HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOURTNEY PARK PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31The Board off Oirectvrs o �__e c_ en .•:eaua v3 o.
owners As3oci.atLon, re-oresentir.- t'r_e :lomeo�vre=^s c-f ?r-=a,
by unanimous vote and siTna.ture Belo r, oz=se t o co:::Pleti on
of the Courtr.ey Park Pla_.ned as submitted an
11 June 1984. This orclect, as currently submitted, is
totally incom-catible with the existin; nei hborhoca in ter:;s
of density, building desiSn, and t'r_e allocation of open space,
to include bur'i erinx, r urther, su—' rc j ect is a.l.3o in-
consistent :i.th the r'ort Collins Land DeyeloT)Ment guidance Syst'e,a,
the very document that dictates the requirements for sucf a
development. ^final y, this development ill el:aseroauc an a! -
ready dan.•ercus tra.ific situation caused cy the lace of comple-
tion of Lemay Avenue. The 3oara of Directors further
opposes any new uevelopment that will create additional trar-
='ic con e3ticn until Lemay Avenue, from Horsetooth Road south
to Harmiony Rcad, is completed.
Dated June 20, 1984
so. don .1 4. 4,�, ��'33_ _en
_C'-
NAME
10)
11)CL�'L
12 )
19)
21)
22)
23)
24 )
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
ADDRESS
/ Z*
PHONE
34)
June 20, 1984
Page 4
Golden Meadows to be developed before the Lemay extension to
Horsetooth was completed. We have all learned from that mistake
and know that it should not be repeated. For the safety of all
of us, no further building permits should be issued in the neighborhood
until the Lemay extension to Horsetooth is completed.
The Guidance System requires that existing natural resources
be preserved. The Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan, as
presently designed, would require the elimination of a large portion
of the grove near Lemay and Harmony Road. Most of the trees in that
grove are approximately 50 years old. Obviously, those trees cannot
be replaced in any less time.
The site design of the Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site
Plan provides for 11 apartment buildings approximately 40 feet high.
This will severely restrict or eliminate the existing neighborhood's
view of Long's Peak and the rest of the front range to the south.
The Guidance System prohibits such intrusive development.
The street and parking design of the proposed Courtney Park
P.U.D. does not provide for smooth, safe and convenient movement
of vehicles on and off the site. Several of the proposed apartment
units are located a long distance from either entrance/exit. The
residents of those units will have to drive through the entire complex
in order to get to and from their units. From my experience of
living in such complexes, I know that those residents will travel at
an unsafe speed in their hurry to get to and from their units. This
makes it very dangerous to walk in the �a rking lots.
The street and parking design of tip proposed Courtney Park
P.U.D. fails to contribute to the overall quality of the neighborhood.
No covered or enclosed parking is provided. The parking lots are
large asphalt surfaces with minimal landscaping. An apartment complex
of 264 units requires setbacks of at least 100 to 200 feet on all
sides, yet the Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan allows for
minimal setbacks of only 50 to 80 feet.
The Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan provides for
an inadequate number of berms, trees and open space for an apartment
complex of its size. The site detention pond areas appear to have
been improperly included in the calculation of active open space.
The proposed Courtney Park P.U.D. is not located near a sizable active
park. Warren Park is located to the north along the unfinished Lemay
extension to Horsetooth. However, it is only an 11 acre park which
presently operates at its capacity. The proposed Golden Meadows
Park will be for passive use only and 5 of its 7 acres are to be
site detention pond area.
June 20, 1984
Page 5
Whaler's Cove, The Landings and Golden Meadows are composed
of predominantly high quality single family homes with average
values of $120,000.00 per home. Future quality development in the
neighborhood will be discouraged by the proposed development plans.
Developers will not build more high quality homes next to high
density apartment complexes. Fort Collins will lose the opportunity
to have the neighborhood continue to develop into a showcase single
family residential area. The Medema Signature Series of homes is
a perfect example of what a denial of multi -family housing produces,
i.e. lower density, higher quality, single family housing. Medema
initially thought about building multi -family housing in the Signa-
ture Series area, but changed its mind when the neighborhood opposed
it. We now benefit from that positive change of plans.
On March 21, 1984