� m
� 0 � � � � �2 3 F �� J
a
y U
Q W¢•G HiHli � I I � ~
3nNanv �vw3�
> �
g ¢ n
����€ � 3���e�°�Y'� ��
d � �h � �v •--'
� � � $
e ,, a . a W a O a 3
�� Oz ��
�� a O
� � � � W �
g x �
� � � � � $ � � `a
O
���C�`r��� � z
�
r -
� ,
r-J I
I _ i
i i i ii
� I
j _ __ ''I /� Ep �li
� F
I 1
---, �
i --I� � �
r, ► -,� �� .:
� �l�i��ea � Ti :;: ." �
�
I � � ns'r���:�
���, �-'�r' ' �7lI � ; '
� ' � � '�
� � T ' I . iyi
.ei
r�� _ �- ,.: �
� � � 1 .iaie � 'J!
, ;�.� .:___ � 1.��� :
�°� �� -11 � -� �. _
�� �� - a
�� _ _ ��:, �� _ ___ : g _ ,� I
■'— _ �.ume�e� o�a��m ` � � la`� ���
i ' I_":_:.�
�
� �Il�l
� ��,
�r �
_I� �
� +
�. � �IL�tI .
z
a
J
a
O
�
J
<
U
�
�s
�I
1�I ��� j �
`� J
��
__ ,
- I,i�,'
,' „I I
� I ' �-��1'� 1_ 1
= i; W
/
� � n I I' I,' >
' ��� I lo
�; � � i�
: �III:��II J
' ��;�;j 13
�� IIIII �o
�, �¢
�
�,;�� . �'�'m �i i
� � . � I� ,. �� _ � � .
s -- I,��
� � �. � � �, a /l r � � �;_' �� ' _
' i� � � W l,t�, � �\ __ C
. . /
' � � �
s__
; _-� ' ' ,,"� - _
.
, � -
. i -� �
; � I , -_ ---- — - Y ' �o
��i 1 I� � � Q. i'...�� c�i ��'x�, r'�, .fs \ �� I�
i �
� � � � � I�WW� f13NOZ � � - - , -.� � - _ ��I
�, � � {? =- — --_- — -
,
,
� �; ��+�vd i�owva� �� � �_ ; : , �
, x
, � ���. ,�� � � ' � � � I �._ _,�.,�,� �--
, �, , _ � .-_� _ � � h�. ,� . -.�
�I I� _ � 1 \ � I � • � :.. � 4 -� � .
� `= i� , � 1 �k / ,� V � I��i
. � � ( � �I � i �N,�. �I'� � ��� ,` ��� i I� , I I -- �-__ f
�
� � � � . � �' Q / �i � F�' �,
/ i / � � � �\ � r ��\�- ,�] � � � I I \ � j A
' .� // . �i i - � 11 � . �� � �_i, II�
' /`; /
- .a'. .- �. .-' __ _ ' ' . �< �
�
e
,� �T ,,. . � . , v. - .
. �I �- . '�,� �\
_-, . �- . . �:1,_ � �� �
C- \ C
iy!�'
��
��,
I
�
�
� �
1
�6�
�C}
�i9
�
� _
,,.
i
S�
�
�
�
,�_� �� �
Z�����������
W'I�00�� � � �
::.",:"..:::: :::."
axasassna aw
����1�#y� � ��!#
�E����Hj�a A��D
II � �@ �� �� �� �5�� �$��� �1�I��
� �[�� �� �a ��a �� �o-��#��� � �g g�46
����� 6� �° ��� �� � � ��f����sy�� � �g��
���� �� �� �, R �� � 5�8`�Bs�iR§ c S�iA
�� 5 �� �� �� �� ���� � � ¢ � �� 3li3 � ::.,'."."
�6 � 6g� 6� � �-�i @�b � n sa?e � aassaa
����� �� �� ��� � �
�� � ����� �� �� ���� ��� � � `� :.
�a� �� !� �s��
P
� �W
�i 6 ����� ��a �� g��� ��� f � � 3��� �� ��i¢;
�� ��
�� � ����� '�� �� ���� � � � g � i 4 i�
�g S �e�s�� ��� g� �ne ��p � � ��� � � �k'���
�� � p���! ��� �� ���� �y� � i � �: � a�i� � �i �����,��
_ .. � . d . . . � � &i � s�;@ � x� �a3aN��
u
n
<
U,
�
�
0
�
0
h
, �'6 �o.
�.�- ���y$1lt ,�o �l�z��88 �� N
�a9 :5� a K 4
� sa���
Q Q � s
� �
� a o s;
v
a�
� O
�
�� a
� o
V
� �
� o
��
�
.��
�
IO
IY
�G
I�
�
a
Im
I
�i I
�;
�4 �
Y� �
I
�' �I
II
I'
, _� �
�.� '
�i
I
� II
I I:
i ;� �
i
^G� � .
i
�
,.�.�.. _ �uu� �. a.si ve im w� NP�m�u�wa.��:m,�.�.��.,�.���, �.xn�i oi�. e�ou„w.i. .
9 '' C9
��'��,�'��� � a � E
�
awl 1P'Ie !�� �` � i:�� i I O
� �� � re�,�� C�
�&, �
���y Y
93�r�-�-�aM. �4 � / � F-1
1�.� ��III'1L�� �f� f.�u''� �41� - � g 3� W��
{�,!li gg �� �/� p
t' I__ W�I �Ifi �� l; I.i. � t ��t �� I—I �
� ` ' ` �` ; � ��� ��
�i ,
< < 7=� o I � Ei� > � �p
� ' �J ��' '•' ' > `r,l' � �ry I, I i' a w '.' W �
f�1' — �� ;�� W 9 �" ,� ;; W s � x �'
..1
� 3 �. , I, �� 1.� � �
i. I I- . :�"�.7'�� o. �s r" f i_ , I'�`,. I m �"'i a
I
�1� � p
, N �y "y; �� ; ^ p 3
���. `IIIL — .i_. t �I� J� ��� I , � `I � �� $
�
� � tt �
�� '
� � � � ;
� �� �� �� ��
�� �9 �� �� ��� �
.� 1�7
�� ; r
i� � L I�
,a���1 ; �'��_� ��',��:;���I�I
,i� �:�
t� �S�! �
;I
.;� �
� � j�ll
_ ;!
� :a, '� �
!� :�:�j �
1� .�o�
� �`!:
i ,�
I x
� �C �J
l I �?� !f9
�E
�� ��� ��
z
0
�
a
>
w
J
W
W b
Q E
��
��
q�
�� �
k��2
���
���
� �� I
�F �
� �
3
��� ��
�� � ��i = �
� � + Gf7,�L�E7� >
+d �
� 3 � � I'' �
��� �F � �4 � ���
� �X� Q� �� �t€
� ���� .,� �� ���
Z
0
r
a
>
w
w
0
¢,
Q'
}'a
¢ i. .
� ��' t:_.. '
O,a :i.�:'�...... -
� � \
g� �� �
�� ��� �'�
,l �a
� �
�
<.
a
�
�, -�
�+_ �
�_t� a
W
p <
Y� <
�� �
�
>
w
�
�
W
0
�
�
�
��
�x
;a�
�
Z
0 0
J
< �
w m
}I
�F ZI
a �a
�.
���� � �
���
�
w
w
�
�
:
n>
�
z
0
r
� a
>
� I
�u w�
d W�
N al
Q'.
g 6 ?
v v
F II°
� Z�
��
•
January 25, 2000
Fort Collins Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Planning Objectives for
The Lodge at Miramont PUD, Preliminary
�
The applicant is proposing 132 condominiums on approximately 7.7 acres. The
site is located at the northwest corner of Boardwalk Drive and South Lemay
Avenue and is referred to as Parcel N in the approved Oak/Cottonwood Farm
ODP. Being part of an existing ODP allows this project to be submitted under the
Land Development Guidance System. The surrounding land uses include a
proposed City owned park to the west, Collinwood Assisted Livirig Facility to the
north, Oakridge Village residential on the east side of Lemay Avenue and The
Hamlet at Miramont on the south side of Boardwalk Drive. At the southeast
corner of the site there is an existing entry feature/sign for the Miramont
development surrounded by an existing pond. Also a one-acre regional detention
pond exist on this site along Lemay Avenue.
The primary access to the site is from Boardwalk Drive. A secondary, emergency
access is proposed from Lemay Avenue at the northeast corner of the site. This
drive will be an all-weather surface wide enough to accommodate emergency
vehicles and will have a remote control gate at the entrance. An internal
circulation loop drive creates a main street for pedestrians and serves the 11
buildings and the central recreation space. All sidewalks, crosswalks, and
driveways will be scored concrete, placing emphasis on the pedestrian. A 5-foot
wide loop walk circles the perimeter of the site, with connections to existing
sidewalks on Lemay and Boardwalk. The central recreation area is connected
with a meandering path through the middle, to the 5 buildings fronting the open
space. A patio area provides a common recreational area for gatherings. There
are 233 parking spaces provided. Of the spaces, 44 garage spaces are located
within the buildings, 32 spaces are included in freestanding garages located
throughout the site. Surface parking spaces total 157.
The proposed buildings will maintain a pedestrian oriented scale facing out in all
directions. Buildings on the site are oriented to provide visual interest and to
enhance the overall character of the site. The building architecture is a Colorado
lodge design with accents of log details and stone. The building concept is to
create a lodge-like big house with each unit having a private ground floor
entrance. Four units will have attached garages that are directly connected to the
building. Garages are clustered on the ends of buildings in parking courts,
thereby minimizing the visual impact of garage doors on the street elevation.
However, the building design is intended to relate to the loop sidewalk at the
VF RIPLEY
ASSOCIATES I�C.
Landscape Architecture
Urban Design
Planning
I 1 I� Stoney Hill Dri�e
Fort Collins. Colorado 8052i
PHONE (970) 2'4-SS25
FAX (970) 22�-1662
• •
perimeter and to the courtyard sidewalk in the center as much as it does to the
street. The buildings therefore have no front or back and the design and materials
are consistent on all exposures.
The design objectives of the landscape plan are to screen parking and service
areas, to provide an attractive streetscape and also to enhance the pedestrian and
vehicular experience within the site. Street trees are shown along Lemay and
Boardwalk. Deciduous trees, coniferous trees and foundation plantings will be
used to enhance architectural character, provide shade, spring color and winter
interest.
The project scores 110 base points on Point Chart H, Residential Uses, gaining
points for being within 2000 ` of an existing neighborhood service center (Steeles
Market), for being within 3000' of and existing major employment center
(Oakridge Business Park), for being within 4000 feet of an existing community/
regional shopping center (Harmony Market), for being within 3,500 feet of a
Publicly owned, but not developed neighborhood park (proposed park, west of
site), for being within 2,500 feet of an existing school (Werner Elementary
School), for being within 3,500 feet of a publicly owned golf course (Southridge)
and for its boundary which is contiguous to existing urban development.
An additional 28 points are earned on the bonus chart for providing neighborhood
facilities (office, clubhouse), offering parking in a structure, committing to the use
of an approved automatic fire extinguishing system and for connecting to the
nearest existing city sidewalk.
This project receives points for virtually every locational criterion that was
established for higher density residential uses. The site was originally master
planned with this in mind and now that development has occurred around the site,
it offers all the benefits of an infill location. 110 points on the base chart is almost
unprecedented with LDGS proposals, therefore we feel justified in requesting the
density that is proposed.
Though the project is being submitted as a Planned Unit Development under the
Land Development Guidance System, the project exemplifies many of the
Principals and Policies of City Plan. Those policies that focus on compact urban
development, pedestrian and bike linkages, utilization of alternative transportation
modes, and community visual character are particularly evident in the proposed
plan.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you
during the development review process.
Sincerely,
VF Ri ley Associates,
Frank gh
C
Activity A:
ALL CRITERIA
CRITERION
A1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
. o.
ALL DEVELOP�1r�1ENT CRITERIA �
COMMUNITY-WIDE CRITERIA
Solar Orientation
Comprehensive Plan
Wiidliie Habitat
Mineral Deposit
Ecoloaicaliy Sensitive Areas
LanCs of Aaricultural lmoortance
Enercv Conse►vation
Air Qualiiy
Water Qu2litv
APPLlCABL� CRITERIA ONLY
the criterion WiU the crtterio
applicable7 be satisfied?
_ a
�� Z a Yes No If no, please explain
✓� � ✓
� (✓
� �✓
reserved
reserved '
�� � �✓ � �
r � � � ✓
✓I f � I
✓i I i � I
1.12 Residential Densit �✓ � �
r; 2. NCIGHBOP,HOOD COMPATIBILITY CR1TcR
2.1 Venic:.�lar. Pedesman. Bike Transoortation ✓ � �
2.2 Buiicinc P!cc�ment and Orie�taiion ✓� �
� 2.3 Naiurai Fe�tures � � ��
2.4 Vehicular Circuiation and Parking ��/ �
2.5 �merge;�cy Access - I✓ I �
2.6 r�destriar Circulation ✓ I I
2.7 ;,rc�iiec:ure � ✓ � �
2.8 Buiiding Heicnt and Views I I ��
2.9 Shading I✓ I �
2.10 Solar Access ,/ � (
2.11 Historic Resources ! � ��
2.12 Setbacks I,/ � �
2.13 Landscape � �
2.14 SiQns � � �
2.15 Site Lighiing I �
2.16 Ncise and Vioraiion � � �
2.17 Giare or Heat � � �
2.18 Hazardous Materials � �
A 3. ENGINE�RING CRITERIA
3.1 Utiiity Capacity �
3.2 Design Standards � �
3.3 Water Hazards �
3.4 Geologic Hazards � ,/
K�'�fWEO I1T Fln�AL
✓ �
� �
� � �
✓ � �
� �
✓ � �
✓ � � .
✓ � �
✓ � �
l I
✓ � �
✓ � � --
I I
✓ �
✓ I �
LI H't`iA1 t-A
C6viFW6,p T C'/N �,
� �
/
�
� �
r
► �
Land Development Guidance System tor Planned Unit Pavelopments
The City of Fort ColIins, Colorado, Revised ch 1994
- 6� _ ��°--� ��fi
?HE Loo GF f�r
ACTIVITY:
esidential Uses
H
DEFIl�IITION:
All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings, town.homes, duplexes,
mobile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group homes; boarding and rooming houses;
fraternity and sorority houses; nursing homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit
quasi-public recreational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting plac�s and places for
public assembly with incidental office spac�; and child care centers.
CRITERIA:
The following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the
development plan.
1. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE 1���1L�fUM pFrRCENTAGE
POINTS AS CALCULATED ON TI� FOLLOWII�G "DENSITY
CHART H" FOR TF-� PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? The required earned credit for a
residential project shall be based on the following:
60 percentage points = 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre
60 - 70 percentage points = 6-7 dwelling units per acre
70 - 80 percentage points = 7-8 dwelling units per acre
80 - 90 percentage points = 8-9 dwelling units per acre
90 -100 percentage points = 9-10 dwelling units per acre
100 or more percentage points = 10 or more dwelluig umts per acre
2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST 40
PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED
ON TI� FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART H"
FROM BASE POINTS7
Ye�/ N�o N/A
0
Yesi Nao N/A
Q
/'9 i� A/'� e N T prC £. P. �/. D,
Land Devebpment Guidance S� atem for Planned Unit Developmenta. The City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Revised as per Ordinance No. 2, 1996.
OOGE�T /�1/RAP7�NT /�ie£. P.ti.D
Critaion
a 2000 fod of aa oas�g ��baiwod m+ice omter, a a ncighbafiood savice ceaic W be ooa�nuYed aa a part
ofthe ptojed. (If tbe Pro1eQ u pcc�poaed to be �nuYed in muhi�le phues, uu� nei
poae g}�borhood yen,�ce ceatet
must be 000struded u a put of the phaae for which a{�proval is wu�i.)
b 650 fod of aa e�aating tramit atop (applinb(e oolY to ProJec�s havia8 a dcm�ry of u Inst siz [6] dwelling uaits
�,��a�,����
4000 feet of aa e' onal ��N ��•
C �B �t3'� �PP�S ce�a, or a�h'/�� �pping a�c to ba
conswctee .. a pact of'rbe proieci (If the pr+oj«x is proporcd to be �mt�uded ia m�,hipk pha.o, wch
��h'�� �pPP�B ccatc mud be �ed as a part of the pisax for whic� sppcvval is sou8}�)
3300 fat d'aa oa�g�ba�ood or co�Y W�k a a°°�aitY facility (EXCEPT GOLF COURSESX
a /"►/�AlhoN? p/9�/C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
d 3300 fed of a public3y owned, brt nd devcloped neighbor}�ood a commuaicy puk a�ty facilit},
(EXCEPT GOLF COURSFS) a
---------------
3300 fed of a publiciy owned golf cause, whether developed a not
e 2500 foei of an existing school, m�eting all roquircmeats of tbe State of Colorado au�ulaory eduCatioa laws
WELNF,4 EGE/7FNTA�c.Y
f3000 fad of an ad�ting major employme� ceaLc, or a major ea�loyme� ceater to be �ucied u a put of
� P�� �� P�1od is proposed to be oocss�udad 'm muhiple ohases, suci� major employaseat cmdrr muat
be coaswcied aa a part of the phase for which apprcrval is soug}rt) No building, offiee or businas par;c, or
ppr
ahoPP�B aata whici� h� aaved u the buis for the claiaung of andit uader ury other "bau" ait�ria of this
De�iry c�att caa aL,o be uud aa the bbaia fo� claimuxg asdic uada thia e;ta;oa O il K�2 � o � E Bu d. P�
g 1000 foet of aa e�sting c�ild care arrter, or a child care oeairr to be �ed as a part oFthe projecY. (If the
project is propoeed to be oon�vaed ia muhiple ptssre� suc� child care ccac must be �uded bs a part of the
phase for which approval is aou8}sL)
h w«�n Fac cou;ffi^
I
�
��
'I�e Cartta! Buaine� Distrid
A project wt�ou bamdary is cartiguau to e�o.aing urbaa developme� Credit auy be evnod as follows:
0°.6 For P�1� w'� ProP�Y �Y � �- 10°4 coatiguRY:
10 - IS% Fa projeaa whose propaty bouadary has 10 - 2044 cauiguity,
1 S- 20°/. Foc pcojecxs whose pcopa�ty boundary hat 20 . 3Q°h coati3urtY.
20 . 25°�G For projoas wiwu propaty bounduy has 30 - 4Q96 co�i6urt?:
25 - 30°.6 For projxts whoee property bouadary has 40 - SO°,6 oo�iguity.
If the projece oartaim dwelliag uaits ad aside fac indivi�ah eaming 80% or I�ss of tlx mediaa income of Ciry
t�ideats, u adjusied for family •';�s, aad WY�81ea thaa 30°,G of their goss ixane for housing, including
tshiGim ("Affacdab3c Dadi'vtg LJo�s'�, �e the pacartagc of Affadable Dwciling Units W the total numbe
of dwelling uaiti in the p[ojed aad e�ts thaf pa+ce�age, up W a maximum of I S Ya (If the projed is pcopoetd
to be om�uiod'm autt�le phaxs, the Affadable Dwtlling Uaits miut be co�trucsod as a part ofthe phax for
w6ic3� �goval is aougjrt.) In ada to iasurc that the Affordable Dwelliag Ilnita remaia affordabla for a period
at'not ka thsn 23 yrma, tlx detieiopa �tmll tea�rd su� prvtocYive coveaa�s u may be rcquired by tbe Ciry uadc
Sec. 29-SZ6(JX4}
TdT�L ���3 I9SE�� /'0/�vT S `
a�faxim�,m E,r„ed
C+�+t Gedit
20°.6
O
2ati O
ia,c ' O
za,c cZ O
10%
10°k
10% 1 O
20°�e
o� �
K
S°/.
O
zo^io b
zo�% O
30%
30
IS°,6
.,
ccirer;on
��
Crodit
1 If � cm bc d�trated tts� tbe projed will ro�ce aao-rcxwable eac'c,,�' usaBe ciths throu8� the iPPlication oFattanative eaagy
:ystemt ar thra►g}� oommitied eaa�gy oomerntioa a�cLau+cs
eamed for cvery S% rcdudioa m mrrgy u�e. b`7"0Dd ttwae oormallY �� bY C�' Code, a S°6 bonus may be 0
m Calcuiate a 1°/. boaua for evay SO aa+rs included 'm the project
O
n Calc.vlste tbe pace�age of the total ura in the projax that are devoted to roaratianal uae. F�a 54 of that pa�cartage as a bonuz
D
O If the applicsnt commits to prnaving pcmaaenc off-iite opm sgace thaf n�eet: the City'� minimvm cnquir�me�s, calculate the
pcc�age of this opea spaoe aaes8e to tbe total developme� aa�ei8� aad e�a this pace�age a a boaua. /�
�.J
P ffpert ofthe toW develo}�mrat budgd is to be s�eat on neig}xbo�ood pubiic haaait fscilities which are not zequired bN CnY C�,
`. : auc a 2°'o bonus for cvay S 100 pa dwelling uait iavased
B D
q Ifpect ofthe tdal devdoprmt h�dgx is to be apebt m neig�bor�ood facilitia aad savias wtucl� are�qt roquired by Ciry
Code, ea2c� 1,6 boaus for evay S 100 per dwelling imit iavested G o n n o�v � t Y /3 �. 0 6 =/, S o 0 , f�
/, Soo x�/.?s��i =,$�/8i Sao = l0 8' s��,73��v�,r x �%= 1�
OIf the gvjat 000tams dxeiIa� tm� sd uide far indivi�tab mrning SO°4 or las of the mediaa income of City raida2�, u adj u�ed
I, for family sizq sad payiag Im thaa 30°/. of their g�oas income for Ebusing, iacludiag utilitia ("A$'ordable Dwelling Units'�,
calailate the pacartare of Affadable Dweiling Uaits W tbe totsl number of dwelliag units m the projai and eata thal percea2age
as a bons, u� to a max�smm of 13°/a (Ifthe projaz u proposed ta be corss�uded in muhiple phaus, the Affadable Dwelling Units o
mst be coru�+x7ed as a part of'the phave far whic� a�proval u aoug�) In adez to iasure that the Affordable Dwelling iinitv mnaia
ca ure
affoniabk for a paiod ofnot less thaa 25 yeaza, the dcveiopa shai! m:a�d a� prote�ive coveaa�s ac may be required by the City
N �a« sa. 29-sz�Jx4�.
Ifa cromnumx:rt u being made to devdop a spa;ifi�d paceatage of the toW aumbc of dwelling units for Type "A" and Type "B"
handicapped housing u defined by tbe City of Fat Collirn, calalase the bonua aa follows:
TT Type "A" .S x Twe "A" Units D
„ $
`� Tota! Uaih
In no cue shail the combincd boaus be greater thaa 30°,4
Type "B" 1.0 x Tvoe "B" ih�iti
Total Uniu
S; If ttx site or adjacart property cootaiat a historic buildiag a pIacq a bonus may be eamed for the followin�
t 3q4 For preve�ing or mitig¢ting outside influeaces a�vrrse w iu prexrvation (e.g enviro�ne:rtai, laad a+e, aeuhesiq D
ec000mic and socaal factacsr
3°F. FQ as�aiog th� mv stnx�urs wi11 be in keeping with the cfsarad=r of the building or p(ace, while avoiding total uaiu;
3°fo For �.sr�Qo�g ada�tivo use of tlx building a plact that will lead to its cauinuaace, prrsa�vatiaa and iu�roverne� ia m
approp�iafe maaner
Ifa paticn cr aII ofrhe roquaed perkiag m ihe mihiple familY ProJoct is provided uadagroun� withia the buildiag, or ia an elcvated
u pnrkicsg strueiure u aa acae.vory use to tbe primary rtnuuxre, a boaus may be eatned u follows:
s�,c Fa ��a� �s�,c a��� � m ��: 3
° For prvvidiag SO - 74°i6 of the padcing m a structws; 7�/ � 9 y = 3 9°)o
3° � f i For provi d i n g 2 3 - 4 9°/. o f t b e p a r k i n g ia a stcvc�ur,
V Ifa oomm�mct'a 6ea�g made to pcvvide spprwed x,n,,•,,•r;c 5ro extingu�hinB systems for the dwelling „*ie�, arter a boaw of 10°6
I O
w Ifthe applicant mm�ts to providing adequal� aafe aod coavmie� pede�riaa aod bicycle co�cYians bciwom the projeQ ard aay
of the desticsation poiaLi desazbed below, calculate the boous u follows:
S% Fa mnnoc.ting to the nca:rst existing City aidewalk aad birycle paih/laae; S ,�, s I 0
394 Far oomating to aay exisiin8 P�+blic scboot, Park aad haasa stop within the dissnncxs ia defimd in this Denti SChart;
S% Fa cormecYin� to an e�a.dinq Citv bi�de trail wfivch u adiacart to or traverses the ieQ
TOTAL � 3 D
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
Proposal:
Description:
Overall Density:
General Population:
School Age Population:
Elementary:
Junior High:
Senior High:
#54-87AP The Lodge at Miramong, Prelimary PUD
Muti family residential with 108 units on 7.7 acres
13.2 /du/ac (gross)
108 (multi-family units) x 3.5# (persons/unit) _
108 (units) x .074 (pupils/unit) _
108 (units) x .027 (pupils/unit) _
108 (units) x .026 (pupils/unit) _
TOTAL-
378
11.23
5.4
4.968
21.6
# Figures are based on a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom multi-family residential units.
multiproj.xls
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
CONSULTANT:
PLANNER:
DATE:
The Lodge at Miramont Preliminary P.U.D.
Sollenberger Development Corporation c/o Mike
Sollenberger
Mr. Frank Vaught, V-F Ripley and Associates
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
February 8, 2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. The request is for
132 condominium dwelling units located in three-story buildings. As proposed,
there would be 12 units per building and a total of 11 buildings. There would be
one additional building for an office and community room. There would be 44
one-bedroom units and 88 two-bedroom units. The one-bedroom units would be
about 800 square feet and offered at roughly $90,000 and the two-bedroom units
would be about 1,200 square feet and offered at roughly $140,000. The height of
the structures would be 39 feet which is under the 40 foot height maximum. The
closest buildings would be 60 feet from Lemay and 55 feet from Boardwalk. The
existing stormwater retention pond is located within the property. There would be
three kinds of parking, attached garage, detached garage, and surface parking.
The project is being reviewed as a Planned Unit Development under the Land
Development Guidance System (L.D.G.S.). Density is determined by the
performance on the Residential Point Chart where a minimum score under base
and variable criteria must be achieved. It is not a"City Plan" project that would
be reviewed by the new (1997) Land Use Code (L.U.C.).
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
(Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant's consultant.)
The project is too dense and out of character for our neighborhood. I am
opposed to three-story buildings. What is the zoning of the property?
Does the zoning allow for the amount of proposed density?
A. The site was rezoned in 1997 as part of the City Plan adoption process to
M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Under City Plan, this
would require a minimum of 12 dwelling units per net acre (as opposed to
gross acre). As mentioned, however, this request is being reviewed under
the L.D.G.S. where our proposed density is supported by our score on the
applicable point chart.
2. I believe your comparison to the required minimum density of 12 dwelling
units per net acre as called for in the M-M-N zone is misleading. Doesn't
this required minimum get reduced to 7.00 dwelling units per acre if the
project is considered to be in an "infill" location?
A. Response from City Planner: Yes, the L.U.C. allows for the required
minimum density in the M-M-N zone to be reduced for projects located in
the "infill" area. This area is defined to be east of Timberline Road and
north of Harmony Road. Since this project is south of Harmony, the
requirement under M-M-N zoning would be to develop at no less than 12
dwelling units per net acre.
3. How high is Collinwood Assisted Living Center? I recall during the
approval process for Collinwood that the City promised the structure would
not exceed the 40 foot height maximum. Instead, the building exceeds the
allowable maximum and the City had to grant a variance. The Oak Ridge
neighborhood opposed the variance and we got stuck with the additional
height.
A. I am not sure of the exact height of Collinwood facility. Keep in mind that
the Collinwood facility is a gymnasium. In contrast, our buildings are
residential structures and are oriented on the site differently than
Collinwood.
4. The buildings are too high. I don't care if they are residential or not and I
don't care which way they are oriented. They are out of scale and
proportion with our neighborhood. We live in Oak Ridge and the proposal
is an insult to us.
5. I live on White Oak Court in Oak Ridge. I'm concerned about drainage.
The Miramont detention pond at the corner of Lemay and Boardwalk
drains into a swale that runs through Oak Ridge. We are responsible for
maintaining this swale. Will the existing pond be large enough to handle
the stormwater runoff associated with the project? Will our swale be
impacted causing us more maintenance headaches?
2
A. Our proposal will be reviewed by the City's Stormwater Department. We
are required to detain for the 100-year storm and limit our stormwater
releases to not exceed the historic rate. The City will be reviewing our
proposal.
6. Can the pond, which is on the developer's property, be counted towards
open space and thereby earn credit on the density point chart?
A. Response from City: No, the pond cannot be counted towards open
space. It can be counted, however, as part of the gross acreage for the
purpose of calculating the density.
7. So far, we have heard great displeasure from the folks in Oak Ridge. We
live north and west of the proposal in The Courtyards at Miramont. What
measures have been taken to mitigate the impact on us?
A. Our proposal does not abut the Courtyards at Miramont. You folks back
up to the park which will be permanent open space. Please note that the
buildings are "stair-stepped" down on the ends to two-story so we do not
have the three-story height on our property line.
8. Will there be enough parking? We do not want cars spilling over onto
Boardwalk.
A. We are providing 233 parking spaces which exceeds the City's required
minimum.
9. How many of these spaces are in garages?
A. We are providing 76 garage spaces.
10. You are putting one building extremely close to the "viewing hill" in
Miramont Park. Does this create a safety hazard for kids who are
sledding?
A. There is flat area between our property line and the hill. Kids can also
sled going north rather than east towards us.
11. I'm concerned about traffic. What will happen at the Lemay/Boardwalk
intersection?
A. The City's Traffic Operations Engineer will upgrade the signal to a full-
cycle signal rather than just a pedestrian-actuated signal. We have been
told there is capacity at the intersection to accommodate this proposal.
12. What about capacity at Werner Elementary and Preston Junior High? All
south side schools are at capacity.
A. Response from City: We work closely with Poudre School District. They
have been aware of the residential build-out of Oak-Cottonwood Farm
Overall Development Plan (270 acres) since 1987. Our experience is that
multi-family projects do not generate as many school-age children as
would single family homes. There is capacity in the School District in
other neighborhoods and the District reserves the right to bus kids from
new subdivisions to schools with capacity.
13. I'm concerned about the ultimate build-out of Oak-Cottonwood Farm. It
appears to me that the actual build-out will exceed the anticipated number
of dwelling units as called for on the Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.).
Both Miramont Apartments and The Hamlet condos came in over the
expected density. Now, you are proposing to exceed the anticpated
density shown on Parcel N. The result is over-densification and too much
impact associated with the proposed development. I estimate there to be
44% increase in density in the O.D.P. as a result of The Lodge. This
means too much traffic on our streets, too much usage in our
neighborhood park and too many students in our schools. My conclusion
is that The Lodge is radically out of character for our neighborhood and I
oppose the project.
A. Response from City: Keep in mind that over the 13-year history of Oak-
Cottonwood Farm, density has shifted around among the parcels due to
changes in market conditions. For example, Boardwalk Drive was shifted
to the east to allow for larger lots in the single family area of Miramont.
Castle Ridge is an example. Also, larger lots were platted on the south
side of Mail Creek Ditch because it is a ridgeline and there are views to
the southwest. Finally, O.D.P's were not intended to be exact predictors
of future density. In fact, there is a qualifier note on all O.D.P.'s that final
density is determined on a project-by-project basis based on performance
on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S., not by the O.D.P.
14. We in Oak Ridge will lose our views to the west. Have you provided for
any view corridors through the project?
A. There are no significant view corridors. This is something we can
consider.
15. Why is the density so high? Is there a city-mandated minimum?
A. Response from City: The only mandated minimum is that on a gross
acreage basis, for all residential parcels in Miramont, there can be no less
than 3.00 dwelling units per acre. Also, Parcel N must develop as "multi-
0
family" or "business services" or apply to the Planning and Zoning Board
for a master plan amendment.
16. Has an analysis been done regarding how Miramont is building out? Is
Miramont in need of this much density to bring it up to the 3.00 d.u./a
minimum?
A. Response from City: No, this analysis has not been done at this time. We
can look into this and provide the information.
17. From my perspective, it appears the developer is really jamming these
buildings in close together. Combined with the three-story buildings, it
demonstrates a total disregard for the quality of life for the surrounding
neighborhoods. The proposal is inconsiderate.
18. Why is there no direct access to the project from Lemay? Wouldn't this
alleviate congestion at the Lemay/Boardwalk intersection?
A. We have been instructed by the City's traffic operations engineer that
access off Lemay would not be allowed. We have a shown an emergency
second point of access to comply with the request of the Poudre Fire
Authority. This access will be blocked by a chain or by bollards.
19. With only one access point, there will be cars backed up into the project
waiting to exit during the morning rush hour. This will cause residents to
park on Boardwalk overnight. This will be undesirable to have parked cars
up and down Boardwalk in our neighborhood.
20. For cars that are eastbound on Boardwalk, wanting to turn left to go north
on Lemay, they will stack up and block the access point to the project.
This will create gridlock and cause driver frustration.
A. We will work with the City's traffic operations engineer to see if there is
enough stacking capacity in the left turn lane.
21. Why don't you eliminate all top floors and just have two-story buildings?
You could delete all the one-bedroom apartments and only lose 22
dwelling units.
22. Was the future Keenland extension over the railroad tracks factored into
the traffic study?
A. Do not know. We will ask the traffic consultant and report back.
23. I live on Lemay and Keenland. I'm concerned about drainage. All the
runoff will go down our swale on its way to the large Oak Ridge pond next
to the railroad tracks. I'm disappointed that the City Stormwater Engineers
are not at this meeting to address our concerns.
A. Response from City: We are in the preliminary planning stage of this
project. We can certainly meet again and bring representatives from other
departments and utilities to answer your questions.
24. The existing stormwater detention pond in Miramont is a nuisance. The
bottom of the pond is below the outlet. The water gets stagnant and
mosquitoes breed. It attracts kids. Do you plan on improving this
situation?
A. Yes, we would like to improve the pond with aeration and better shoreline
landscaping. This should improve water quality.
25. Keep in mind that the pond is naturally fed by high groundwater. Some
believe that this is a result of leakage from the Mail Creek Ditch.
A. We do not want to add to the problems. We recognize that the
downstream property owners in Oak Ridge have a maintenance obligation
to convey the stormwater generated by Miramont.
26. Three-story buildings are totally unexpected. We knew the parcel would
develop in some fashion but never did we expect such massive buildings.
27. There is too much traffic on Boardwalk already. Drivers regularly exceed
the posted speed limit. Boardwalk is a unique collector because it is a
short-cut to South College Avenue. I am concerned because of kids
walking to Werner School. The project will just make Boardwalk a more
dangerous street.
A. Have you considered working with the City on installing traffic calming
devices? The City has a program to work with neighborhoods on reducing
speeding. Also, the City works with the School District every year on the
"Safe Route to Schools" program on where to install yellow caution lights
and/or crossing guards.
28. Have you ever sat through the traffic signal at Harmony and Boardwalk?
If you are going north on Boardwalk and want to turn left to go west on
Harmony, you end up waiting through several cycles. How can the City
allow this much density and force drivers onto a system that is already
having problems?
0
A. One of the problems with Harmony Road is that it is under the jurisdiction
of the State. As a highway connection between I-25 and State Highway
287, the State is reluctant to lower the speed limits. So, the green phase
for Harmony is longer than for Boardwalk.
29. We live in Courtyards at Miramont next to the park. The park has
drainage problems. We had to install a sump pump in our basement. The
soccer field does not drain. How can we trust the City Stormwater
engineers on this project?
A.
30
A.
31
A.
Our project does not slope towards Courtyards. Our drainage goes east
into the existing pond.
If the Oak-Cottonwood Farm O.D.P. needs this much density to achieve
the required minimum of 3.00 d.u./a, can this requirement be varied?
Response from City: It can only be varied by the Planning and
Zoning Board.
Was this project originally submitted for only 88 units?
Yes.
32. We oppose the three-story height. This will cause sound on Lemay to
reflect back towards Oak Ridge. The height is out of character for our
neighborhood and we fear our property values will suffer as a result.
0
33
0
We believe that with the setbacks from Lemay, there will be no sound
reflectance back to Oak Ridge.
We live in Courtyards at Miramont. The irrigation pond for Miramont Park
is stagnant and carries a foul odor.
Again, our drainage will go east. The pond you are referring to is west of
our site.
34. Would the developer take the project through the planning process as
condos and then switch to apartments after approval? This has been
known to happen.
�
35
It is not the intention of the developer to do this.
Can the City enforce that the units remain condos?
7
A. Response from City: We cannot review a plan based on the potential
ownership-versus-rental aspect of the individual dwelling units. Type of
ownership is not a land use review criterion.
36. Will there be an association for maintenance, mowing, etc.?
A. Yes.
37. Would you want to live on Keenland if this project were approved?
38. I am opposed to the density. Multi-family will lower our property values. I
criticize the City for not having a representative from the Parks and
Recreation Department to address our concerns about the problems at
Miramont Park.
A. Response from City: We can have a follow-up meeting and have a
member of the Park Planning and Development Staff in attendance.
39. The project is incompatible due to the density. The City should relax
whatever requirement is forcing the developer to propose 132 dwelling
units. If there is such a requirement, it is too rigid. The third floor of each
building should be eliminated.
A. Response from City: Our only requirements are that Oak-Cottonwood
O.D.P. not fall below 3.00 d.u./a on a gross acreage basis and that
whatever density is proposed is supported by the performance on the
Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S.
40. The Planning Department provided inadequate notice for this meeting.
The green sign should be larger because the project is now over 100
units. Also, the mailing list should go out at least 1,000 feet not 750 feet.
A. Response from City: We will make these corrections and hold another
neighborhood meeting to provide follow-up for those questions we cannot
answer tonight.
41. Have you seen what Boardwalk looks like during soccer season? The
park is full from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. and cars line the street. And now you
are going to add 132 new units with only one access point off Boardwalk.
This will just bring more traffic into our neighborhood onto a street where
there is already too much speeding.
42. Has the developer completed other projects in Fort Collins that we can
inspect?
A. Yes, he completed the Medical Center at Prospect and Lemay and Harbor
Walk Estates on the east side of Warren Lake. He has also completed
other multi-family and senior housing projects in other communities as well
as a luxury apartment project in Boulder.
43. Will each unit pay full building permit fees?
A. Yes.
44. Regarding overall density in the neighborhood, how do you factor in the
assisted living facility on Rule Drive?
A. Response from City: That is considered institutional housing and not
individual dwelling units. Also, it is not a part of Oak-Cottonwood Farm
O.D.P.
45. Unless the developer can eliminate some buildings and lower the height, I
can only oppose the project and urge the Planning and Zoning Board to
do the same.
46. Where do we go from here? I have concerns about the notice for this
meeting. We want an explanation from City about the project's score on
the point chart and the All Development Criteria. The developer needs to
re-orient the buildings to provide view corridors for Oak Ridge. We want
more opportunities to participate in the process. The developer should
know that three-story buildings are not compatible.
A. Response from City: We can hold another at-large neighborhood
meeting. In addition, we can meet with representatives from the various
home owners' associations on a continuing basis. Meeting in smaller
groups on a more frequent basis has worked well for other neighborhoods
facing similar issues. Finally, our Neighborhood Resources Office is
available to assist your neighborhoods in organizing.
47. How do these buildings compare in height and mass to the Collinwood
gym?
A. Our building footprint is 130' x 58'. We are not exactly sure of the
dimensions of the Collinwood gym but we will provide this information at
the next meeting.
48. The fact that the proposed buildings are larger than the Collinwood gym
demonstrates the lack of compatibility with the neighborhood. The
proposed buildings are more massive than the largest building in our
neighborhood. Could you put the building closest to Lemay in perspective
0
drawing so we can evaluate how the building looks in relationship to the
street?
A. Yes, we can prepare a perspective drawing.
49. Did the traffic study factor in a new use in the old Builders Square? What
if this building is converted into a new retail use? Does this change the
traffic analysis?
A. I am fairly certain that the traffic study assumed a fully occupied building
as a retail use but I will check with the traffic consultant to be sure.
50. We live in the Courtyards at Miramont and oppose the project. Our
backyards do not drain and our water table is high. We had to install a
sump pump. There are drainage problems in the whole area. This project
will just make things worse.
51. Is the Residential Uses point chart of the L.D.G.S. the only review criteria
for this project?
A. Response from City: No, the project must also satisfy the applicable All
Development Criteria of the L.D.G.S. and all the review criteria of the Fort
Collins Utilities and outside utility providers such as Public Service and
U.S. West.
L
; NEIGHBQR�OQD INF4Rh1A�'IOI�I 11�IEETING `. ' Did you r�ive Correct
; ; � ; Z� written notification Address�
� �"sx�`. .... CODE of this meeting? �
NA1� ADDRESS YES NO YES NO
� � �L�. - � ` %%GC �' %� -
% �' �,
,�,% � /�/� L � `� { / r / �1 �� � � �
U_• ,
c. �, ,:: . r' J `.; . �=, '
� �� /� �.'�L �u.az+�,- -� ;, __.�. G�:J:,�� �.
z'> � � / ,
/ ! `l � Gi- �' "v>�.iGp � -
(M1/ � � �(�/l�� ��"V,G�' ' L�� �z V I
A c��c�' : ��(-��. � � J �1�'W1'(X7'i'(� � '� _ . +1 �— c/.
r� s fi S. 7� 2 G✓ • pr�.,�� f2d . �p �26
' C �Y �, y t% �.'_4 �%� / � � � . I
/� ` �" / � z3 • i.tl��/�� O0f � a/." I
� � `�� �� y�
"�ll � St, ,� l % � � � l� l. C..' G �� ✓
� 1 `
r � S« l Sc�.,� c�� Co.�-`�- �O��S ✓.
�' ��z sl� ;�l ��- � C �sz ✓ ✓
����i � �/ �/� � �!�� �in.�,����2Fz L-� �L'.5-- ,L--
.r �.i � � ' r Y`�. � t - — —' � V' . �
�� �(.'fi� � � /'� � � �, � ' � L �t�� 1 ✓
C— � �- S�� S'� `� /'L� °� Tt.r�'/3��e / CT' �c'jZ �
, ��~ CZ 1,�..C% ��. ���Ze�£'�(' /l �� l� �k'_/��'r� y � �c5'� , j� . �_ l �
"li�;� �i�tl'� �<�, i��� -� -'�t.� ,E�',�-r��>��',�e f� ,;� r�' � ,3t� �'� y y �. -
� �� � , �
C��'�' CLz��la�'�- ,%; . ���.Sr 'p,�,'�
�
` L
��-�t ��'P e ( � �� �..r r� �c2� �GSzS � .
� �, fi�� �,��� �-;�� ��- ����s.��- ��, �,
_� j� � i� hl�G- �c� �l�/ �1 �� �r4� l /�L- (�ZJ �/,
�� C�� �fi'��1 ! f � c�"K,.%Y�li��..i--�/ �Ci''�• �.— �� V�� `.� V /� .
':'NEIGHBQRHOQD L�I�°i�RI�1A.TION lY1EET'INfs'; Didyour�ive Correct
, , : written notification
ZIP Address?
' CODE of thismeeting7
NAME ADDRESS YES NO YES NO
� . / . . �'�, . / ,� � . � L.
' - � Q �i `� �C .�` � � L
� • - �# . ' . �,,.i i/
C7GC, � �� .� ��l L, � r� ��
� I I I G �;� h��r U�� ��-- ��.> Z;" � 1�
v� .
cZc-��Gtti�LC� �/�C; .�.��z�' , �� � C� �'�s Z � . i,-�" r/
�
�cr�l � ub��r� i I J � j w �,�t-�`� �-r Gt ,�'v''zs ;_- . �- �.
� _ �2 - .. ;
, �— �
� �"- �
G! � , a � ��. _{ . / . � , �' c� -�a: � � `, L . 1 ` �� Z- -- � � �,,..:..
� �g �r�l,�' St �I �3��-P�w,�,ll� �2. �L �-- � � . f
, -,
i,� � � - � �, ;, , _ . `�' , �, _� �� � , ; � � � �� �
�' '� T.�jC,� � �,� ��' �,�Y'^ , , ,!''� �, ������� -- ��t I
C-� k,- - '_ � ; � � ,�; � � � (i -, � �
1�� % .,�h�� ; �- ( � ,_�; 4 x_ -�,-- �� � D��- T 4-. ��.
� -1 - � C� �G�z�- ✓ . ✓
< �� � �,.�,.a� 5 I O c � - �� � h�.a-3 -�, 2 � ✓
,�i�„ � � -,
�.�1k�.�� 1 ��� �.� /�i % ,��iG° '� �.��uz� �� � zs �� � �
� � /� , �,
/ ''' � L `, � c� � iG2 (.ItLv� l - � `i 5 � 5� �
O/_g -JE7 �c% T- %a� / U :��� �iQ'!Z / � � � ��
� � n1 � N Z / 41 � P�1� cFf� K � i �'o� Z� ✓
(� l 5 � NS�,� . l T� (� ��- C� SS' ��� � v
f nn, � r►�'i�5��1 � � 1 '� , - � �- � �-- _
j - I
� � y� t_ ���� �/`���
���t ; .���'� �i T7` I �L-� L � �
"� 1 �� SG> > S C.' �-U I�(JL2-ri,ti U:>G?-U:•z l�! � ��; -� � / �
��(zc�r,�? '.��.n�'�s- S��'� <�rL.a�� r.►ti..� or� -�2 `� �OS� -� �— `--
�
(,J�w�,� IYIC�-v�,�., l I�' (�` G� �..�� �1C- E�� (�- � d�j��'�' �
� ,
r.� �„�, l „ �-.�. _ -� �•��c> i J�-T_ �-��% ��:� -� -�'7 ���'=:� s v� i%
�
IYET.GFIBQR]30C)D IN,�'�RMA.TION I12EET'ING : Didyour�ive Correct
Z� written hotification Addtess?
coDE �f�s m��g?
NAME ADDRESS YES NO YES NO
.� "'� �, ���� � / - - -
r
�A � p � � � � �-- �--�
� ` �t it � :�;- � �-�.� T� U T— G�1 . .
� /�
� i � . �-/` �e, , , �`°�i=� / T� V'4' K �"T � S �'_
. i
� �
. i
I
I
� �
i
. ��
��'`�
The Lodge at Nliramont
Meeting of Affected Home Owners' Associations
March 14, 2000
AGEIV"DA
1. Current Status of the Development Application for The Lodge at Miramont
Ted Shepard
2. City's Objectives for Tonight's Meeting
Ted Shepard
3. Home Owners' Associations' Objectives for Tonight's Meeting
John Busby, A1 Hauck, and open discussion
4. Issues related to Requirements of the Master Plan (the Oak/Cottonwood Farm ODP)
Ted Shepard and Input from the Home Owners' Associations
�. Issues related to Allowable Density on this Site (Density Chart H Calculations)
Ted Shepard and Input from the Home Owners' Associations
6. Issues related to Compatibility with Surroundin2 Land Uses (All Development Criteria)
Ted Shepard and Input from the Home Owners' Associations
7. Issues related to EnQineering and Drainage Concerns
Ted Shepard and Input from the Home Owners' Associations
8. Issues related to Tr�c Concerns
Ted Shepard and Input from the Home Owners' Associations
9. Other Issues Suggested by the Home Owners' Associations
10. Plans for Future Meetings
11. Adjournment
SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT: The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary P.U.D.
DATE: May 1, 2000
APPLICANT: Mr. Mike Sollenberger, S.D.C.
Mr. John Sollenberger, S.D.C.
CONSULTANTS: Mr. Matt Rankin, Vaught-Frye Architects
Ms. Shirley Serna, V-F Ripley Associates
CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Engineer
The meeting began with a description of the changes made in the plans since the
first neighborhood meeting back in February, 8, 2000. These include the deletion
of two buildings, a reduction in the number of units from 132 to 108 and the re-
arrangement of buildings so that a portion of the middle of the project features
only one story structures. There are nine residential structures (formerly 11) and
one clubhouse. Other changes include pulling the perimeter buildings back away
from the edges such as Miramont Park and Lemay Avenue.
Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or the consulting
team.
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
The revised plans looks better than the previous. I am still concerned
about spillover parking. Have you provided enough parking for residents
as well as guests?
A: Yes, we have met the City's requirements for providing parking. We have
a total of 191 parking spaces for 108 dwelling units. We have 36 spaces
in attached garages, 36 spaces in detached garages, and the balance are
surface spaces.
2. You are still showing the curb cut on Lemay. Will this be for ingress and
egress or restricted to emergency access only?
A: This will be for the required second point of access needed by Poudre Fire
Authority. It will be secured so it can't be used by the general public.
3. I am concerned about kids from Oak Ridge having to walk over to Werner
School. If these kids are on the north side of Boardwalk, they will have to
cross the driveway entrance to this project. This could be a dangerous
situation.
A: Yes, the sidewalk crosses the driveway entrance where the kids will have
to look for cars, as they would at any driveway that intersects a sidewalk.
Fortunately, the starting time for school does not coincide with the peak
time of the roadway so this may reduce the potential conflicts.
4. Is the Lemay/Boardwalk intersection still eligible for a traffic signal?
Response from City: Yes, as a the intersection of an arterial and collector,
a traffic signal will be installed when warranted by established criteria.
5. Will there be any two-story units or will they all be "flats?"
A: They will all be flats.
6. What are the sizes of the units:
A: The smallest will be one-bedroom units at 802 square feet. We will also
offer a two-bedroom, or a one-bedroom with den, at 1,215 square feet.
7. Will the project be built in phases? What is your construction schedule?
How much of the landscaping will be installed with the first phase? What
are the sizes of the trees that you are showing?
A: All of the site work will be done initially. This includes installation of all
underground utilities, grading and storm drainage improvements. The
perimeter landscaping will be installed with the first phase. Trees are
required to be no less than two-inches in caliper. We plan on building
three structures in the southwest corner with the first phase. Subsequent
structures will be built based on demand.
8. What are the City's minimum parking requirements? Do you just meet
these minimums or do you provide guest parking?
Response from City: One bedroom units must be provided with a
minimum of 1.5 spaces. Two bedroom units must be provided with 1.75
spaces.
A: There will be 72 two-bedroom units which requires 126 spaces. There will
be 36 one-bedroom units which requires 54 spaces. Overall, 180 spaces
are required. We are providing 14 extra spaces for a total of 194 parking
spaces.
9. It appears that the water feature has shrunk since the last plan. It looks a
lot narrower at the south end. What is the difference in the size of the
water feature since last time?
A: Yes, the water feature is little smaller than before. The width dimension at
the south end has been reduced by about one-hundred feet.
10. Would the City consider eliminating the on-street parking on the north side
of Boardwalk between Lemay and driveway entrance to this project?
Response from City: We will investigate this with Traffic Operations
Department.
11. Does the driveway entrance align with the driveway for the Hamlet on the
south side of Boardwalk?
A: Yes.
12. What about the vacant parcel at the southwest leg of the Lemay and
Boardwalk intersection? Where will that parcel take access?
A: Response from City: This site will take access with a shared driveway
with the Hamlet. This is the same driveway on the Hamlet's east property
line that will align across Boardwalk with the Lodge driveway.
13. So, there will more traffic at these driveways onto Boardwalk than just
what is anticipated for The Lodge?
Response from City: Yes.
14. Can we get traffic calming devices on Boardwalk?
Response from City: We will forward this request to Traffic Operations.
They have a traffic calming procedure for neighborhoods before devices
are installed.
15. Can a new road swing down from Oak Ridge Drive on the north to serve
this property? That would alleviate traffic on Boardwalk.
Response from City: There is no available property for such a road. Keep
in mind that Miramont Park would be impacted by such a road.
16. We are going to need a crossing guard at Lemay/Boardwalk for kids going
to Werner School.
Response from City: This request will be forwarded to the City's
Transportation Planning Department which administers the Safe-Route-to-
School Program.
17. What about sight distance obstructions at the driveway entrance? We
don't want any blockage so drivers exiting the site can see the kids on the
sidewalk.
A: We agree. We will make sure that building placement and landscaping is
designed to not block the driver's view of kids on the sidewalk.
18. Where was the architectural perspective taken from?
A: The photo was taken from the east side of Lemay outside the fence Oak
Ridge perimeter fence. The photo was then used as a background on
which the buildings were superimposed.
19. Can Poudre Fire navigate the internal streets?
A: Yes, we will provide the minimum require turning radii for the Poudre Fire
Authority. Also, the buildings will be equipped with an automatic fire
extinguishing system.
20. Will the emergency second point of access be paved?
A: Yes.
21. I do not like the height of the three-story buildings. Such buildings are out
of scale with the neighborhood.
A: Keep in mind that there is only six inches in increased height over what we
originally had with the 88 two-story buildings last year.
22. Yes, but the height of the roof and the mass of the roof over a larger
building will be larger and more imposing than that original submittal.
23. I am concerned about the safety of the water feature. With kids in the
neighborhood, and the natural attraction to water, will the pond be fenced
for safety?
A: We were not planning on fencing the pond but we have made no final
decisions yet.
Response from Basil Hamdan: The Stormwater Utility will require that the
pond feature a shallow shelf for a minimum distance from the waters
edge. This is a safety feature. We do not allow sheer drop-offs in
stormwater detention ponds.
24. The three-story buildings along Lemay will look like apartment buildings.
This is going to be an unattractive addition to our neighborhood.
A: Yes, the buildings are three-story but keep in mind we are using quality
materials with architectural details so our buildings will not look like
Miramont Apartments.
25. I am still concerned about the shrinking water feature. It looks like the
developer just wants to cram as many buildings in as possible.
A: Keep in mind that by necessity, the pond will be larger than what it is now
in order to detain the additional volumes generated by the project. The
exact size and shape have not been engineered yet.
26. The way I see it, the developer is trying to minimize the impact of the
project by falsely calculating the density. The project is not 9.5 acres
because such an acreage includes going to the centerline of the adjacent
streets. If re-calculated by deleting the streets, the site is about 7.7 acres.
Then if you take out the water feature, the true size of the site is only
about 6 acres. Factoring the number of dwelling units over only 6 acres
makes the true density go up.
Response from City: We will use the 7.7 figure as the gross acreage on
which calculate density. The water feature is contained on private
property. Therefore, it is included in the gross acreage.
27. Does the site carry a burden of providing a minimum number of units so
the O.D.P. comes out as originally approved?
Response from City: No, the O.D.P. only requires that the land use be
multi-family or business services. Otherwise, an amendment would be
needed.
28. The pond will breed mosquitoes.
A: Our plan is to provide aeration to the pond so it does not become
stagnant.
29. Yes, but will you aerate at night?
A: Don't know at this point.
30. Will there be elevators?
A: Not at this time but if our market becomes senior citizens, then we may
consider elevators.
31. Would the cost of elevators force you to increase the number of units?
Would elevators raise the roof line?
A: Good questions. The answer to both questions is no.
32. Will drainage from this site be routed through Oak Ridge?
Response from Basil Hamdan: Yes, stormwater will be detained in the
water feature and then released at the historic rate, which is calculated to
be the "two-year" storm. Flows are then routed into the existing swale that
runs along the north side of Keenland. Flows are then routed into the
existing detention pond in Oak Ridge next to the Union Pacific railroad
tracks.
33. Will our Oak Ridge pond be impacted by this new drainage?
Response from Basil Hamdan: No, The Lodge storm flows will be
detained on their site so the Oak Ridge pond will not need additional
capacity.
34. The Oak Ridge pond fills to capacity very quickly. I am concerned about
the capacity now even without this new development.
Response from Basil Hamdan: Yes, we know. The pond drains the entire
Oak Ridge Business Park and was undersized. It is designed to overtop
the railroad tracks before backing up and impacting homes.
35. Traffic on Boardwalk will be a mess. Residents of The Lodge wanting to
exit and turn left will be backed up into the project. The vacant parcel on
the southwest corner next to the Hamlet will contribute to the congestion.
The City better take parking off Boardwalk for safety purposes.
Response from City: These concerns will be forwarded to the Traffic
Operations Department.
36. I am opposed to parking on Boardwalk. This will just cause visibility
problems and increase safety problems for kids.
37. There is school overcrowding at Werner. This project will just make things
worse.
38. With this project, there will be an unacceptable level of density in the
Boardwalk corridor. The Hamlet came in over its estimated density as
shown on the O.D.P. The Miramont Apartments came in over its
estimated density as shown on the O.D.P. This project will be right next to
the Courtyards which is only 5.3 d.u./acre. The proposed density is
radically out of character for our neighborhood. The existing
neighborhood requires a compatible density on this subject parcel, not the
density that is proposed. The Lodge is, quite simply, not compatible with
our neighborhood. As existing residents and homeowners, we are being
asked to accept a project that will negatively impact our lives.
39. This area already has a high overall density. Adding this project is just too
much impact.
40. The proposed water feature will attract geese and ducks. We will just add
to our problems with excrement.
A: Such a feature is not unusual in other communities.
41. The proposed three-story buildings will just stick out, especially those
buildings that are right on Lemay. The height is just out of character for
our neighborhood which features one and two story buildings. The project
is not compatible.
A: Keep in mind that in the M-M-N zone district, the proposed three story
height is permitted. Also, we feel that the distance between our buildings
and the existing one-story homes in Oak Ridge is substantial.
42. The density in our area is deceptive since the assisted living facilities do
not technically count as dwelling units. But, their appearance is indicative
of density and now we are being asked to accept another project with
large structures. This is very frustrating.
43. You mentioned "sight lines." Could you go over these again?
A: Yes, in the middle of the project, we have created an area where no
building exceeds one-story. This area features the clubhouse and
detached garages. Also, we re-oriented the buildings so they are more
east-west versus north-south. This reduces the number of units that will
have views to the west but allows the site to be opened up a little. Also,
keep in mind that the ends of our buildings taper down to one-story in
height.
44. Where will the fire department respond from?
A: There is an existing station at the corner of Harmony and Hogan in
Fairway Estates.
45. This project is indicative of growth in general. These projects that are
popping up in southeast Fort Collins will force the existing taxpayers to
fund new fire stations and police officers. How will the citizens in south
Fort Collins be served by police and fire with all the new growth? Our
safety is being impacted by all the new growth.
Response from City: We have heard from the City Manager that there will
be three new police officers hired per year over the next several years. All
new dwelling units must pay a building permit fee called the "Capital
Expansion Fee." Police and Poudre Fire Authority receive funding from
the revenues generated by this fee. Finally, a new fire station is being
planned for the Timberline/Trilby area.
46. City representatives from the Transportation Department should have
been here for this meeting to answer our questions regarding traffic
calming, parking on Boardwalk, Safe-Route-to-School program and timing
of the full signalization at Lemay and Boardwalk.
Response from City: We will ask Transportation personnel to attend the
next meeting to address your concerns.
i�TEIGHBORHOOD IN�I��`I�TION i�IEETIi� D;a a°:;o tfic�tion �aar�ss
LOoGE gT �ii�[AMa�vT P�f. MRY /� .2aao oftf�Ismcetiag? ,
Name Address Zip I Yes I No I Yes� �o
L � � 5,���� �
,/
,' �. :7' `, fi������
�
31�,��
,� 11
.Jr ( J ' V �J�r
�
ri�
, ,
K,�,rr..J , � i �c� �C�,d� � � ' ` < i - �
SS
. ' �- 2 �
v, � s a �� � r� �'- �-v, �� ,��> s � i s � ./� �.�%�-�-� :�-��L Z—
Q � �/ �- I
�> ! � f'�/�-� r � // r%G ,S /S� ' ,CS�L� f�,217 u. � J — � �
� �i S ��s/'�i G�' ,� � J �'`� S � �' � L — �I ✓
�
/r_,� _��Y���,-3„<vs :�C%c�� /-�C%��nv�z�ac,� �` ; �� [�
0 ` � � 4; �� ( C � � J�Crt ��- I c�
J
� i�' e�? � C� r� r.v �. � I �; T� �— j� 3� L � V� C�,�,� C�; ,�
�i-L
���
L; / ; `� {�LYgN':��, yv �- ,Q��' %�
i /UU ��F-+ /TC (_�wl� �.
•i i;�i�� If/
�
%�%(�C�� (/G�u,
�� ?� � �J � (c r�
, % �� C/
, -�� �� r%�
,�.
'� � 1���' � � �Nti�ll!�
,
� .����y� � �
� �,j �� ��_ �-� ,C�;� .
�f� f � %�� i �� � -� d�s � /'f I �
�j'/ 5 ✓ ��G �.�r-� � �,a L l� � —� y � G' .S Z S� I
,�;� / / /5 5�����Oa�c C� �Os���l �
�
� i�!w ��,�;; i� �-ti� �c�k ���` � u 5 a�'� �'
j� %l! f S�'��-2 ,� ;,� ���,� C�— �- a � z� I -�'_
ti
�C/� �/� S 1? � . 1.� r�� T�uN3 t�<2y C t ���� �� ;i-
�
�Y � �
Iv I
I I
� � � �
I � I
I`�I I
I � I
I�) I
� �-I I `
I � I.
�� � �
✓I I I
I V)
I ��� I
I� I I
�j
�
�cl����- ��� T ���;F l - � C;%�c�i — —
�
�^ !� c (
L �'� L ;�
.�����
� � _r _ `
,�-
�,,�
� n -� �v� 2 � �-�' �-
�rEIGHBORHOOD I��R11�I�.TION �IEETII`1� Dld You Rcccive urrcct
Vritten NotiGc�tion ,addresr
,�, �'J ��j �� „Z pQ 0 of this mceting?
Name Address Zio I Yes I No I Yes, tio
'� ` �� � ,ti=� � � � � � ( G '�-'v�(.�.;��-' � . �,i L-' �� � �
� � �' '`C � �— I I
���� �� �� �� �� �� I I I
-� r �/ �
�� c: � i (? ' A � ~ ► � l ��P r,�1fl � � �S� J�'
����✓ t�,l _ . � . � __ i / � 3 ��� ��i� P� � � �z s—� '� � `� �
� a ' �.� v�.
�^
��C �ec� �- �z,e�f'
L �: � ��
�- _ .
J /.� / �
4
�'�-� % (�
_ �-/
v'
1��� , z�'� �� �G�- � � � �'
I ♦
L
I
`� o„��a Oak-Cottonwood Farm Parcel N
�
O CE]a1EfERY
� COMMUNffY PARK ��'' 1.5 Mile Buffx
� GOLF COURSE W� �^� 800 0 800 Feet
OMINI PARK �oo1s N
�NEJGHBORHOODPARK NParcels
� I � � � `—' � � v� �[�.
��.o .�..�
\�"�S � � � �
\ ^', ~✓� Y`
.i^,!" . `.l�i"
COLLINYVC}OD
.�
.� I
� �
� �
t
� '.,...i
},_ __� I
i '
�
�
�
�
1 r�
_ , - �
:\� "��\
.,, . \ .
��, �' .
`` .
,`' ,�'�
�
�
,
' ', ��
�IIR��'�ONT {`�
,�
PARK � ,
;,
:' % '
/ �/ • •
`. /..
�. �
�` " ._._-_-����� d}�
\ �r_;_.... . : ' ' � ' ! /
`� . .. .
\, , , �,�
� `. . � � • � .
'� �. 1 � ' ,
.', �
� ;, • �-
_,
�__ ___.__
� .�.. � �
'� i
:, . �
;
�� � -,
1:----r �_..
� - ��i
; r; ! : .,`
' -� ; f �
, .
, ,
,'� ' • �-•_ _ '� . �
� �
� __ .
, ,�___. � ,
. � . . .�
. , �
�1 ,' / �
t � " I
� � - ��
�� � � ��
,� ' -
j' , , , .
i�,' . • � 1
%� , ' • . .
! :
°i . ' ` . � � R
� ��_.... _.. _ .,.... __. . .
t 1
� r, ---.,..._..,.__ . , ,
i �,' �.,' ,,•
i .
� ��\ ,
, T...... ... :.. !� \ �
i 1 " 1_".. ...,.� "�
l ;
� �' �r� �
i `
.1�...{
t ; f �
� 1 _. .c''_. . .1. ;
.
_. /
-�.._ � �
_. ..---..
--�......"_"'--
�O�RDWALK DRIVE
THE L�DG� AT
1VI�R.��.MONT P .0 .D .
�ORT COLI.INS C(aLO.RADO
10/tPR Z�C
� ^'��y!i I�.Y, rs��„
MW
�'y! Y
�� � � Y
,� ����'.� ,r
,;��������
� ��
�',� lt6!'i.��!'
.:.��i i ��u i n��':
�,.,.��:.� , .. ..
THIRD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
CONSULTANTS:
CITY STAFF:
The Lodge at Miramont Preliminary P.U.D.
Mr. Mike Sollenberger, S.D.C.
Mr. John Sollenberger, S.D.C.
Mr. Frank Vaught, Vaught-Frye Architects
Mr. Mark Anderson, TST, Inc.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Eric Bracke, Traffic Operations Engineer
Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planner
Mark Jackson, Transportation Planner
Tom Reiff, Transportation Planner
Craig Foreman, Director, Parks Planning
The meeting began with an update and review of the project. The primary
change is that the water feature has been enlarged and that there is no longer
a bridge over the water feature connecting the buildings. The P.U.D.
continues to feature 108 dwelling units in nine buildings plus a cominunity
building. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are froin the applicant or
consultant.
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS
1.
When calculating the number of parking spaces, do you count the
garage spaces? What happens if residents fill their garage with
household items and block the parking space?
A. Yes, we count the garage spaces. We plan on assigning parking
spaces to the units on a per bedroom basis. With the exception of the
guest parking, there will not be a free and open parking lot. Since
parking will be regulated, we doubt that folks will jeopardize a
valuable enclosed parking space.
2. I am concerned about the consultant's claim that Oak Ridge residents
will still be able to see the mountains over the three-story buildings.
The existing Collinwood gym is about the same height and I cannot
see over it.
A. We did not inean to iinply that you could see over the three story
buildings. What we meant to convey is that between the three story
buildings on Lemay, we have kept open a"view corridor" where we
have nothing but garages and the community building, all of which
are just one-story. These are the buildings that you can see over, not
the three-story buildings.
3. As percentage of the total, how much parking will be in a structure?
A. 39%.
4. Are we still thinking about restricting parking on Boardwalk near the
intersection with Lemay?
Response from Bracke: Yes, we plan on prohibiting parking on
Boardwalk between the driveway for The Lodge and the intersection,
on both sides of the street. This will allow bikes and pedestrians to be
more visible to turning vehicles.
5. What about parking in front of the parlc?
Response from Bracke: We will continue to allow parking from the
driveway west in front of the park. On-street parking along a park is
not a problein and actually helps reduce speeding. Parking is needed
for park users.
6. What happens if Lodge residents use on-street parking on a regular
basis and monopolize the parking that would otherwise be available
for park users? I am concerned about spillover parking.
Response from Reavis: Our experience is that multi-family residents
park on the street only when the on-street space is closer to their front
door than the space provided off-street. In this case, all the off-street
parking will be closer to the dwelling units than the available on-street
parking in front of Mirainont Park.
2
7. Will residents be allowed to store boats, r.v.'s, snowmobiles within
the project?
A. No.
8. Will the City install an eastbound right-turn lane on Boardwalk to go
south on Lemay?
Response from Bracke: Not at this time.
9. When will the Lemay/Boardwalk signal be upgraded from pedestrian
actuated to fully operational?
Response from Bracke: I do not have a specific date but we will try to
do this upgrade before the first certificate of occupancy for The
Lodge.
10. Did the traffic study assume the impact of Keenland Drive going over
the railroad tracks?
Response from Bracke: No. The Keenland extension is in the long
term future. There are other street crossings over railroad tracks that
we would rather pursue than Keenland. Obtaining permission for
such crossings must go through the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission and this is a very lengthy process. It is my opinion that
the connection is too far out in the future to be factored into a
meaningful traffic study.
11. What will be the Level of Service at Lemay and Boardwalk?
Response from Bracke: LOS "C."
12. Can you describe what LOS "C" means to a typical driver?
Response from Bracke: This is a measurement of delay. It is the
average delay time for every vehicle entering the intersection, during
the peak time only. LOS "C" equals 20 to 35 seconds of delay.
�C'
�
13. Will the crossing guard at Leinay/Boardwalk stay even with the
upgraded signal?
Response from Reavis: Yes.
14. What about a crossing guard at the Boardwalk/Highcastle
intersection? I volunteer for Werner School and act as an unofficial
crossing guard. There is speeding on Boardwalk and cars do not stop
in the marked crosswalk.
Response from Reavis: We know that there is a problem on a city-
wide basis with compliance for stopping for pedestrians in a cross-
walk. We have looked at the Boardwalk/Highcastle intersection and
based on speeds and volumes, it does not warrant a crossing guard at
this time. We will continue to monitor the situation as time goes on.
15. What are the chances of getting a crossing guard?
Response from Reavis: The Safe-Route-to-School program evaluates
the route to schools prior to the school year starting. We work with
the school officials and parent advisory groups. If an intersection or
street warrants a crossing guard, then it is staffed, if we have the
available personnel. Unfortunately, we have some areas that meet
warrants but do not have crossing guards due to staffing issues.
16. What is the projected traffic volume� on Boardwalk?
Response froin Bracke: Between Harinony and Lemay, we expect
Boardwalk to carry about 5,000 vehicles per day. This is an
acceptable number for a collector street.
17. What about adding traffic calming on Boardwalk?
Response from Bracke: We are considering adding a raised crosswalk
on Boardwalk at the Highcastle intersection independent of this
project. Before we do, however, we must go through a neighborhood
outreach process so everyone in the neighborhood is informed. We
expect this to be in the Spring of next year. A raised crosswalk is
equivalent to a speed table.
n
�
18. Could you give us an example of a comparable collector?
Response from Bracke: East Swallow would be comparable. Keep in
mind that I am referring only to the stretch of Boardwalk between
Harmony and Leinay. The street north of Harmony is upgraded in
classification to a minor arterial and carries more volume.
19. Could you describe the periineter fencing?
A. The fencing will be an open picket steel tube fence like wrought-iron.
20. The illustrated plan indicates that the water feature will be maintained
at a certain level. What about fluctuations in the water surface
elevation?
A. The pond must act as both a retention pond (permanent) and detention
(temporary) pond. There must be available freeboard to accept
incoming 100-year storm flows. This water is then detained and
released at a controlled rate to protect the downstream system. At the
same time as a water feature, there must be a minimum water surface
elevation in order to remain attractive as an amenity. In addition, we
will provide a circulation and aeration system to prevent stagnation.
21. Will the circulation systein prevent waterfowl from be attracted to the
pond?
A. A circulation system should not discourage waterfowl from landing.
22. I ain opposed to the three-story structures. Buildings at this height are
not typically found in the general vicinity. Rockbridge condos at
Harmony and Wheaton did a nice job of putting two-story buildings
along the streets and the three-story buildings interior to the site.
A. The buildings are under the 40-foot height limit, above which a
special height review is required. We think the buildings are
attractive and designed with a lot of attention to detail. The ends of
the buildings drop down in a stair step fashion to help break up the
mass.
23. The buildings will be closer to Lemay than the Collinwood gym.
5
A. Keep in mind that the water feature will enhance the setback area.
Building I is setback 75 feet from the curb and Building C is setback
120 feet from the curb.
24. The project has a very dense feel to it. I believe it is too dense for the
neighborhood. There is already an excessive amount of density along
Boardwalk with the Oak Hill Apartments. The density in this area
greatly exceeds what was anticipated on the Overall Development
Plan.
A. We believe the density is appropriate for the intersection of an arterial
and collector street.
25. Are you providing pedestrian access out to Lemay?
A. Yes, at the northeast corner of the site.
26. How about access to the park?
A. We are providing two access points to the park.
27. Is there still an emergency second point of access for Poudre Fire?
A. Yes, this will be provided to meet PFA access requirements.
28. What are some of the park improveinents?
Response from Foreman: The park will feature a soccer field, shelter,
restrooms, basketball court, playground and the sledding hill. There
is even a mini-backstop for tee ball.
29. Could the consultant graphically depict a comparison between the
proposed buildings and the existing Collinwood gym? This would
help us gain a better sense of scale and perspective.
A. We will look into this.
30. I am concerned about the height. Where will height be measured
froin? What is the chance that the whole site will need to be raised up
0
for some reason? Would you measure from the public sidewalk as a
reference point?
Response from Shepard: Height is measured from a point 20 feet out
from the building. This is so a developer cannot berm up next to the
building and falsely measure height. The public sidewalk may not be
an accurate point due to the distance from the buildings and the need
for the site to drain into the pond.
A. Our civil engineer is attempting to balance the site so that dirt is
neither imported nor exported. There is no reason to expect that the
buildings will be substantially elevated above existing grade.
31. How long before you would submit for a Final P.U.D.?
A. If we receive approval for Preliminary, we expect about six weeks to
prepare the engineering documents necessary for a Final P.U.D.
7
': I�IETG�IB(G1RHaC�D �1FORIt'LATI0I�I MEETIN� � Did you r�i�e Correct
.°"�`�tr`�: .�„ dr,� a ��; '*r- � �� a � . <� a �t�i'�' ,f��x:�.e�.� � * . Zjp written uotification Address?
�;:� �;. . ::� �A�`�'< . a�f .§<: , <�`:� .� .�"�' �- � �'�: .,� A �s� CODE of thismeeting?
�_ NAME ADDRESS YES NO YES NO
2 � . .. :
� � f t�/, ��r� ��� ��/h S ��: �� z s' X X
t�lto�,t. G �n�ns . P�.�.,r, � � .. .
�-`T�r��,° �� �; e�c �c�-►z��rt�c� L�� -�3v ��a� . �
Pa :6ex , �
�� n n��j I� �� S i si l�v�,-,>cti��,� � l� r�'� ��s�3 F�;� � d� -
.� � � . ti . ��'�d5 �'
L- /� �lC (� I� C'X1 �t% i T� V G't' (� CT i'i ? S- � I
�� 1�"N 'St-1 f�j !/ / �j � C�fF-K CT SZ -' I
��.n ��1�� �C� � � � � �°� '' '
i
� t � v�. ' �1 / , ' �� l � - `� �- �i
-f �D � /i �2 � � Gc,- �tr.� Dr�< '� z �- � �
� �. 2 c.: 5�� R� �, �� � � — �S�s�. ��
,
� ���;� �i��e�. � !�'l � �« �ti«-� �� C� . �;�� . � � �
C�
�
•
.,,
New fire station
planned to serve
� g�owin
go g
By JENN FARRELL s/j'/00
The Coloradoan
, New townhomes, apart-
ments and subdivisions
with single-family homes
are popping ; up along Fort
Collins' Lsouthern border
and continuing south.
But if there's an emer-
gency in one of those homes,
it might take firefighters
more than five minutes to
get there. It's a situation
Poudre Fire Authority is
trying to remedy with a new
station in the area in two to
four years.
"For us, an average time
of more than five minutes or
slower for us to get to an
area and it's probably far
enough that we need a sta-
tion," said Guy Boyd, PFA
director of administrative
services.
PFA owns an acre of land
on the east side of 1�imberline
Road about a quarter-mile
north of �ilby Road on which
to build its new station.
"That was an area we tar-
geted. We've been looking at
that area for quite some
time," Boyd said.
"As you know, (land is) go-
ing rapidly down there," he
said:
The two closest stations
to the area that Station 14
will serve are along Timber-
line Road near Fort Collins
High School and at Harmo-
ny Road and Hogan Drive,
just east of College Avenue.
A closer fire station cer-
tainly is welcome, said Su-
san Carron, who lives in the
Brittany Knolls subdivision
at Lemay Avenue and 74-i1-
by Road. ,
"It was all prairie dogs
` and mice and now there's a
�
�
�
�_.
church," she said, pointing
to an area near her home. �
"There's new development � �
coming here all the time.
Sure, it would be nice to
have something to service
them.
"I have six children, and I
think anything that pro-
tects and gives us more =
safety is OK."
The station will look sim-
ilar to stations 10 and 12, `
across Timberline from Fort'
Collins High School and on
Country Club Drive. . The
same architect and contrac- :
tor on! those facilities — Joen:
Frye from Vaught �ye Ar-
chitects of Fort Collins and�`'
R.C. Heath Construction of
Fort Collins, respectively —
are working on the new sta= ^-
tion. „:
"We hope to save a great•��
deal of cost not redesigning'. �-
each time," Boyd said.
PFA purchased the land"
for $200,000 and expects"'�
the station to cost about $2-�� �
million, including a fire��
truck, furniture and radios=�
— "everything it takes to
make that thing go," he"
said. �� �
south side ��
Proposed site of ;`;
Poudre Fire Authority Station 14,:
August 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 Board Members:
RECEIVED
AU G 0 7 2000
CURRENT PLANNING
The purpose of this letter is to try to summarize the considerable neighborhood opposition to this
project as it is currently proposed. As the planning file indicates, numerous residents from all the
adjoinixig 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
compromise 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
possible. In fact, your own Board records will show relatively little opposition to past staff and
Board decisions which permitted other multi-family parcels in this immediate area to be
developed at 177% of planned capacity. If nothing were ever built on the subject pazcel, multi-
family development in the Boardwalk corridor would already exceed the planned total of 350 units
(current total is 372 units). In spite of this, the neighborhood residents fully expect and even welcome
a multi-family development on this parcel of higher density than the surrounding neighborhoods.
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,
for eatample, our letter to Ted Shepard dated February 9, 2000). Virtually none of these and other
neighborhood concerns have been addressed by the developer and most have been dismissed with little
or no comment by staff in their report for the August 17, 2000 Board meeting. Ra.ther than repeat this
background information here, we have confined our comments specifically to the staff conclusions in
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 O.D.P. amendments . This is not true. The
��
current Oak-Cottonwood Farm O.D.P. was adopted in 1992. Prior to 1992, Parcel N(then designated
as Parcel2-C) was planned for "Business Services" only. It was changed in 1992. This is significant
because many purcha.sers of adjoining property were shown copies of the earlier Master Plan at the
time of purchase decisions in the early to mid-1990s.
COMMENT #3 (page 3 of 11)
Staff states 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
considerable confusion since the beginning of this process as to what the proper score should be. In
fact, the first appGcation 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
and the site didn't move! When the applicant was asked at the February 8 neighborhood meeting how
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
distances as he suggested, most measurements qualified as zero points and the total score was reduced
to 68%.
This brings us to the latest attempt to score this site. Staff has since used an "as the crow flies"
measurement to determine the distance from the edge of the proposed site to the stated improvements.
Even using this approach, the measurements are suspect to award full credit in several key categories.
For example, on criterion C, staffprovides the maximum credit of 10% for being within 4,000 of
Harmony Market. Using a straightline measurement, 4,000 feet would take one to the southeast corner
of the Home Depot 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°/a 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. Criterion 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.
While one might make an argument that some points should be awarded in these categories, we do not
beGeve that "Maaumum 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%. Clea.rly, scoring a
Density Chart H is not an"exact science" and this more reasonable 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.
COn�IlVIENT #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 of existing neighborhoods" (LDGS, p. 11). This is clearly where this proposal, in its
current form, fails. Staffstates that the buildings achieve a"maximum height of 38 feet nine inches"
whereas proposed elevations show this height to be"+/-" and 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.
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 8 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.
Staff has calculated on page 5 that the entire "three story frontage along Lemay" is only 170 feet. This
apparently was calculated from the ridgeline length of just the two buildings closest to Lemay. 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
which "is either open or features one-story garages and the one-story community building" is less than
100 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?
Related to the traf�ic impact analysis, it should be noted that the 1992 traffic study did not take into
account 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 Parcel 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 tr�c counts and this new development will
increase tr�c 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 comdor. 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.
Related to Development Criterion A-1.12, we understand that the detention area can be included in
density calculations for this site. Our only point is that, when you lose nearly 30% of a site to
detention areas, the net effect is to increase the density and the height of any remaining building areas.
Sta.ff has frequently tried to compare this development to the Miramont (listed here as "Oak Hill")
Apartments, which have a similar overall 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
two 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 ma.tter what
is developed on Parcel N.
COMMENT #5 (page 9 of 11)
No one is suggesting tha.t this development be"the same as" surrounding neighborhoods. The existing
mix of housing types, commercial development, and retail outlets in this area clearly demonstrates tl�at
the residents are not looking for uniformity in all developments. That is different from "compatibility",
however. Criterion A-2.2 calls for an"edge conte�" to transition from existing one and two story
development to taller, more obstructive development. This clearly has not been done in this case. On
all sides, this site starts immediately with full 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 that "there are no
inherent land conflicts" and "the minima.l 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 azeas:
A.
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 clearly 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.
C
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 a11 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 ha.ve 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�in,�. Thar�ig you for your consideration.
Al and Linda Hauck
:�-'� �
�� �
J
� ��' �
� ��
RECEIVED
���,st �. �000
City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
281 North College Avenue
P. O_ Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
Re. The Lod��e at 1Miramont
Dear Board Members:
,�UG 0 7 2nnn
�I�RRENT PLANNING
! ar� PFesident of OakRidge Village ID Homeowners Association_ Our neighborhood is
direc�ly East of the proposed Lodge at NGramont_ On behalf of the 78 homeowners of
OakRidge Village III, I must advise you that we are opposed to ttus project as presently
planned_ We believe the points made in A1 and Linda Hauck's correspondence dated
February 9, 2000 and August 5, 2000 clearly summarize our concerns. Once again, we
are not against the deveiopment of this property — but rather the overal� size and density
of �he project.
Despite candid input from various officers and homeowners from surrounding
Associations, little or no effort was made to address concerns. I echo the Hauck's
observation that "Virtually none of these and other neighborhood concems have been
addressed by the developer and most have been dismissed with little or no comment by
stafP'. We feel that little or no consideration was given to density or size of project
issues. `7Ve believe the project should not go forward as planned.
In conclusion, I would ask that each of you consider your position with care. Ask
yourself if you would like this type of development adjacent to your largest investment —
youc home. I can only assume you would not.
Sincerely,
. ��
�� � �
John A. Busby �
President, OakRidge Village III Association, Inc.
NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED
"LODGE AT MIRAMONT" R E C E I V E D
AUG 0 2 2000
May 1, 2000
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
Board our strong disapproval of this development as it is currently proposed. We do not believe
that it is compatible with the sunounding land uses and that, as proposed, this development fails
to meet the most fundamental Neighborhood Com,.patibility 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)
NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED
"LODGE AT MIRAMONT"
May 1, 2000
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
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 Nei�hborhood Compatibility Criteria: "The intent of these
criteria is to ensure that development proposals are sensitive to and maintain the character
of ea�isting neighborhoods." (Land Development Guidance System, p. 11)
NAME ADDRESS PHONE # DATE
�,�� Gf/ / �i � y �- C �a5-�;� s-. -�a
��-� /�o�1Z�— //o � u��trrr�-a� c�- 377 ��Y6 S=/-c�
% d����/�,, �, � �-�� �,�f-,���x �/ � ��; �.�z >>�j � �,�,�.
,
�; � Pti� /i�J� .� %� i .�!.3��.� w�,��L �T ' l .3�% t�>� � =� _c�n
�4� -� % �.. � �' ��c�,� �-e,� C�x.� �dE� 3y� t= � -�-�
-���'� ,� — � '�/� )1 %� �����7�,.r�>T'd J�,�� C� �`� Lz�� S`�S's' ` - ,' � �`�'
� � ^
1'l �1 �. --�o rr_� � � � I I��,.� ��:,� �E�,��-�-z,�.-� ��� .�-�,'�i- ��-- Z:�.� =C�� �;s� � - - ��
—� =
�
Harold R. Moore, DPM
August Ol, 2000
Planning and Zoning Department
City of Fort Collins
Attn: Ted Shepard
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CU 80521
Re: Complaint about proposed Lodge at Miramont
Dear Mr. Shepard and Planning and Zoning Department,
RECEI VED
,�UG 0 2 20�c:;
CURRENT PLANNING
As I will 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 regarding 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
walked 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 �R INCREASED ELEVATION OF THE
BASE GROUND LEVEL (SUCH AS ADDITIONAL FILL" WILL MAKE THE
PROJECTED BUILDING 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-leading construct.
As an owner of a home on White Oak Court,1 feel the impact of this overly dense
development in an already overly developed area presents multiple problems
including:
1.-Increased tra.fiic 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
5: Incompatability of the high 3 story structures creating a`•canyon" effect
and noise pollution on Lemay.
1217 East Elizabeth Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970) 472-8700
—� =
_�
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 parking due to lack of parking
in the complex.
8: Misleading information visual "elevation" picture showing a"small size
lodge" out of proportion to the existing 3 story structure 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 a�l of their view of the foothills and create an UNNATURAL artifical 3
story horizon.
If only those two buildings which border Lemay could be changed to 2
STORY and let the western buildings remain 3 story, I imagine I could live with
development. The developer would only lase 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 neighbarhood.
Please consider these suggestions and comments from a concerned citizen.
Sincerely,
Harold R Moore DPM, FACFAS, FACFO
1106 White Oak Ct
1217 East Elizabeth Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970) 472-8700
Mr. Ted Shepard/Chief Planner
281 N. College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
Dear Mr. Shepard:
- __�-�.- � � � �� ��
;� � � � �','i
����� � JUN 0 ':; 2000 ' j',
I
This letter is in reference to the development proposal known as The Lodge at Miramont,
Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). I have several concems about the
proposal as it was presented at the May 1,2000 meeting.
First and foremost, I feel that the traffic that a project of this size would generate
presents a serious threat to the safety of our children and the safety of anyone who must
travel through the intersection of Lemay and Boardwalk. Many children attending
Wemer Elementary ride their bikes along Boardwalk on their way to school. The
proposed entry into the Lodge parking lot would allow for a large number of cars trying to
exit the gate to the community onto Boardwalk to drive to work at approximately the
same time children would be riding their bikes to school. I feel strongly that this is an
accident waiting to happen.
Secondly, the density of this project is not compatible with the surrounding areas. While
I appreciate the city's position on in-filling existing areas, I believe this can be done
without compromising the quality of life we enjoy in Fort Collins. A lower density project,
or patio homes would not only look much nicer, it would also speak to the traffic problem
mentioned above.
Finally, I have concems about the drainage from this development routing to the pond in
OakRidge Village. As a resident of OakRidge, I have seen the drainage areas full on
several occasions and I do not understand how allowing more drainage is a good idea.
The representative at the meeting said most of the drainage comes from the businesses
in OakRidge. While that may be true, it seems like poor planning to take a bad situation
and make it worse by allowing more water to flow through the area.
I am aware that the developer plans to build with "quality" materials, but that does not
address my concerns. While the development may look beautiful, its overall impact may
be very unappealing. Please consider the long term effects of a development of this
size.
Sin�erely,
� ��� �
Anne Jordan
_ ___
� Ted Shepard - Request
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Anne Blair
Angie Johnson, Eric Bracke,
Mon, May 8, 2000 11:25 AM
Request
Tom Frazier
About a week ago I attended a neighborhood meeting sponsored by the City about a new condo
development proposed for the intersection of Boardwalk and Lemay called The Lodge.
I live in the Hamlet condo complex which is on Boardwalk directly across the street from the proposed
development. The developer has made several changes to the complex because many people living
adjacent to the development are very much against the project because of density and traffic concerns.
I think that the development, as it is now planned is attractive. I do, however, have concerns about the
increased traffic that the addition of 108 condo wiil bring to Boardwalk.
The reason I am sending the three of you this message is:
1) To see if it would be possible to add a crossing guard somewhere on Boardwalk should The Lodge
complex be built in the next 1-2 years.
2) Install some type of traffic calming devices along Boardwalk to address the increase in traffic.
3) Extend Transfort to travel down Boadwalk and/or on Lemay south of Harmony Road.
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Regards,
Anne Blair
Phone # 1-800-332-0950 or 970-221-6859
Fax # 970-221-6239
_ ._.._...... ___
Page 1 �
CC: Ted Shepard
� Ted Shepard - Re: Request
From: Eric Bracke
To: Angie Johnson; Anne Blair; Tom Frazier
Date: Mon, May 8, 2000 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: Request
�
Page 1 I
Dear Ms. Blair,
Thank you for your recent email regarding the new development at the intersection of Boardwalk and
Lemay. I can address your first two concerns.
There is currently a waiting list for intersections to receive crossing guards. It is really a question of
funding. I will forward this email to the Transportation Planning division for their consideration.
On the traffic calming side, Traffic Opertions does have a neighborhood safety program. I will have Mr.
Rich Brewbaker forward you a packet of information to get you and your neighbors involved in the
program.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
Eric L. Bracke, PE
Traffic Engineer
ebracke@ci.fort-collins. co. us
»> Anne Blair 05/08 11:25 AM »>
About a week ago I attended a neighborhood meeting sponsored by the City about a new condo
development proposed for the intersection of Boardwalk and Lemay called The Lodge.
I live in the Hamlet condo complex which is on Boardwalk directly across the street from the proposed
development. The developer has made several changes to the complex because many people living
adjacent to the development are very much against the project because of density and traffic concerns.
I think that the development, as it is now planned is attractive. I do, however, have concerns about the
increased traffic that the addition of 108 condo will bring to Boardwalk.
The reason I am sending the three of you this message is:
1) To see if it would be possible to add a crossing guard somewhere on Boardwalk should The Lodge
complex be built in the next 1-2 years.
2) Install some type of traffic calming devices along Boardwalk to address the increase in traffic.
3) Extend Transfort to travel down Boadwalk and/or on Lemay south of Harmony Road.
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Regards,
Anne Blair
Phone # 1-800-332-0950 or 970-221-6859
Fax # 970-221-6239
CC: Kathleen Reavis; Rich Brewbaker; Ted Shepard
� Ted Shepard - Re: Request
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Anne,
Kathleen Reavis
Angie Johnson, Anne Blair, Eric Bracke, Tom Fra...
Mon, May 8, 2000 4:56 PM
Re: Request
_ _ Page 1_ ;
Regarding your concerns for a crossing guard on Boardwalk, one issue is funding but more than that is
whether or not this location needs a crossing guard based upon our full Safe Route to School analysis
process - we can look into these other aspects (number of children crossing, width of the roadway, traffic
volumes, gaps, etc.) Also, it would be helpful for any proposed traffic calming measures along Boardwalk
to incorporate features that would enhance the ped xing at Highcastle. I will need to work with Traffic
Operations on this part as your neighborhood process moves forward. Please let me know if you have
any other bicycle or pedestrian related questions or concerns. Thank you.
KR
»> Eric Bracke 05/08 12:42 PM »>
Dear Ms. Blair,
Thank you for your recent email regarding the new development at the intersection of Boardwalk and
Lemay. I can address your first two concerns.
There is currently a waiting list for intersections to receive crossing guards. It is really a question of
funding. I will forward this email to the Transportation Planning division for their consideration.
On the traffic calming side, Traffic Opertions does have a neighborhood safety program. I will have Mr.
Rich Brewbaker forward you a packet of information to get you and your neighbors involved in the
program.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
Eric L. Bracke, PE
Traffic Engineer
ebrackeC�ci.fort-collins.co.us
»> Anne Blair 05/08 11:25 AM »>
About a week ago I attended a neighborhood meeting sponsored by the City about a new condo
development proposed for the intersection of Boardwalk and Lemay called The Lodge.
I live in the Hamlet condo complex which is on Boardwalk directly across the street from the proposed
development. The developer has made several changes to the complex because many people living
adjacent to the development are very much against the project because of density and traffic concerns.
I think that the development, as it is now planned is attractive. I do, however, have concerns about the
increased traffic that the addition of 108 condo will bring to Boardwalk.
The reason I am sending the three of you this message is:
1) To see if it would be possible to add a crossing guard somewhere on Boardwalk should The Lodge
complex be built in the next 1-2 years.
2) Install some type of traffic calming devices along Boardwalk to address the increase in traffic.
3) Extend Transfort to travel down Boadwalk and/or on Lemay south of Harmony Road.
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Regards,
i___ _------_ _ _
; Ted Shepard - Re: Request
From: Tom Frazier
To: Angie Johnson; Anne Blair; Eric Bracke
Date: Tue, May 9, 2000 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Request
Anne,
Got your message concerning the traffic issues...as far as the bus, the consultants are currently looking at
routing for our 6 year transit plan and we will know more about future service in Sept or October...l can say
the potential for bus service on Boardwalk south of Harmony is pretty slim....the south LeMay portion will
get a better look but it is not a potential high use transit area...it doesn't look good for the areas you
mentioned; however, Harmony Rd has high potential for transit users...how this helps in your analysis...
Tom F.
�
CC: Ted Shepard
1111 Red Oak Court
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
April 19, 2000
Ted Shephard
City Planning and Zoning
P. O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
Dear Mr. Shephard:
—. _ --,-
i ' '�
� � i�
_J '� UJ-' � � ��_ �l�
J
�� APR 2 0 2000
�,
��y._� -�.-� �.._.__....Y. —
This letter is to express our strong, vehement opposition to the proposed development, The Lodge
at Miramont.
We are homeowners and residents of Fort Collins. Currently I am the Associate Area Director
for the Agricultural Research Service, USDA; prior to that I was the Associate Director far
Science for tne U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in `vVashington, DC. My husband
is an international groundwater expert and a senior analyst with EPA. Our decision to move to
Ft. Collins in May 1999 was influenced by our belief that Ft. Collins was a progressive city that
also supported an outstanding quality of life for its residents. That belief is now in jeopardy.
We understand the Miramont proposal is to build 132 units as three-story condominiums in the
seven-acre parcel bordered by South Lemay and Boardwalk. This proposal is totally
unacceptable from the standpoint of traffic congestion, school over-crowding, and environmental
sustainability. The density calculations presented to you in the developer's plan are misleading
and in error. In addition, the area schools are already at their maximum capacity and safe traffic
flow is becoming questionable. The environmental impact of a 132-unit development at that site
in regard to water run-off, soil compaction, and water absorption rates would most likely be very
negative and could severely affect downstream property. One must also consider the negative
effect on the beauty of the existing neighborhood and its intrinsic appeal. It is therefore obvious
to us that the overall effect of the proposed development would be detrimental from a societal,
environmental, and aesthetic point of view.
The surrounding neighborhood is, for the most part, expensive unattached homes with owners
such as we who care about their quality of life and their sizable investment in Ft. Collins
residential property. One-level homes or a park/recreational facility on the small parcel of land
under consideration would be much more compatible with this already crowded neighborhood
and the heavy traffic on South Lemay.
The April issue of "Modern Maturity" magazine (AARP publication) ranks Ft. Collins among
the top 50 cities in which to live in the United States, but the article qualifies that view by noting
that the expanding urban sprawl in Ft. Collins is negating the desirability of living here. We
urge you to reverse this trend and begin by denying the development proposal for The Lodge at
Miramont. Please provide the citizens of City of Ft. Collins with prudent and wise planning for
this and future development sites. Thank you.
Yours truly,
�� 1 n - , -{. . � � �: ,
" � �f� 7
('r/ �';"/�lv ; %�� l� l /�! ' i'-1 i�1,' `GG� ' �
Melinda L. McClanahan Laurie, M.S., Ph.D., M.B.A
r � �
���� ��� - -
Verno� Laurie
)
March 28, 2000
Kerwin and Cheryl Rakness
5000 Boardwalk Dr. Unit 27
Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-Z23-2072
klrakness@cs.com
Mr. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Current Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Uear Mr. Shepard;
i.. _.___ .L ._
�S ��� i? iJ i;, _�� I_l I
,I
'i' , � i MAR `� E ? 2000
_,
^
�,
, __ - - -- -
We are writing in reference to the proposed The Lodge at Miramont. Our concerns about this
condominium complex can be divided into categories of safety and of aesthetics.
Safety is the biggest concern to us as we consider the impact of The Lodge at Miramont. Because the
only access in and out of "The Lodge" will be from Boardwalk Drive, the traffic on Boardwalk will
greatly increase. Left turns on to Lemay from Boardwalk are difficult and dangerous because of high
Lemay traffic and the hill to the south. Thus "The Lodge" people will most certainly turn right on to
Boardwalk Drive - and drive past the neighborhood park.
The neighborhood park along Boardwalk Drive has not even been completed and already it is used by
hundreds of young soccer players during the spring and autumn seasons. During those seasons
beginning early on Saturday mornings until late in the afternoons, cars line both sides of Boardwalk
Drive for soccer games. Scores of children and adults cross the road all day long. During the
weekdays, after-school soccer practices draw more children. When the park is completed this summer
it will be used by many more adults and children all days of the week. Most of the children living in
the Miramont community are west of Boardwalk Drive. To get to the park they must cross the busy
road where the 30 mph speed limit is virtually ignored. To assume that they will always be
accompanied by an adult is unrealistic. The large numbers of driven automobiles from "The Lodge,"
will increase the Boardwalk Drive hazards of this neighborhood park.
Aesthetics became a concern to us when we learned the large number of units that were planned for
"The Lodge" on such a small parcel of land. The developer carefully explained how the view looking
west from Lemay Avenue to the front of the project will be enhanced by the extra "set back" of the
buildings from the street. However, he failed to mention that the view looking east towards the rear of
the long row of three story buildings reminds one of a housing project in the busy center of a large city.
When placed next to the large gymnasium of the Collinwood Assisted Living Center, whether looking
to the east or to the north or to the south, the "look" will be that of one giant, solid wall.
Aesthetics are also jeopardized when the density of the immediate area is considered. It is our
understanding that the residents in the two assisted living centers (Collinwood and Sterling House) are
not considered when density numbers are calculated. However, the large size of those buildings needs
to be taken into consideration when evaluating what the desired appearance of a residential
neighborhood should look like. Collinwood, Sterling House, the Miramont Apartments and the Hamlet
are all high density-looking buildings that are located in a small area within view of each other. We
believe that adding the many large buildings proposed in "The Lodge" will produce an even more
dense look than what most people in our city want to live with. Introducing overdensity to an area will
only defeat the intent of the Land Development Guidance System - that of keeping Fort Collins a
"Choice City" in which to live.
Thank you for considering our concerns regarding this proposed project.
Sincerely,
/�� �
w ,/ = a..��`-`._ _�__
i,
�
��---z .
Kerwin and Cheryl Rakness
To Ted Shepard
Subject: Lodge at Miramont
From Mike Thissen
I 15 UU � �J IJ L.� �
�
� ,;j MAR 2 7 2000 !
;_ �
I sent a letter to you in regards to this project on 2-4-00. I have not received any
response as of yet.
As I stated in my letter- I was not in favor of this project. I fail to see why that type
of project has to be placed in this area of town. Of all of the cities that I have lived in
during my life this one seems to be the most disorganized. The reason why people move
to this area is for its beauty. It is very concerning that on every open square inch of the
city that you must build a major eyesore. Do you have one of these in your back yard?
I also received no answer on my question why the soccer field could not run north
and south and thus not have the game in our back yard. There �s p]enty �f area to move
the field to the south part of this park.
I hope that this time you will be able to respond to my letter.
� G' G� C� .,� Gr °� F� �A L,� f' L�
�� ,S
`�
. i� ' ? 'r
` �'�
i��r
Memo to: Bill Bertschy and Karen eitkunai, City Council
From: L.loyd and �ean Helper . �,�C ,
� ,- ��, ��',t�-��/
1113 White Oak Court . p
Date: Februa 20 2000 �%�
rY �
Subject: Development plan for �emay(Boardwalk area
�E��f�l��
FEB 2 2 2000
�S@� �a��,f����
Thank you for your Soapbox column in the Coloradoan, Sunday Feb. 20, 2000.
We will be unable to attend the meeting at the Marriofit on Feb. 29th on this short notice,
but do have a major concern involving our area.
Sprung upon us in a_ letter dated �an. 28 from Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, City of Fort
Collins, was the plan to build 11, three-story, 38 3�4 ft. high buildings with 132 living
units, plus a community building on 6 acres, situated across Lemay to ihe west of our
single- family 1- and 2- story residences(Oakridge Village). This notice of a Feb. 8 meeting
gave us about a week advance notice of the neighbohood meeting to get our "area" input.
Since one has to buy airline tickets 2-3 weeks in advance, that one-week notice was not
adequate time, and I was unable to atiend.
We did, however write a letter (copy enclosed) and are in contact with several of the 50 or
so area residents that did attend the meeting to object to the density and height of the
proposed development.
Unfortunately, I think, several expressed the view that these short-notice neighborhood
meetings are just "window dressing" for projects that are "done deals" and that further
objection would be of no value.
As relatively new (5 1�2 years) residents of Ft. Collins, we have heard the words "Choice
City" and got the idea thai citizen input was valued and played a major roll in decisions
concerning direction and future development. We hoPe that is true.
The land across the street is viewed as 9.5 acres, but streets, a large flood control pond,
and a drainage easement leave only 6 acres for development. I understand the site was
zoned business when the Miramont area was developed and later was changed to
business(multi-family residence.
Surrounded on three sides by streets and a park, leaving no buffer zone for lower
buildings, the 3-story height and density (eaving no view beiween buildings seems quite
inapPropriate for the site and this neighborhood. As one person so aptiy expressed it, "It
is like building a�+0-foot high, 1�2 block-long wall from ihe Collinwood Assisted l.iving
Facility to Boardwalk"-- effectively cutting off the view to the west for us living east of
Lemay.
I hope the idea that neighborhood meeiings are just "window dressing" for "done deals" is
incorrect and that the scale of the above project can be reduced to fit the area.
C� ''�'� --��-�L�,�e.-�. c.�t: `,� ,fGt,�. -p�c-�-�-� c--�-t-Z— Gt'-�°� �c��.u-�-�J
�
1113 White Oak Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525
February 4, 2000
Ted Shepard
Chief Planner
Commt�nity Planning F,� Environmental Services .
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Mr. Shepard,
Thank you for your letter of�anuary 28, informing us of the meeting at 7-9 P M, February
8th, concerning the development proposed for the project referred to as The Lodge at Miramont
Preliminary Planned Unit Development. I will be unable to attend on this short notice, so I
present my thoughts in this letter.
�ean and i feel strongly that this proposed development of 132 dwelling units on roughly 6
acres is not compatible with current Miramont development or the single family residences just
across Lemay, east of the proposed site.
In reviewing the plans, it appears to me that the mass of 11 large, 3-story buildings, each
about 39 feet high on the relatively small site, with no buffer zone of lower smaller buildings
around them is going to change the ambience of this area from one of openness, with a relatively
low population density, to a more closed-in environment with 250-300 people, and Probably over
200 cars dwelling on that 6- acre parcel.
The three-story buildings, each 38ft, 9 in. high will be taller than most everything around.
Even the "big box" buildings, housing Steeles, Sams Club, and what was Builders Square are, I
believe, a little less than 30 feet high and most everything between there and the proposed
development is even lower.
I realize that the Miramont apartments on Boardwalk and Oakridge Drive are 3-story
buildings, but they are built on a slight hill with the upside of each building built back into the
slope so that only about 2 1(2 stories are exposed. Landscaping on the downhill sides also reduces
the apparent building height. They also have commercial buildings on the north and east sides
and a buffer zone of 2 rows of patio homes along the south border, between the 3-story buildings
and the park.
The low, nearly flat nature of the site for the proposed Lodge at Miramont is not
conducive to such sirategy, and since it is low land, there might be a tendency to raise the
building foundations and surrounding land. This would make the buildings appear even taller.
Collingwood Assisted Living Facility, to the north of the proposed site for the Lodge at
Miramont, has one tall portion, but it is just a very small part of a large complex, mostly single
story in height in a very spacious setting.
To compound the issue of 250 or more peopl e and over 200 cars, the only entrance and
exit proposed for the site is a driveway onto Boardwalk where numerous children from Oakridge
Village walk on the sidewalk and ride bicycles and roller blade on the bikeway to the Werner
Elementary School.
Again, we think that the Lodge at Miramont, with the size, density and height of buildings
currently proposed does not belong on this small parcel of land.
Sincerely,
Llo . �pe���
���
1 J�`�
��=�- � F��' � 7 c - z � z - � � -� i
February 6. ?OOU
Dear Neig�bors,
Bv now, most of youu have heard about the propased ne�r developm�nt for the northwest corner of
B�ardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue cailed The Ladge at Miramont. There is a nei�hborhood
information meeting to discuss this proj�ct with the developer and Fort Collins planning of�cials
this Tuesday, February 8 at 7:04 pm �t the FAith Evangelical Cl�urch on Lema,y. We are
writing to _y�ou tonig4�t to express our urgent concerns that this develapment wil! severel_y impact
t�e adjoining neighborhoads in many negative ways and, if y�u shaze these cancerns, we ask you
to exgress them to th� P4anning Department in a letter and�or in person at the meeting. We have
spent the �,��eekend researchin� this project and ihe requirements of the Fort Collins' Land
Development Guidance System (LDGS), under which it must be approved, and have found
significant problems in foua maior areas:
This proposed development d+nes nat meet the intent of the Master Planning process for
the City of Fort Collins. First uf all, let us make very ciear that we support the efforts of the
Planning Department over the past decade to increase the overall density of developments and
to encourage "infill" development wherever possible. Uur problem with The Lodge's proposa.l
is th�t it concen�rates that density in ane small area whieh is surrounded by parcefs �vhich
already carrY higher �ensity than cailed �'or in th� Master Plan. This will result in adverse
impacts on traffic, safety, and compatibitity with surraunding neighborhoods. This area has
already done more than its part for increasing density and should not be subjected to the
densest deF•elopment on the south side of tt�e city! �Vith just 6 buildable acres, The Lodge's
l32 units would have an amazing density a�f 22 units per acre. By cornparison, surrounding
multi-family den�ities include 5.3 �:nits per acre for The Courtyards, 7.2 units per acre for 903
Rule Drive, and 8.6 units per acre for'�'he H.amlet. E�en the Miramont Apartments next to
Sam's Club have a density of only 16.2 units ger acre. More importantly, these lower numbers
are the typ�s of densities anticipated by the 1992 Master Plan for this area (used for traffic.
safety. and school pianning). The three multifamily parcePs along Boardwalk on this Plan
{parcels E, N, and Q} were projected to suppart a total af 350 housing units. The two a3ready
devel�ped (E and Q) a3ready hav� 372 units. ln other words, the area already supports mcare
hausing than what was glanned (even with nathing on Parcel N where The Lodge is proposed).
If the 132 proposed units are approved, housing in the Boardwalk corridor w�u�d be 44% �ver
the planned amount! At full capacity, over 2,000 residents, or about 2% cfthe entire
population of Fort Collins, would be iiving in this small area.
The proposed devetopm�nt is not compafible with surrounding land uses. Throughout the
LDGS, numerous references are made to ensuring that propes�d development be "compaeibte
with" the neighborhoods which surround it. In fact, this �oncept is at the very foundation of
all planning and zoning regulations. The L�DGS uses a specific list of "Neighbor•hood
Comgatibility �riteria" io try to ohjectively evalaate all new development in reference to this
requirement. "The intent of these criteria is to ensure that develapment proposals are sensitive
to and maintain the ch�racter of existing neighbarhoods." (LDGS, p. 11) Developers are
required to fill out a very specific "Ali Development Criteria" chart; if an�� one �.riteriori is not
met, the development cannot be cansidered further. Of the 18 Neighborhood Compatibility
Criteria, we faund at least five in which the p�oposed devetopment failed. In almost even
case, the reason it failed relates baCk to an inapprapriate development in the wrong location.
For perspe�tive. anyone �an star�d along the sidewalk on Lemay and picture what this
develogcnent will look like if it is approved. St�.rt with the large Gymnasium building at tre
sauth side af the ('ollinwood Assisted I.iving facility. This building is about 90 feet wide and
�U feec hi�h The L�dge proposes to build eleven (il) mare buildings almost h�lf again as
wide and just as tall as the g��mnasivan on �ust six acres of tand between the sidewalk and
the park! To help you imagine this, picture � solid wal! of buildings forty feet high
frorn the south side of C�liinwood to Boardwalk Drive. There will be no views through
these buiidings and no "transition zones" adjaceat to the surrounding tand uses. By any
set of criteria, no m�.tter haw subjective ar objective, this propos�d development cannot
poss;bly be considered a cornpatible usewhich is "sensitive to and maintain(s) the character of
exist�n� neighborhoods." Unless we alt express aur opinions, however, this could become a
reality for our neighborhoad.
. The proposed �ensity for this devclopment is based on an aDlowable density calculatlon
cornpleted in error bv the developer. According to the LDGS, every residential
development must complete an analysis �knawn as the '`Density Chart Fi') which determines
what the rr�aximum density is for any particular site. Each prcposat is awarded points based on
specific criteria such as proximity to schQols, recreation, and shopgin�; the level of
s�rrounding de��elopment; the amaunt of indoor parlcing9 the presence of sprinklers in the
p�oposec� buiid�ngs; and the conne�tiQns with City sidewalks and bike Ianes. The higher the
total "score", the higher the allow�ble density (assuming other concerns related to
-`compatibility" are met). The developer scored the proposat for The Lodge with a total of 138
points which permitted mare than 10 units per acre. Using the sa.me eriteria as the develaper
mu5t use, we scored this proposal with � acre or atotai of abaut 44 to 0 ant sl This �s site
to only six or seven dwelling unrts pe
compares to the developer's propasat t'or�l o��e�; �ithe�correct �co e before�an �proposal
ta be done by the Plann►ng Degartment sta
for this praperty can be approved.
�. Improper notice was pravided far the neighborhaod meeting scheduled for this Tuesday
evening. While this might seem like a"technica[iiy", the LDGS is very precisz in stating
which n�ighbors sheuld be natified and how the proposal must be adv�rtised. Due to the
p�tential for significant impact on the skrrounding are�s, these sequirements make sense
They were not followed in this case and many residents wha should know about the
significance of zhis proposa! and the upcoming meeting were not in+Formed. Because of this
oversight, we b�lieve that the Plannu�g Department shou9d schedule a second communit�
meeting after proper natific�tion of all p�tentiatly concerned parties.
V�'e apologue for the tength of this tetter, but we believe that The Lodge at Mtiramont, if approved,
will have severe conse�uences far the iife of our community. If you share ttaese concerns, please
consider doing one or more af the following: attend the meeting this '�uesday evening at Faith
Evangeli�al Ch�rch; write a letter expressing your apinions to Mr. Ted Shepard, Chief Plannrer.O
Fort C�llins Plannin� and Environmenta! Services Department, 281 Narth Caliege Avenue,
Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 8CS22-0580; or give us a call to discuss this further. Remember that all
development files are "public record" and can be reviewed at any time at the Planning Office.
Thank you for your time and consideratio�,
. �
� CJ' �✓ r��7 � ��� �, ,� .;�
' / � �1 i
% ' � �� �� ) �-� L, '�, t,��t �c i�
.ti�� � ��`� .
A1 and Lin�'ia Hauck
1100 White Oak Caurt
(2^ti-131�)
I�chruan� 2R. 2�)1)Q
I�ear f�clic►�v O�kri�lgc• F�mily,
n re you reaciy for dhe Sium at Miramont?
Arc you ready for thc �'00 extra can ��n l,emay?
Arc y�u ready t�► see yuur �roperty values decline'!
Ar•c y��u rcaclV t�i I�avc "��pcR" �arkin� in voor bRck yArci?
1)�► ti'O( � really want t�► he clow�nst�cam of 7�cres of solid Asphall?
I)�� y�►u really want 5(IO m�rc G�t•apic walkin�; ��n your sidc���alks in
(�akrid�e?
1)�► y��u rcally H�ant 111ORE; kids in thc :�IrcAdy overcrowded
WF;RNFR ancl NRF,S'TON and 1�tI� schools?
U�► v�►u rcally ���ant a 1/4 mi{e I��n� 3 1/2 st�ry 4Q f�►ot hi�h
"mountain" in v�►ur hHc k��ard?
Y(�U do h��ve have a ch�ice! f3ut, y�u musl act nenv! "1'he aciclress shc�« n
helo�v is 1�r Mr. '1'ce1 �he�Zrci, the �lanr�ing ec>e►rc�inatnr tor this �roject
�! his J�r��ject is ir� the e.irly �lanning :;tages htit will gain nu�mentum eacf�
�l��y that �atses if nci c�ne ccm��lai��s �c� iiir �ml�� IO �ec�ple liave hc�thcreei
((1 V4'f11.0 111C� Cti�f'('.SS l�l�lf COt1CCft1S.
n cc►m�rehensive stucly hy c�ne c�f voiir nrigl�hc�rs has cletern�ined that tijc
clevclo�cr� �lan wfzich was suhmi�lc�l t�i lhc cil}' �I�in��crs was iii crrc�r c►r�
�everal major "density calcul<<ticros" yet lhe citv is dclerrnincd tc� `'in-fill"
flie citv until we c;hc�ke �»> tl�e cxli�usl fu�ne� and tr��(�lic cc�i�gestivn.
�I�� �J�Pc�se this �rc�ject «�e riecd:
I cttcrs t<�: "I'eci She�harcl
rc: l.c�dge at Miram�mt
City I'lani�ing ar�ci "l.c�riir��;
F��� �3�,� Sxc�
(�t. C'c�llinti ('c) Rr)522
('c�nt,�ct ��c�ur "hlc�ck cr��tairt" t�► �cc if hc/shc is �arlicir�.�ting �vith yc�ur
��irr�►iindir��: siihclivi�i��ns.
,��tenclance: ll�ce�min� "�l�c���-ii hall meeting.. t�► he announcec�
I hc cicvcl��r�r was at tlle first mccling(�tihich «�as ��u�rly ai�nuut�cecl) �n�1
I c�innc�t tell yc�u how had his cc�r.ky attitucJe inllamecf r�ie t�� ��ctic�n.
I Ie knc�ws the city want tc� "in-fill". I(e evcn had the nerve tc� "ur" l�is
��lan (�c�m $R units tc► 132 units wilhi;t the sainc livi»g s�ac�. f3y otir
l'�3�CUI�I)l)t1S. O11IV 2{) UI1t1S S�lOU�(� hC %IIIO�VCIi lll 1I1� WII(1�C % acrc
�Icvel��ment. Wc heartily suggest th��t the Kr��uncl hc eithtr turi�ecl int�►
��<�rk tyre sct aside grc�uncl c�r ��nc le��cl ��irnil�� ��alic► hc�n�c� �vhich �tic�rk �:�►
�ti�cll in cfur ncighhc�rhuc�cl.
'I�lic ctty h�s �Ire.tdy t�►Ic) ltte h��rncc��vncrs 11i.�t tih��wccl �i� f��r tl�c ir�iti;�l
mceting ti�at they don'l �vanl angry hc�mec�w�iers shc►wiiig u�� at lhe
televised City and ('lanning '7,cming hccause t(��t w��uld he hacl t��� their
rc�u(��fic�ns rolitics and emharr�ss the dcPartmcnl. �1'OO f3/�O!
nt thc initial meeting, concerned cilirens hrc�ugl�t u� 42 sc�arate
c�hjeclions regarding ohviou� traffic �rohlems, water ninc�ff ancl "yualit��
c�f�life" i�sues. "T�hese �vere he�rtlelt concerns hy lc�n� term reside�lts wh��
ra_y tl��ir tates and kec�� thcin c���.�se� a��d la�vns aii�i �r��pe���� hcautifi�l.
�( hei� cc�r�cert�� ��-ere nc�l cvcn �a��cc1 cm lc� Ih� c.levcic��er at I�is "initial
rcvic��..
In c�thcr �vc�rci�, �ve cc�rn�lain NOW �;r kiss tl�� ��r�►�crty valucs ar�cl c�u��litv
�►t�li(c gexxihye fc�r c�ur Oakriclge friends an�f neighhc�rs. I cic►�i't want a
S�UtTI at 1�1ir�m����t ancl I c1��uh( that y��ti c1c�!
ti��ritc ,i I<<lrr! I�cll a nci�hh��r� Makc: it f(a����cn!
I l�,ink<<
Ted Shephard
Re: Lodge at Miramont
City Planning and Zoning
P.O. box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Mr. Shephard,
March 5, 2000
'� j J� MAR 1;� 2000
-- _ _ _
;,,�:.::...,_._ _.._.__ —._._�..
We live on 1112 White Oak Court. Our house is one block away from Lemay Avenue,
right across from the proposed development, The Lodge a Miramont. We attended the
first neighborhood meeting held by the city of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning. Many
of our concerned neighbors attended the meeting, and many issues were brought up
during the two-hour session. We want to reiterate some of the issues that are of concern
to us and our community.
Firstly, we are troubled this proposed development does not meet the "compatible with
surrounding land use" as specified in the Master Plan. The 132-unit proposed
development is too large for this area. The majority of developments in this area are
single-family housing. This large development will not look consistent with the rest of
the surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, the density and size of this development
does not allow for adequate "transitioning zones" for residents currently living next to the
proposed development. There should be a natural transition from existing homes into the
new development. Currently, there is not an acceptable transition zone.
Secondly, we have been informed that this proposed 132-unit built on a 6 acre lot would
violate the density-per-acre development stated in the 1992 Master Plan for this area. We
believe the surrounding area may be at its maximum density level beyond what was
planned. With the proposed development, the infrastructure surrounding the
neighborhood may not be able to support the additional growth.
Thirdly, we are concerned about the traffic congestion resulting from the development.
Lemay Avenue is busy as is, and the cross street between Boardwalk and Keenland will
beccme a very conbested zxea, pessibly gri� locked. ru�-rently, it is very diffic��lt for us
to make the left turn onto Lemay from Keenland each morning due to the heavy traffic
and inadequate traffic signals. Furthermore, there are many children who use the
crosswalk at the intersection, this will be a safety issue with the added traffic from the
new development.
Fourthly, we are disturbed about the possibility of extra runoff from the drainage into
OakRidge. The infrastructure currently in place will not support this additional water.
Currently, the drainage during heavy rain is causing high water in some areas of
Oakridge.
U
Lastly, we are uneasy about the lack of communication for this proposed development.
At the time of our first meeting, there was no large sign posted on the lot for this
development. We received a letter from the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning
shortly before the meeting was scheduled. This allowed us and our neighbors inadequate
time to prepare and understand the issues that would impact our neighborhood. Our
community must be informed within a reasonable timeframe before meetings are
scheduled.
All of these issues we feel are very important and must be addressed. We stron�ly
believe the development will not meet several of the criteria set in the LDGS
specifications. These concerns should be passed on to the developer, acknowledged, and
resolved with the surrounding community.
Sincerely,
/ ' �� � �i�
Marken & Binh Tran
(970) 282-7488
1112 White Oak Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Frederic C. Tuttle
1130 Live Oak Court
Eort Collins, CO 80525
Ma; ch ? , 2000
Mr. Ted Shephard.
City Planning and Zoning
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Subiect -- Lodge at MiraMont Project
�_ _ _ __. _
I ,� J I� a
� �; MAR � � 2000
�'t Il�
ly _�i
��v - .-.
This letter is being written to express tp you my comments concerni�g this
project as it is presen#ly constituted and as described to nearby residents at the
neighborhood meeting held on February 8th. I wish to express my disapprova! based
on the fo!lowing considerations:
?. The extreme de�sity, with way too many units in a very small acreage.
2. The incompa#aility with the area. A multi-story structure of lar�e
d;mensions simply does not blend with what is an attractive area
of residentia! Fort Collins.
3. Expected problems due to an added in-out traffic load caused by the
additional 250 cars and trucks using Boardwalk, which has
already become heavily loaded by traffic using i# as a by-pass to
avoic! the tra�fic light at Narmony and Lemay.
4. Added air pollution caused by item 3. Carand truck air poll�ation has
become an ;ncreasing problem in this area and is a concern to
resider�ts. I# needs #o be minimized.
Very truly yours,
� �� . �� ��
��
,I�_I�__f. �_ . �L� �I �
�_, `�
��� � '��'��� MAR 0 "� 2000 �
��
;_
�
;
��,-,;, �.._�__�__ - -
Fred K. and Norma S. Benson
S�1�U (30F11'CiN'Q�� (�1'IVc /i2�
I-brt Collins. CO 80525
lISr1
Phune.
r1�.
Home Phone 970-26G-R7G7
Gmaii fnbenson(Ir).:�ol.com -
�-
�= l _; _; �� �
�;
March 02, 2000
Ted Sl�ephard
CI! j' P� :I:Illllb ;:::� ZCI11:lb
P� BO\ >c4�
Fort Colliiis, CO b0�22
Protcst of Lodge al Miramonl
MAR 6 20D0 �
We are writing our objections to the pennit Cor buildinb the Lodge ��t Mri,�mont. The Collo���ing objections v�e
l�ercbti� submitted:
l. The density of tlie projecl is more tlian Ih� acreage sl�ould allo��� b��scd on its locatiou at the intersection of
Board�vall< and Lemay.
2. The number of buildin�s is too cro��ded for the acreage not allo�� in� cnough spacing bet���ecn Ihe buildin�s.
3. The t�eight of the btiildings is too higl► for tl�e area, obstructiiig the eastern vicw from the park and Uic p��tio
homes along the north edge of the park and tl�e vie�v/density froni the easl side of Lemay.
4. The nutuber of automobiles that will be exiting the property onto Boardn�alk �vill make Board«��lk more of a
hazard tl�an it is presently.
�. Boardwalk traf�ic has not even be�in to experience its maximum traffic flow� since a large portion of the Hamlet
project is not }�et complcte. The Hanilet is located_just to the ���est on Broadwalk.
6. At present, a nun�ber of elementary scl�ool chilclren cross at ihe inlersection of Lema� and Board��alk ��itl� lhe
use of a crossing guard. After the�� cross tlic intcrscction. they �vill procced ��est��ard alon�; Broad�valk. Tl�e c�it
for the Lodge at Miramont ��ill Ue approxim��tel} -4UU Iccl �1ClCf IIIC IlllCi"SCCUUII. T�IIS �CCOIl1CS ;�n cztrcincl�
hazardous crossing for thcm. Automobiles �� ill bc inclincd to not slop Ibr pcdcsU�ians so thc� can makc �� light .�t
the intersection of Broad�ralk and Lemay. (t is undecstood that the U�affic li�hl at th,�t intcrsection �� ill be changcd
to a regular tr��ffic signal rather thai� just a pedesU�ian �rossing light. The traffic backup on Board�ralk based on
tl�e number of automobiles using Boardwalk ��s a short cut ���ill put tlie tr��ffic backup past thc outlet from the Lodge
at Miramont and ���ill add to the s1fc1�� problcu�. Tlie number of autos turning off of Lemay onto Board���alk has
been iucreasing especially during the t�vo peak periods �vhen people are travcling to/Protu ���ork. I cou►tted the auto
ll'8FI1C fI01T1 5:3U PM l0 C�:OO 011E IU�Ill IBST VC£lf and couuted 120 autos passing the park.
7. The park is no�v being used for soccer and football practices even� e��cning from about =4 Pm to 7 Pm �vith kids
coming and going . On weckends during the seasons, games arc bcing played all dav on S��turda��. Diu�ing Uiis
time, autos are being parked along Boarci���alk ou both sides of the street. Parents and children are crossing this
street and it is becoming ver�� hazardc>us. TraCtic llo�� from or to thc Lodgc ��t Miramont ��ill add to this
l�azardous condition.
In suiumar}�, tl►e project the Lodge at Mir��i»ont is unacceptable as it is currenU�� presentcd. The resident densit�
as it is currently is way too grc�t for this location and nceds to be modified. Also. thc price of these properties
should be more in line �vith those of the Hamlct.
Thank you for hearing our objections to this project.
Sinccrcly,
4 ��� ��/�Ri, ���L
Frcd K. Benson Norma S. Bcnson
Residents of the Cou��t}�ards at Miramont
�O�,ClICL � �O/`�%T�%Z(f'.f0/L
— CERTffIED PLJI3LIC ACCOUNTAIVT
1117 Red Oak Court � Fort Collins, CO 80525-5511
(970) 229-9�6�
CIl'�V-rildW (Cll,� UIlO. C011l
March 1, 2000
MEMBER
American Institutc ofC.P.A.s
Colorado r\ssociation ofC.P.A.s
Michigan flssociation ofC.P.A.s
Ted Shephard
City Plannin� and Zoning
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Re: Lodge at Miramont
Dear Mr. Shephard:
;; ��,i
' � IP
.i ) MAR 6 2000
.J
,_ .,
,. _ ; _ __ _ - _ __ _._—
We have received various correspondences regarding the proposed 3 story
residential units to be built south of Collinwood on Lemay.
We are well aware that some development will eventually take place on that
land, but am concerned that such development be consistent with the surrounding
area.
One of the Home Owner's Association members did c�uite a bit of work and has
brought to your attention various seemingly "out of line" aspects of the proposed
development.
Please carefully review the proposed development to see that it is strictly within
the appropriate perimeters already established by the city. "Progress" in additional
building is inevitable, but try to have it not be a distraction to what is currently a
really nice neighborhood area.
The general conception is that the little homeowner hasn't much clout when facing
developers, banks, realtors, and those who make their money from pure expansion
of the city and rrom the city wno wisne5 as i►igi� a� ucilSiiy ai �iO�SiJlii� j S:; �:�ui '
utilities are kept to a minimum expansion.
You have a tough job, but try to put yourself in the place of a current homeowner
in the area to do wh�t is best for all concerned.
Sincerely.
n
��,`'� �—�
4✓
Donald R. Worthington
c�
Harold R. Moore, DPM
February 28, 20Q0
Mr. Ted Shepard
City Planning Dept
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Lodge at Miramont
Dear Mr. Shepard,
i�� �
IIl �.'1AR
; ,�
- �- .
,-, ., - � ---
�:; �7 l:.i i:� j l"�
� I
1 2000� � ���
Thank you for sending the names of the people attending the neighborhood
informational meeting. Since that meeting, we have had the Oakridge Homeowners
meeting where the proposed Lodge at Miramont was very much opposed.
It was brought to our attention at that meeting that the developer had been given some
preliminary documents indicating no strong opposition to the development. Since the
initial meeting brought up a lot of unanswered questions and considerable
neighborhood resentment and some very specific questions regarding the
"calculation" of qualifying factors, I would have thought that some official response
to the developer indicating our neighborhood dissatisfaction would have been
forwarded.
I am well aware of tize complaceny of some some homeowners(due to age or
disability or plain disinterest) and I am also aware of the developer having the
resources to "outgun" our small neighborhood and have the project ra.mmed down
our throat. I ain aware of the desire of the city to "in-fill", however the obnoxious
scope of this pa.rticular project and mammoth increase in density should cause pause
for investigation.
It would seem that our only real threat as a neighborhood is to to show up "en masse"
at the televised hearings to fully document our concerns.
I would like to volunteer to be a member of the homeowners committee which will
be meeting with you concerning the "calculations" and compliance with the LDGS.
I appreciate your position in all of this and I do not envy your job and would welcome
some cornpromise from the developer regarding the height and orientation of the
propsed complex. The homeowners would also like some assurance that this is not
going to turn into an "apartment" complex.
1217 East Elizabeth Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970) 472-8700
��
Harold R. Moore, DPM
We have contacted a realtor to list our house immediately atter the next "town hall"
meeting if it appears that our "constructive" proposals cannot be heard.
Sincerely, ;- '
�' �� .
� y /
Harold�'� Moare DPM
i
1217 East Elizabeth Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970) 472-8700
� � ._ . _ �. L� I
February 23, 2000
Mr. Ted Shepard
Chief Planner
Fort Collins Planning and Environmental Services Department
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Mr. Shepard,
,�''��� (-�AR � 2000 �I '
� �
, il
� , � _ - .-- -� -_— ,
This letter is in regards to the proposed dcvelopment known as The Lod�e at Miramont. This development
is close to our home, and we are very concerned about the density that is planned for [his area. We support
the development of this lot, and appreciate the city's drive to infill rather than expand our city limits.
However, the 132 units planned for [his small 6-7 acre lot seems beyond what is acceptable. As residents,
we are concerned about what this number of units means to the traffic and safety of our neighborhood. In
addition, the planned three-story structure does not seem to meet the aesthetic quality of the surrounding
developments. We believe that, especially given the small size of the development, any development
should be consistent with the surrounding, existing developments. The long roofline and heights of the
proposed units violates [he neighborhood look and feel. We are concerned about this development movin�
forward, and would like to raise our concerns on these issues.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
C��� v�y���,`,�� '�'��..
C �
Matthew and Laura Smyrl
1 1 10 Red Oak Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525
February 29, 2000
Mr. Ted Shephard
Planning and Zoning
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Co. 80522
Dear Mr. Shephard,
M��� � �
�Ii I
� I h li�� �' ZO�� IU
�
M
`-''s' — —
��
We are very much opposed to the proposed plan to build 132
units at the Miramont location for the Lodge at Miramont.
Please re-consider the density and the height that this project
will create for our area. Lemay is already highly traveled
and the addition of all the vehicles will be overwhelming.
A park has been set aside for this area and it was not intended
for the use of an additional 132 units. This will be a MONSTER
of a building and a sea of pavement for parking. We do not
need or want what is being proposed on this land.
Patio homes would be much more acceptable in this area (one
story only) Needless to say, their is a strong demand and market
for this type of life-style for the senior citizens of our city.
PLEASE, slow this developer down to size. He apparently is
not concerned about the negative impact this will have on our
neighborhood.
Please advise of us future meetings.
now.
We need to stop this giant
Sincerely,
� _
�j ��L-7-ti�-�L�>� �,
J. Don Petring
%�
�_._ ,
����::- �� r-_ �- ; _-�.
�se Petring �
February 9, 2000
I 100 White Oak Court
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Mr. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Fort Collins Planning and Environmental Services Department
281 North College Avenue, P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Mr. Shepard:
�' D�_Is ��
i� �
�,� FEB
�
i
�_r, �_i �U i�
1 0 1_ 000
As you are well aware, we have some serious concerns about the proposed new development for
the northwest corner of Boardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue called The Lodge at Miramont. We
are writing to you to express our strong opinion that this development will severely impact the
adjoining neighborhoods in many negative ways. We have spent much of the last week
researching this project and the requirements of the Fort Collins' Land Development Guidance
System (LDGS), under which it must be approved, and have found significant problems in four
ma�or areas:
This proposed development does not meet the intent of the Master Planning process for
the City of Fort Collins. First of all, let us make very clear that we support the efforts of the
Planning Department over the past decade to increase the overall density of developments and
to encourage "infill" development wherever possible. Our problem with The Lodge's proposal
is that it concentrates that density in one small area which is surrounded by parcels which
already carry higher density than called for in the Master Plan. This will result in adverse
impacts on traffic, safety, and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. This area has
already done more than its part for increasing density and should not be subjected to the
densest development on the south side of the city! With just 6 buildable acres, The Lodge's
132 units would have an amazing density of 22 units per acre. We are very much aware that
the actual final density will be calculated on 7.7 total acres, but, since l.5 to 2.0 acres will be
provided to the City in drainage easements, the buildable acreage is significant in this case.
The development will "look and feel" like a six acre development and that limited area is what
is causing the improvements to be so compact and so tall. These characteristics are the precise
root of the great majority of the complaints from the neighboring community. By comparison,
surrounding multi-family densities include 5.3 units per acre for The Courtyards, 7.2 units per
acre for 903 Rule Drive, and 8.6 units per acre for The Hamlet. Even the Miramont
Apartments ne� to Sam's Club have a density of only 16.2 units per acre. More importantly,
these lower numbers are the types of densities anticipated by the 1992 Master Plan for this area
(used for tr�c, safety, and school planning). The three multifamily parcels along Boardwalk
on this Plan (parcels E, N, and Q) were projected to support a total of 350 housing units. The
two already developed (E and Q) already have 372 units. In other words, the area already
supports more housing than what was planned (even with nothing on Parcel N where The
Lodge is proposed). If the 132 proposed units are approved, housing in the Boardwalk
corridor would be 44% over the planned amount on the multi-family parcels! Taking a more
global view of the Oak/Cottonwood Farm ODP, including all parcels except Parcel R with the
Community-Regional Shopping Center, the current density for this ODP is at 3.16 units per
acre. With the more reasonable 40 to 50 units that we think the Density Chart H
requires for Parcel N, the overall density for this ODP raises to about 3.4 units per acre;
well over the required minimum of 3 units per acre.
'll
I ��
The proposed development is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Throughout the
LDGS, numerous references are made to ensuring that proposed development be "compatible
with" the neighborhoods which surround it. In fact, this concept is at the very foundation of
all planning and zoning regulations. The LDGS uses a specific list of "Neighborhood
Compatibility Criteria" to try to objectively evaluate all new development in reference to this
requirement. "The intent of these criteria is to ensure that development proposals are sensitive
to and maintain the character of existing neighborhoods." (LDGS, p. 11) As you know,
developers are required to fill out a very specific "All Development Criteria" chart; if any one
criterion is not met, the development cannot be considered further. Of the 18 Neighborhood
Compatibility Criteria, we found at least five in which the proposed development
apparently fails (including but not limited to 1.12, 2.2, 2.3, 2.7, 2.9, and 2.12). In almost
every case, the reason it fails relates back to an inappropriate development in the wrong
location. For perspective, anyone can stand along the sidewalk on Lemay and picture what
this development will look like if it is approved. Start with the large Gymnasium building at
the south side of the Collinwood Assisted Living facility. This building is about 90 feet wide
and 40 feet high. The Lodge proposes to build eleven (11) more buildings almost half
again as wide and just as tall as the gymnasium on just six acres of land between the
sidewalk and the park! To help you imagine this, picture a solid "wall" of buildings forty
feet high from the south side of Collinwood to Boardwalk Drive. There will be no views
through these buildings and no "transition zones" adjacent to the surrounding land uses.
Last night, Mr. Vaught offered to produce an AutoCad rendering of the entire development
from the perspective of someone standing on the sidewalk along Lemay at the north-south
mid-point of this parcel. We respectfully request that the City require such a perspective be
produced and displayed at our ne� community meeting. By any set of criteria, no matter how
subjective or objective, this proposed development cannot possibly be considered a compatible
use which is "sensitive to and maintain(s) the character of existing neighborhoods."
The proposed density for this development is based on an allowable density calculation
completed in error by the developer. According to the LDGS, every residential
development must complete an analysis (known as the "Density Chart H") which determines
what the maximum density is for any particular site. The higher the total "score", the higher
the allowable density (assuming other concerns related to "compatibility" are met!). The
developer scored the proposal for The Lodge with a total of 138 points which permitted more
than 10 units per acre. Using the same criteria as the developer must use and the same
approach to measurement Mr. Vaught said last night that he used, we scored this proposal with
only 68 points. This score should limit this site to only six or seven dwelling units per acre
or a total of about 42 to 50 units. This compares to the developer's proposal for 132
units. Clearly, more careful checking needs to be done by the Planning Department staffto
determine the correct score before any proposal for this property can be approved. We would
be pleased to review our calculations with anyone of your designation.
4. Improper notice was provided for the neighborhood meeting last evening. While this
might seem like a"technicality", the LDGS is very precise in stating which neighbors should
be notified and how the proposal must be advertised. Appendix A requires that, for multi-
family developments of more than 100 units, all residents within a 1,000 foot radius of the site
must be notified and that a sign of no less than 12 square feet be posted. Due to the potential
for significant impact on the surrounding areas, these requirements make sense. To the extent
that they were not followed in this case, many residents who should have known about the
significance of this proposal and the upcoming meeting were not informed. Because of this
oversight, we believe that the Planning Department should schedule a second community
meeting after proper notification of all potentially concerned parties.
We apologize for the length of this letter, but we believe that The Lodge at Miramont, if approved,
will have severe consequences for the life of our community. We look forward to the opportunity
to work with City staff, the developer, and the designer to creatively develop an attractive plan for
this site which will (1) complement the surrounding areas and {2) complete an area which is
already a prime example of positive mixed use development for the City of Fort Collins. Please
let us know what we can do next.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
r
,� ;�
I � ,
� �
�� ' ���-. C '.� G��'���
Al and Linda Hauck
970-225-1318 (H)
970-491-5215 (W)
February 6, 2000
Dear Neighbors,
B_y now, most of you have heard about the proposed new development for the northwest corner of
Boardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue called The Lodge at Miramont. There is a neighborhood
information meeting to discuss this project with the developer and Fort Collins planning officials
this Tuesday, February 8 at 7:00 pm at the Faith Evangelical Church on Lemay. We are
writing to you tonight to express our urgent concerns that this development will severel_y impact
the adjoining neighborhoods in many negative ways and, if you share these concerns, we ask you
to express them to the Planning Department in a letter and/or in person at the meeting. We have
spent the weekend researching this project and the requirements of the Fort Collins' Land
Development Guidance System (LDGS), under which it must be approved, and have found
significant problems in four major areas:
This proposed development does not meet the intent of the Master Planning process for
the City of Fort Collins. First of all, let us make ver_y clear that we support the efforts of the
Planning Department over the past decade to increase the overall density of developments and
to encourage "infill" development wherever possible. Our problem with The Lodge's proposal
is that it concentrates that density in one small area which is surrounded by parcels which
alread_y carry higher density than called for in the Master Plan. This will result in adverse
impacts on traffic, safety, and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. This area has
already done more than its part for increasing density and should not be subjected to the
densest development on the south side of the city'. With just 6 buildable acres, The Lodge's
132 units would have an amazing density of 22 units per acre. By comparison, surrounding
iiliiii:-i ,i.iir :.�::;�'.lc� ir�clude 5.3 uni�s �e► a�.:ic i0i ii1C i Ul1I'iyQ.Ic1S, %.L UIIl[� PeC 3CTe IOi yil�
Rule Drive, and 8.6 units per acre for The Hamlet. Even the Miramont Apartments next to
Sam's Club have a density of only 16.2 units per acre. More importantly, these lower numbers
are the types of densities anticipated by the 1992 Master Plan for this area (used for traffic,
safety, and school planning). The three multifamily parcels along Boardwalk on this Plan
(parcels E, N, and Q) were projected to support a total of 350 housing units. The two already
developed (E and Q) already have 372 units. In other words, the area already supports more
housing than what was planned (even with nothing on Parcel N where The Lodge is proposed).
If the 132 proposed units are approved, housing in the Boardwalk corridor would be 44% over
the planned amountl At full capacity, over 2,000 residents, or about 2% of the entire
population of Fort Collins, would be living in this small area.
2. The proposed development is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Throughout the
LDGS, numerous references are made to ensuring that proposed development be "compatible
with" the neighborhoods which surround it. In fact, this concept is at the very foundation of
all planning and zoning regulations. The LDGS u;:.s a specific list of "Neighborhood
Compatibility Criteria" to try to objectivel_y evaluate all new development in reference to this
requirement. "The intent of these criteria is to ensure that development proposals are sensitive
to and maintain the character of existing neighborhoods." (LDGS, p. 11) Developers are
required to fill out a very specific "All Development Criteria" chart; if any one criterion is not
met, the development cannot oe considered further. Of the 18 Neighborhood Compatibility
Criteria, we found at least five in which the proposed development failed. In almost every
case, the reason it failed relates back to an inappropriate development in the wrong location.
For perspective, anyoune can stand along the sidewalk on Lemay and picture what this
development will look iike if it is approved. Start with the large Gymnasium building at the
south side of the Collinwood Assisted Living facility. This bui(ding is about 90 feet wide and
-�0 feet hi;h. The Lodge proposes to build eleven ( i l) more buildings almost half again as
wide and just as tall as the gymnasium on just six acres of land between the sidewalk and
the park! To help you imagine this, picture a solid "wall" of buildings forty feet high
from the south side of Collinwood to Boardwalk Drive. There will be no views through
these buildings and no "transition zones" ad,jacent to the surrounding land uses. By any
set of criteria, no matter how subjective or objective, this preposed development cannot
possibly be considered a compatible use which is "sensitive to and maintain(s) the character of
existing neighborhoods." Unless we all express our opinions, however, this could become a
reality for our neighborhood.
The proposed density for this develo�ment is based on an allowable density calculation
completed in error by the developer. According to the LDGS, every residential
development must complete an analysis (known as the "Density Chart H") which determines
what the maximum density is for any particular site. Each proposal is awarded points based on
specific criteria such as proximity to schools, recreation, and shopping; the level of
surrounding development; the amount of indoor parking; the presence of sprinklers in the
proposed buildings; and the connections with City sidewalks and bike lanes. The higher the
total "score", the higher the allowable density (assuming other concerns related to
"compatibility" are met). The developer scored the proposal for The Lodge with a total of 138
points which permitted more than 10 units per acre. Using the same criteria as the developer
must use, we scored this proposal with as few as 68 points. This score should limit this site
to only sia or seven dwelling units per acre or a total of about 40 to SQ units. This
compares to the developer's proposal for 132 units. Clearly, more careful checking needs
to be done by the Planning Department staff to determine the correct score before any proposal
for this property can be approved.
4. Improper notice was provided for the neighborhood meeting scheduled for this Tuesday
evening. While this might seem like a"technicality", the LDGS is very precise in stating
which neighbors should be notified and how the proposal must be advertised. Due to the
potential for significant impact on the surrounding areas, these requirements make sense.
T'hey were not followed in this case and many residents who should know about the
significance of this proposal and the upcoming meeting were not informed. Because of this
oversight, we believe that the Planning Department should schedule a second community
meeting after proper notification of all potentially concerned parties.
We apologize for the length of this letter, but we believe that The Lodge at Miramont, if approved,
will have severe consequences for the life of our communit_y. If you share these concerns, please
consider doing one or more of the following: attend the meeting this Tuesday evening at Faith
Evangelical Church; write a letter expressing your opinions to Mr. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner,
Fort Collins Planning and Environmenta.l Services Department, 281 North College Avenue, P.O.
Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580; or �ive us a call to discuss this further. Remember that all
development files are "public record" and can be reviewed at any time at the Planning Office.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
.. � ,
�� � � .
' ��, `� , ,
� � ,
� j/ '% .;.' ���' �� i �ct�� �. .
�.L�� � U,/ - l�
Al and Lin�da Hauck
1100 White Oak Court
. ������ �
i C �
(225-1318)
February 9, 2000
Mr. Ted Shepard
Chief Planner
Fort Collins Planning and Environmental Services Department
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
Dear Mr. Shepard:
) ls � i � �i 'U L� �
I
,, FEB 1 0 2000
I am writing with my concerns about the proposed new development called The Lodge at
Miramont, to be located at the northwest corner of Boardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue.
Unfortunately I was unable to attend the February 8 meeting at the Faith Evangelical Church, so
I am hoping this letter will get to you.
I have reviewed a letter drafted by A1 and Linda Hauck, and am quite impressed with
their findings after researching this proposed development. Instead of repeating their letter,
which I am sure you have a copy of, I hereby adopt their concerns in this letter.
While in favor of new development in my area, such development must be compatible
and sensitive to the existing neighborhoods. The proposed development must be significantly
scaled back and must comply with the Master Plan process for the City of Fort Collins. Density
is a huge concern, as the area is quite dense already. The Lodge's proposed 132 units are way
out of line for that area. Furthermore, there must be transition zones between the various
structures to be developed. The view and appearance of the neighbor will be greatly diminished
if a Lodge's development occurs as proposed. Parking areas should not be allowed without
significant hedging or berm to block car headlights from shining into our homes at night, and
they should be built in such a way and in such location as to diminish the noise that will occur.
Lighting should be implemented in such a way to prevent "light pollution" in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
I propose another community meeting, with appropriate notification, so that the
neighbors are given an opportunity to object to the proposed development. I recently moved to
the area because I liked the "look" and "feel" of the neighborhood. Please do not allow that to be
taken away.
.
I appreciate your serious consideration to this matter.
Sincerely,
, l I � � � / ("� � l� �.-�—�� �'`" U
Tim and Michelle Bush
1109 Sawtooth Oak Ct.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
(970)223-8454
FEB-04-00 10:02 AM DESERT VALLEY OFFICE SUP 1 520 62572@7
P.01
I7_(3 Twinb�rry Court
r[. Col]ins� CQ ��525
February �, ?�p�
"Ccci ShP�arcl, Chiefi� Piariner
C�mmunit� 1'lanni�i; & Lnvironment�il Services
P. 0. B�x Si30
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
UCar Mt. Shei�arcl:
� � ,� � - L5
I
��,�,� FEB 0 4 2000 �� ��
A
a
�� � �
� -- - --
,
G.w._�.._ - -
In response to your ��t tPr of Janiiary 2�, 2()U0, rc�arditl� tiic
��roposed dev�lo�ment rerPrr.ed Co �s "The LUd€e at Miramont.,
°r�Iiminary I'IannPci T.Tni[ Developtncnt ��54-37AP", we, as aff'ec.tcci
nrorcrty o�.Tners, wi.gh to voi ce our STROrTG DiSAPPRQV:IL.
�r� d� not I1LPC� eleven three-story hnilclin�;s, with 1:32 units,
plus an ofrice buildin„ �t the 31rE��zdy d3r1;�r01Js intc�rsectiori
of Lcr.iay and 8oar.dwalk. This hi�h d�nsity cicveloP�eilt W(J111�I
not. improve the neighborhoocl, thP ar^a, �r the city r�f Fort
Collins. 'lhe Lemay anci Baardwalk are.a is alreaciy ov�r-devclop�d
�nd [raffic on horl� st.rcets 11as bcc��mP very he�vy and ver�
h�l�arclous.
T�7e 1(iCL`il(� to join with our nci�hhors aild other concernecl
ci ti_zen� in doi��� cvcr}�thin�; wc possibly can to oppc>sc� this
dcvc�lnPmenC.
t+�e. Ltr�;e y�u at1Cl Lhe Pl annisln D�Partmcnl to p,ivc n�ore scrious
considcr��tion to ehis pr000sal.
Since.rcly,
����z, � ���
!•�i17 iam C. HPiss
1'faury Leit;t� NPiss
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Re: The Lodge at Miramont, Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) #54-87AP
Dear Mr. Shepard:
I will be unable to attend the meeting on February 8th, Please accept this letter as my
comments concerning the proposed change in our neighborhood.
Normally I would support a property owner's right to build on their property as long as in
is within the zoning restrictions. However, I cannot support this particular development
due to the following reasons.
This area already has a high density of housing such as the Hamlet. (close to 100 units)
Miramont apartments (a guess of over 250 units), the 52 patio home units at the
Northwest corner of Lemay and Southridge Greens Blvd, 18 patio home on Silk Oak, 20
patio home on Rule Drive, 14 patio home on Spanish Oak Court, 52 patio home and 16
cottages on the north side of a so called park that is just west of the proposed building
site.
Lemay is a very busy traffic artery for this area and has no traffic lights (except the
crossing from Keenland to Boardwalk, which by the way is a joke and a waste of
taxpayers money).
Three stories, to me this will be an eye sore.
Adding 132 units and more that 200 cars to an area that is already congested will put
too much pressure on this neighborhood.
This area of the City has been promised a park for quite a few years and nothing
happens. We get more commercial construction, more housing, more traffic.
It seems to me that you (the planning and zoning department) are increasing the density
collecting more property tax per square mile and the tax payer is not getting much in
return. No parks and no traffic control. Just more people and more noise.
I wish I could attend the meeting, because I have so much more to say (not that it would
do any good). hanks for any consideration of my comments.
ipton
1148 Spanish Oak Court. ;I � IIL��, r ���
'u V � LI �J
�
' F E B 0'', 2000
;-
�'�.�-P
Ruth E. Tipton
1148 Spanish Oak Court
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-5500
January 31, 2000
Ted Shepard
Chief Planner
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
Re: The Lodge at Miramont P.U.D. #54-87AP
To Whom It May Concern:
;, ;
, � ,,
� F EB 0 2', 2000
�
Since I am unable to attend the neighborhood information meeting on the above
development proposal, I wish to go on record that I am adamantly opposed to this plan.
I feel strongly that we are at the maximum density in our neighborhood with Oakridge
Village, which includes two sections of patio homes, The Hamlet, the Miramont patio
homes on Southridge Greens as well as the ones on Boardwalk that use Lemay as an exit
point plus all the homes and patio homes on the north end of the Southridge
development. Adding another 132 dwelling units is WAY TOO MUCH! Also, I am
greatly opposed to the height of the proposed development as it will cut off views to the
east, as well as look and feel too dense.
We have so much traffic on South Lemay as it is now, and it is already a dangerous
situation, what with cars speeding both south and north (coming down over the hill) by
the intersection of Keenland/Boardwalk and Lemay, to think of adding that many more
cars.
I will watch this proposal with great interest and will appreciate your voicing my strong
opposition and concerns at your meeting on Tuesday, February g`n
Thank you very much.
--�_
�
. ,
/-�
Ruth E. Tipton ��
�2/07/200�
Ta the member, �+►�� i'iaiuiing and Zoniz�g Board:
uROUP PAGE
We are vehemer �•• ���osec� to the Development of the Mirimont Lodge proposal for our
neighborhood. ',� �• t�: ra�t against growth, as we have seen much of it in the past �ew years, and we
are not NIMB�' ���+��•I��. (NOI' IN MY BACK. YARD). We aze opposed to thc dez�siry of the
proposecl aeveler+r .: � fi�r che �'ollowzng reasons w�ieh have been researched by nei�.hbors i►� our
fiiing.
1hi� proposed d�velopment does oot meet the inttnt of the Master PlAnning process for
the Ciry oi 1� nri �' ollins. First uF all, let us malce very clear tha� we supp�rt the efforts of the
Planning De�.~nn�: nr, over the past decade to inerease the overatl density of developments and
to encourage �;'�' �� development wherever possible. Our problem with The Lodge's proposal
is that it concE:s,;;�;r �s that density in one small area which is surrounded by parcels which
already cam ������•r density than called for in the Master Plan. 'This will rex�lt in adverse
impacts on t��.:t�' �_ .�afety, and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. This area has
alresdy done znore than its part for increasing density and should not be subjected to the
densest dev.Pto�ment on the south side of the city! W'tth just 6 buildable acres, The Lodge's
I32 units wc�ulrf !��,��e an amazing density oP l2 uaits per acre. By comparison, Surtountiing
mult+-famil} �ler�;��ies indude 5.3 units per acre for The Courtyards, 7.2 units per acre for 903
Rule Drive, a�d k� units per acre for The Hamlet. Even the Miramont Apactments next to
Sam's Club �r,�� �� <: dcnsity vf unly l62 units per acre. More imponantly, these lower numbers
are the type�: :�f ;1Ynsities anticipated by the 1992 Master Plan for this area (used for traffic,
safety, and sch<=��.! �lanning). The three multifamily parcels alon� Boardwalk on this Plan
(parcels E, r: a:::� t�) were projected to support a total 0�350 housing units. The two already
dcvcloped (� �ir��' "2) aiready have 37? unics. In other words, the �rea alreatly supports more
housin� tha►z �ti,�r was planned {even with nothing on Parcel N whcrc Thc Lodge is proposed).
If the 132 pr�c��<�>c•ci units are approved, housing in the Boardwalk comdor would be 44% over
the planned ar����,nt' At �ul1 capacity, over 2,400 residents, or about 2% of the entire
populatiun ��� r��� �.ollins, would be living in this small are�.
2. The proposcd development is not compatibk with surrounding land uses. Throughout the
LDC'iS, uu�t rr.:�:.,:�. --�ferences are made to ensuring that proposed development be "compatible
with" the ne•i�hborhoods which surround it. In fact, this concept is at the very foundation of
all planning Gnc3 z�ning regulations. The LDGS uses a speci�c ]ist of "Neighborhood
Compatibilit�- Criteria" to iry io objectively evaluate all new development in reference to this
,equire11�e�>> ��T�'-�� intent of these cnteria is to ensure th�t development proposals are sensitivc
to and main r:: r� + f•� e character of exi sting neighborhoods." (LAGS, p. 1 t) Devclopers are
required to �i i i.� r a very specific "Alf Development Criteria" chart; if any one criterion is not
met, the de��elo�ment cannot be considered further. Oithe 18 Ntighborhood Compatibility
Criteria, wc r�a�Fnd at least Pve in which the proposed dcvtlopment failyd. Ir� almo�t every
case, the re<E>� �s� �� failed relates back to an inappropriate development in the wrong location.
For perspecr-• -; ,<t:zvone can stand along the sidewalk on Lemay and picture what this
developmenr >• +�'. !c�ok like if it is approved. Start writh the large Gymnasium building at che
�outh �ide c�+!�: �'�;�llinwood Assisted Living facility "I�his buildirtg is about 90 fect wide and
--..�__ ._...- . .,,
� � 2 i� ;�,��j � 1.
� � �U� ._ ��_, �. � �
k
I F E B 0 7 Z000 ��
��
� �: __ �._____
�2/07/2000 15:23 3032238781 THE NOR-ROL GROUP PAuE 03
40 feet high. �'hr I,odge proposes to build eleven (11) more buiidiags almost half a�ain as
wide and ju�t a� tatl as the gysnnasium on just siz acres of land between the sidewalk and
tht psrk: T�� �cip vou imagine this, pitture a aolid "wsll" of buildings forty feet high
fro�n the south side of Colfinwood to Boardwalk Drive. There will be no views through
these buildii��;s and no "transition zonts" adjacent �o li�e surrounding land use9. By any
set of criteria. n<� mattcr how subjective or objective, this proposed development cannoc
possibly be cons�dered a compatible use which is "seositive to and maintain(s) the character of
existing neigh�:<�r`�ooris." Unless we all express our opinsons, however, this could become a
reality for our ne��hborhood.
The proposrd density for this development is based on an allowable density calcutation
tnmpleted in rrror by the dcveloper. According to the LDGS, every residential
development �I1L,5c ;;omplete an analysis (known as the "Density Chart H") which dctermines
what the ma:ci�a^?�:?, density is for any particular site. Each proposal is awarded points based on
speeific criter�a eiich as proximity to schoois, recreation, and shopping; the level of
surrounding deti elt�pment; the amvun� of indoor parking; the presence of sprinklers in the
proposed bu l.��n�;�, and che connections with City sidewalks and bike lanes. The higher the
Yvtal "score". tn�: h�gher the allowable density (assuming other concems related to
"compatibili« " are met). The developer scored the proposal for The Lodge with a tocal of 138
pninis whict� ;}r: trE�ct�d aiore than 10 units �er acre. Using ihe samc criteriu �5 tUe deveioper
must use, we �cr�red this proposal with as few as 68 points. This score should limit this site
to only sii Qr ceven dwelling units per acre or a total of about 40 to SO unats. This
compares to the developer's proposal for 132 units. Clearly, more careful checking needs
�o be done b �� ; hn �lanning Department staff to determine the coRect score before any proposal
for this prope*� �: an be approved.
We have not har :����•��t�ate time to discuss this proposal at ow• Hui�ieuwnec's Assoc�atiot� i�� ot•dec to
zeact to this mor:� ��t�f�� We xeconazr�e�d az�other meeting to discuss this further before the Boazd
considexs this pr� � :t<�.�� °
The lrafCic gener:�cE��i f�-��m, th,as developmcnt would tum Lcmay, alrcady a most beisy strect into a
k�ig�way resemhl,��;� ��llebe Avenue with the resultant noise and pollution.
Please llU NU1� r���>� '�is proposal as it is designed. Zt is z�ot justifaed z� ttxe Oakxidge area.
�
Sinceze{y_
` �r
,
� and Gar yn P: � -� �vd
116 Red Oak C��<<+��.
(223-6112)
�
���
�J�
k���.��
FEB-04-00 10:05 AM DESERT �ALLEY OFFICE SUP 1 520 6257�07
P.01
1'77 � T�,+i»}jarr�. (`n,+ }
.. . . . �. .. . .. 4 4� 6 L
Ft, Cc?�1ir�, :'n �n�g5
_Ti`p17ri1�ar�,r 4 _ ?nnn
���� ��
�
To� c�,n�C7ir:� p Crief P� �n:�er `J �
(;nmf(ILli1iT'� P77?1^,�,':� � LL1V1L"Qfli^�Zlt.�� ��",2�;'1:'`:^S �
n , n � �il�l '� C) i� -
�'t. Col l i_ns, �'p R(1;7'i
iln�r Mr Cl�.�,T,�rri
In resPonsc tc� your. letler of .January 2$, 2000, re�;ar{lin� rhe
prop<�s�;l de.velr�pment referred to �s "The Lodg� at Atirttn�c�nt,
Pr�li .inzr�• P��:nn�� I:rEit. Deve'on^�en� ;rS4-3i1�P", we, as aI"reCted
property o�ners, �:ish t� vuice our STROI�iG DISis1'FROt��1L.
sJ� d.c� nat nced Pleveci �hrPe-story t)U1�,(�ZI1�lT.,S, witf� 13'l U�11tS,
plus �n afiice builcliiit; at the aire�dy dany;�YpU4 lI1�LrS,P.C.'r1011
of �.er�ay anri R���1wa3.k. This higR density dcvelo�ment. would
«o� ir��rave thc� nei�h��rhr�[l, ��i� area, or ti�e c��y of Fart
Cc:�?ins. The Lem�zy and �3o�rdwalk �rea is air�ady ov�r-cjevelopPd
�nci traftic: o;: hc��f� streets }�as h�come very ���avy ac�ii v�ry
haz:�ru.o�zs.
{�ic� i.nten�I lo join With oi�r r�ei�hbnrs and other �onc�erned
�i�iz�ns itt dcing, everyi,t�ing ��. �q;;s;h.iy �an to o�pc�s� tI11S
d e�'e l��p�en t .
+.ae ur.�e you anci the 1'lannin� Ue�ar.tmenL to �ivc tnore scrious
c�r-.si�Iet�L���. �n ti1i5 �.rc,�osal.
S;nrere.ly,
�'���,�.; � .���
T,rilli am C. FiPiSs
l�T��try T,a? n�3 uo; qo
__ _ __... . . _ __ ___ ___
�s �G' � �J � I� ;',
�
, ,;,�
� FEB 0 R Z000 !,'J,,.
February 5, 2000
City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Mr. Shepard:
We cannot attend the meeting on Tuesday, February 8, 2000 regazding the proposed
development referred to as The Lodge, (P. U.D.) #54-87AP. However, we do want to
express our interest in the proposal and wish to learn more about it. At first reading, we
see a major objection.
Your letter indicates the project consists of three-story buildings. There is one tall
building in the Collingwood complex, but to add 11 buildings of that height to the area
would seriously jeopardize the neighborhood. You would no longer have the look of a
"neighborhood." The proposed development would be seriously out of scale with the
houses across Lemay and on Boardwalk. We realize Fort Collins is trying to control
sprawl by increasing density, but feel it should be done with structures which are
compatible with homes in the area. We oppose the introduction of additional three-story
buildings. Furthermore, we believe 132 more units will have a detrimental effect on
Lemay traffic. Oakridge and Boardwalk will surely need four way signals, a cost that
should be borne by the developers.
Thank-you for taking our concerns into your discussion.
�inc rely,
, ��� _ �il"'►�L"'
J e and Julianne Fletcher
5151 Boardwalk, V-3
Fort Collins, CO 80525
_� =
,�
Harold R. Moore, DPM
February 02, 2000
Mr. Ted Shepard, Chief Pianner
Community Planning
28l North College
PO Box 5 $Q
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Re: PUD #54-87AP Lodge at Miramont
Dear Mr. Shepard,
; ; e.` � �, � ;' - _.. � ;-I�
l �� � f �
�II
�',!�� FEB o � 2000 ��'�
E -� p
i_ �
My familyo uf five would like to request that this letter be read into the minutes at the
upcoming meeting on Tuesda_y, February 8, 2000 in regard to the proposed 3 story
buildings at the Lodge of Miramont. We are opposed to any such large multi-family
dwellings in our neighborhood. We would like to detail our objections below.
Our address for the record is 1106 White Oal: Court ��hich is at the end of the
cul-de-sac at White Oak Court and our yard backs up to Lemay.
Our nei�;hborhood is primariiy upscale 200K+ single family dwellings with well
cared for exteriors and yards and we feel that a 3 story multi-level dwelling will be an
eye-sore to the neighborhood and bring down our property values. This area is
already dense with many subdivisions and townhomes but all are one or two story
with N4 imposing 3 story buildings. The 3 story buildings are NOT in keeping with
the e�sting plans or homes already in place. A 3 story building w�ith the necessary
pitched roof will excee�i 40 feet in height and look ont of place with the current
architc~ture.
Traftic in the area is already substantial and the additiod� of approximately 1�2 rnore
dwellings will only increase the problem.
There is a dangerous school crossing at Keenland and Lemay which is at the corner of
the proposed development which will only be made worse by the proposed
construction.
I am new to the area but my neighbors are starting to complain of water problems in
the basements as the Miramont complex has been constructed with excessive run off
percolating into the local groundwater necessitating installation of swnp pump to
handle the unnatural run off.
1217 East Elizabeth Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970) 472-8700
=_y =
i�
Harold R. Moore, DPM
The current neighborhood has all enclosed garages with "STRICT" covenants in
regard to number of automobiles and their enclosure. In the proposed buildings there
would be OPEN parking and detached GA.RAGES. This is totally unacceptable in an
upper scale residential neighborhood of single family dwellings.
Since our property "backs" to Lemay already, we are very aware of the noise
pollution ��hich is caused by the traffic. Buildings of 3 story's + will only serve ta
act as a"canyon" and echo and magnify the already noisy street. We feel EPA should
investigate the "noise" aspects of the proposed buildings as well as the advers�;
effects on drainage of this area. We feel sinble le��el to�vnhomes wo►ald be znore
appropriate for the site.
It should also be mentioned that the dra�ving ���hich ��ras provided to the neighboring
home owners sho�v complete disruption of the current wildlife lake adjoining Lemay
which is used by all forms of wildlife cunently for water and nesting. This lake
should be included AND extended to front the entire Lemay street to al]ow for some
natural barrier to ANY proposed building. Disruption of this small lake will
undoubtably make the problems with the water table and storm run-off aluded to
earlier much worse for us{who are on the do�•nstream side) of'the proposed
buildings.
As noted earlier, we are not against a developer utilizing his land, but we feel the
project should be in keeping with the upscale nature of the permanent residents(one
or 2 story upscale private homes) and the natural lake barrier should be left in place
to prevent sound and water pollution for the e�istin,� residents on the east side of
Lemay.
We
Harold . o e �l
Karen ore
Tessic Moore
Danielle Moore
:iohn Moore
to o�u concerns}
1217 East Elizabeth Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970) 472-8700
To: Ted Shepard
Subject: Lodge at Miramont
From: Mike Thissen
��I I �
�I_I I � � �� � ...0 �I�� _
�� �� FEB 0 4 2000
U
I received your letter concerning the possible building of this new project. I travel
for a living and will not be able to attend the meeting on 2-8-00. I would like to express
my vote if there is one.
I am not in favor of this project. I believe that you continue to build these projects
all over town and they destroy both the beauty and the integrity of the neighborhoods.
I would also like to comment on the Neighborhood Park that is directly behind my
property. I have no problem with the soccer games that are played there all day on
Saturdays and practice the rest of the week. I certainly do not understand why the field
can not be drawn north and south and moved to the sou�hern end of the �a.rk so that the
field is not right behind our homes. I think that this is only demonstrating some
consideration for the people that live in these homes.
I would certainly like a response to both of these situations. My address is 5000
Boardwalk # 25.
1113 White Oak Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525
February �+, 20�
- -���
� '', �, i I '�I ��III'I1
I '�I
'� FEB 0 7 2000 ���
� � `�' --.. �— = -
Ted Shepard
Chief Planner
Community Pianning � Environrr'�ental Services
P. O. Box S $0
Fort Co11�ns, C4 80522-�580
Dear Mr. Shepard,
Thank yc�u for your letter af�january 28, informing us of te� � eas'The l.odge at Miramont
8th, cancerning the development proposedt`� be unable t attend on this short notice, so I
Preliminary Planned Unit Development. I w
present my thoughts in this letter.
J
ean and i feei strongiy that ihis proposed deveiopment of 1 S ndlQ�farr�il� res �lences �ust 6
acres is not compatible with current Miramont development or the g Y
across �emay, east of the proposed site.
3-story buildings, each
In reviewing the plans, it appears to me W�h nQeb�er zune of lower smaller buildings
about 39 feet high on the reiattvely small site,
nd them is oing to change the ambience af this area from one o� ° eo lesandt robably `over
arou S
low population density, to a more closed-in environment with 250 300 p p,
200 cars dwelling on that 6- acre parcel.
The three-story buildings, each 38ft, 9 in. high will be talier tha 5 gui ders S�ual ega e, ind.
Even the "big box" buildings, housing Steeles 5� eme Cth�n a b iween ther�e and the pr`oposed
betiiev�, a little less than 30 feet htgh and mo ry g
developmeni is even lotiver.
I realize that the Miramont apartments �n Boardwalk aea �� ��dgn built b ck into the
buildings, but they are bui lt on a s li g hi�h'e l �+ t Sea e�ndscap ng on the downhill sides a lso re duces
slope so that only about 2 1(2 s�tories Q
' arent butilding height. They also have commercial buiidings on�� e� �hea3story bu ldings
tne app
and a buffer zone of 2 rows of patio homes alc�ng the sout� b�order,
and the park.
The low, neariy flai nature of the site for the he e midht be a tendency to ra se the
conducive to such strategy, and since it is low land, t g
''n foundatians and surrounding land. This would make the bu�setdg te for the Lodge`at
butiidi g to the north of the propo
Coliingwaod Assisted Living Facility,
� mont has �ne fi.al1 portion, but it is just a very srreall part of a large complex, mostly single
Mira >
story in heighi in a very spacious sett�ng. �hQ o�►y entrance and
To compound the issue af 250 or �r�a dwta4k where n�merous� children from Oakridge
exit proposed �or the site is a driveway on
�iia e walk on the sidewa4k and ride bicycles and roller blade on the bikeway to the Werner
V+ g
Elementary Schoal.
in �ve think that the Lodge at Miramoni, with the size, density and height of buil ings
Aga ,
current4y proposed does no� belon� on thts small parcel � Sin erely,
Llo d . Hetper �
. ��T�� ��
}
I��ai�i�:ij.�1�Ii �i
W
a
�
_
v
w
0
7
�
�
iL
i
Q
�
�
�''� TO:
0
�
�
�
cfl
0
� FROM:
X
a DATE:
�
SUBJECT:
Tl^
W
�
N
m
�
cfl
0
�
rn
w
z
0
_
�
�
Z
�
W
W
�
�
Z
W
Z
0
a
�
0
a
�
Z
Q
�
�
�
U
LL
LL
a
�
H
Mike Sollenberger, Vector Properties
Shirley Serna, VF Ripley
Kathleen Reavis, Fort Collins Transportation Planning
Fort Collins Planning Department
Matt Delich �ii%�
May 18, 2000
The Lodge at Miramont-Parcel N- Response to staff
comments (File: 9965ME03)
This memorandum responds to the Fort Collins Transportation
Planning Department's request to include Miramont Park and Werner
School as being within the applicable walk and bike boundaries.
Based upon the Pedestrian LOS criteria, the Lodge at Miramont
is in an area termed "other." However, there may be an
interpretation that it is within the "school walking area." Figure
1 shows the approximate location of Miramont Park (A) and Werner
School (B) related to the Lodge at Miramont. Appendix A contains the
Pedestrian LOS worksheet for these two destination areas_ The
pedestrian level of service will be acceptable.
According to the Bicycle LOS criteria, only Miramont Park is
within 1320 feet of the Lodge at Miramont. However, in order to not
create any future questions by the Transportation Planning staff, I
have included Werner School in the bicycle analysis. Appendix B
contains the Bicycle LOS worksheet for. these two priority destination
areas. The bicycle level of service will be acceptable.
LOCATION OF MIRAMONT PARK
AND WERNER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Figure 1
APPENDIX A
�
a
��1/
lV
r--�
v-J
r
�
�
U
��
v
�
�-L-V
�
�---�
�
Q�
�
�
0
..•�•
� �
� N
,.� �,
o�
�
i� ;
� �
.�
��
��
� ,
G
��
�v
�o
� y
• �� CJ
�! —..�
�� �
� �
I� �
Q
�
.i__+
Q�
�
�
�
�
�^
'J
�
O
�--�
�
C�
.�
3�
�
�
nv
F-�
�
�
�`�--1
�
�
w
� ^ r � Q
� `o t
� �
� v
H
� �
C - -� n
C o � � E � Q `
' c �
t/l +� -
R A
� �
� S Ca (� `}
v � � S "-' �
O �
� r,
C
a
J a � � �11 t�_l
�5/.
7 � �
.� � � � Q
�
:- a -�
., .�
.� ;
� �
�
J � i
� o ^ � �
3 a g � �
J
c
O
�
v
�
�
�
�
v
0
�
�
0
C!
-o
�
n �
� �
r. �
K
O v _. 1Y-
_� � y
C N a
_ � N �
� --
� " OL
�
0
a �
� --
m � y �
v - y
•� 1.�.
'� •' � O �
� �
o�� o�.
� � - Q
o ^ � c/ Q
��.° � � �
�= m ._
��
�-
a �
"B � 1
3 Q
0
�I�I�
���
�I���
���
C�If,�1
e y
� �
0
v .J �
C r, �
1-
N
�'
N
?
� J
�
U v
3 ��
�
W
a
_ - �
s J �
G r. 1
a
z
= y
_ = r
_ � ....
a
�
ti
C�
L.
Q�
�
r
�
C
O
(r
I O
I �
'/�
I G
�
�
�
�
�
�U
'J
� r�
� W
� v
� �
lu
i
C,�
,
�
��\
�/
\(
\
APPENDIX B
0
O
N
�
•----r
�
?--�
c�
�
C�I
V
.�
�
:-�
�
C.!)
�
O
r--.
�
�
a}
�
�
0
. �,
y
� �
ia —
� �
�^ p
r3-^-+-� �
� U
_'
�� d
\ V -�-�
r�`-i -
E"� E
��
c� ^'
>
'� �
O
� y
• �� 7
�� �
T1 n
� �
� O
�
��..�
�
�J
U�
�
�
�
�
C.I�
�
�
CJ
r--i
v
�
u
. �,
�
�
�f .
/�
�`
�/ �.J
. �-,
�
-�r
r
�
L,
Qi
�
ti
Z
C
O
�
L
�
n
�
�..
ti
�
N
�
� �
� v
L
�
L'
i `--
IC
�
i U
i
�
�
�`
1
`�
\
�
c�
�
o �
� �
, o
�
o �
o �
a �
¢ ,
O p
O �
U �
• X
Q
� �
Z
a
J
w
O
J
w
>
�
�
z
w
a
2
z
w
fJ�
V
N
�
N
N
W
a
�
_
V
W
�
7
�
W
_
�
QC
G
r�rso�uM
TO:
Mike Sollenberger, Vector Properties
Shirley Serna, VF Ripley
Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Engineer
FROM: Matt Delich �'�`�v )
/
DATE:
SIIBJECT:
January 24, 2000
The Lodge at Miramont - Parcel N-- Trip Generation
Evaluation and Alternative Mode Analyses (File: 9965ME02)
Parcel N in the Oak/Cottonwood Farm area (Miramont) is being
proposed to have 132 condominium dwelling units. This development
has been renamed The Lodge at Miramont. Eric Bracke, the Fort
Collins Traffic Engineer, requested a trip generation comparison of
the currently proposed land use and the former land use from the
"Oak/Cottonwood Farm Site Access Study," 1992. The site plan of the
Oak/Cottonwood Farm ODP is provided in Appendix A. Parcel N is
located in the northeast quadrant of the Lemay/Boardwalk
intersection. This memorandum also provides an alternative mode
analysis.
T!^
W
0
N
�
�
co
0
�
rn
w
z
�
2
a
The site plan of the current proposal for The Lodge at Miramont
is provided in Figure 1. This parcel will be accessed via a driveway
to Boardwalk Drive, located approximately 400 feet west of Lemay
Avenue. No access is proposed to Lemay Avenue. The currently
proposed land use will generate 774 daily trip ends, 58 morning peak
hour trip ends, and 72 afternoon peak hour trip ends. This was
calculated using Trip Generation, 6t'' Edition, ITE, land use code 230-
Residential Condominium/Townhouse.
The former land use on Parcel N was 140 multi-family dwelling
units. From the cited traffic study, this use would generate 879
daily trip ends, 62 morning peak hour trip ends, and 69 afternoon
peak hour trip ends. This was calculated using Trip Generation, 5tn
Edition, ITE, land use code 220-Apartment (Post-1973).
The proposed 132 condominium dwelling units will generate less
traffic than the former 140 multi-family dwelling units.
Figure 2 shows the location of the proposed Lodge at Miramont
and a radius of 1320 feet from the outer boundary of the parcel. Per
the "Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual," there are
four existing or future "destination areas" within this radius. These
are four areas designated by numbers: 1) the residential area north
of Boardwalk Drive and west of Lemay Avenue; 2) the residential area
south of Boardwalk Drive and west of Lemay Avenue; 3) the
residential area north of Keenland Drive and east of Lemay Avenue;
and 4) the residential area south of Keenland Drive and east of Lemay
Avenue. Appendix B contains the Pedestrian LOS Worksheet for The
Lodge at Miramont as it relates to these "destination areas." The
Lodge at Miramont is in a Pedestrian District that is termed "other."
The minimum pedestrian level of service for this district is C for
all factors_ There are sidewalks along all properties that are
�
z
�
w
W
Z
�
z
W
z
0
a
�
¢
0
a
�
z
d
¢
H
�
U
LL
LL
Q
�
F-
developed within the quarter mile of this site. The only gap in the
sidewalk system that does exist is along a property north of Rule Drive
that has an existing house_,. It is assumed that when/if this property is
redeveloped, sidewalks will be installed consist with Fort Collins
standards. If this properLy does not redevelop, the sidewalk may not be
installed. This gap does not cause the pedestrian level of service to be
unacceptable. The pedestrian leveZ of service for The Lodge at Miramont
is or will be acceptable.
There are no bicycle `�priority destination areas" within 1320 feet
of The Lodge at Miramont. An inventory of all arterial (Lemay Avenue) and
collector streets (Boardwalk and Keenland) within 1320 feet of The Lodge
at Miramont indicates that bike lanes exist on all streets. Appendix C
contains a Bicycle LOS Worksheet which indicates that the base connectivity
is acceptable.
There is no existing bus route within 1320 feet of The Lodge at
Miramont. The closest bus stop is the Southside Shuttle. This route is
more than 0.5 miles from the site. This route operates only during the
morning and afternoon peak hours. There are bus stops on Harmony Road just
west of Lemay Avenue and on Harmony Road between Lemay Avenue and Wheaton
Drive. According to the Fort Collins City Plan - 2015 Transit System Map,
Harmony Road will be an enhanced travel corridor with 10 minute service,
and Lemay Avenue will have feeder route service with 30+ minute service.
Appendix D contains a transit worksheet for the four specific transit
destinations mentioned in the "Multimodal Transportation Level of Service
Manual." The transit level of service will be acceptable.
�
N
.
.
►
��
�
�
�
:�
�
�-
S(TE PLAN Figure 1
LOCATION OF PEDESTRIAN DESTINATI�NS Figure 2
APPENDIX A
;;
�,
; f,
�
1
�
_I �
�--�
��
�•
,..«..�.,
,�,. �
�,... �
---�
' ;�
� !:
�>_ /
V /
�/
> j
��.
�'�� _
\
��i�w.V�r � � -
- �..w.mw w saltwwc
"� �' c�ctws
lOI/LLYYtO
aA+�c� C t��'roni �Nor� Q�a �� � I� �
�--- -�
_� _,-
� � ��
-�I :� I �;
�l�l{li
u i _r_ �j
.:�.;
,. -_ -,
� �_
.-� r,
sr. na.�cn
maY o.a
xa.an ar
� '_
APPENDIX B
�
a
lU
�
�
�
W
V
_�
H
L
�
w
O
v
W
�
O
.�
i �
CL� "
"�'� =
� y
�
O�
�
^ G
�--�-1 j
� �
.�
� �
��
c
G
��
��
of�
�1 y
�
• 1�� fO
.t__+ ?
•----i �
� �
� O
� �
�.J
QJ
�
�r^i
v J
�
�
O
�
O
�
�
.�
i�--1
�J
Cl]
v
nW
F----1
�
Q�
�
�
.�
w
�. _ _ � � �
o �
a. _
n. �
R
N
� H
� � � �
c - �` �
`� � '�m V
� o -'
� ' �-
R R
v �
a: °= ` "`a ^`
' O �S
��I�I�
��i��
�
�
'�
O
_
•R
v
^
�
�
U
C
0
�
v
O
v
�
-o
�.
�
v -
� �
� X -
O V ?! �
A - � �
�Na
_ N N �
� v
N V
�
O � �
d N
� � � `
R �,
v = N �
._ y .N
0..� � 1 '
R �p N �
O i � �
a ^ � f'
- � z lL
�- -� � �U �
�� � � �
� _ _
-� � � 3
� �c Z
a
�I�I'•,'�I�I ,' ■'�I�
_I_1__-_1_1__--,_
i� �1 v a�
�1�1����1�l������
���i���oi�ie��oi..
�I�
F ? 7
� � d
� d
V '
�
�
� `
� ��
� �
�.0 �
� �
0
� �
,�,
0
�I���„�I�
-�-�____t_
ai��e��oia
� ^] iA
6 V G-
G r. �
\ '
�
�
� �
J �
�r
T
� Q
a c,
� � F
�t Z �
0
�
ti
�
�.
�
r
�
0
ti
C
C1.
�
C
E-�'
�
O
� U
i L'
J
i �
f W
I G`
Iv
z
� y
� � n
� �
- �
I
� I
� i
�
�
� �
��
�
�
i� LL
G� O �
� � �
� � �
0
I
i
i
C�
,
,� ,
\
�
APpENDIX C
0
N
Q
•---i
C�
r�
}-�
c�
�
v
u
. r.,
�
�
�
�
w
O
.--�
Q�
�
a�
�
�
O
. r..�
� �,
..L� �
� V
� (�i
� �
� ,
.�
CU' �
� =
� c
��
�>
'� �
� y
�� �
��
� �
� �
� °
�
�-F—�
�
�
�
�
�
�
O
�
CI�
O
F--�
CJ
r--�
V
�
V
. ,...,
p
L `
Q�
r-�-�
�
.�
w
>,
.�
u
a
�
o`
�
m
=
.�
L
N
O
y
>
y
r
�
�
c,
QJ
�
ti
�
C
O
O
�
�
G
r
�"'
N
C
��
I �
I U
i �
, L
t �'-'
� C
I �`
�U
l/
�
�,
���
1
��
�
� � � �
APPENDIX D
FUTURE TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE
Travel Time Worksheet
�� a��� ��� �c�� : e� �r�►� � � ��� r� -
: t�i�nce Ti�e iur�� �actar : � � ,
CSU Campus Transit Center 5.8 20 43
Foothilis Fashion Mali 2.5 12 38
Fort Collins High School 2.9 13 36
Downtown Fo�t Collins 6.0 21 46
Total Travel Time 66 163 2.5
Service Level Standards Worksheet
: �ee1 t�se Remain�fof
,
�da�sd :. �� � tha Service .�leets Standart# Fa�s Sf�tcfarc!
;': :' �' C�t�mm�rcial
. Co�idars - _ �trea _ ;.
Hours of Weekday Service 18 hours 16 hours X
Weekday Frequency of Service 15 minutes 20 minutes X
Travel Time Factor 2.0 x 2.0 x X
Peak Load Factor < 1.2 < 1.2 X
2 of 4= LOS D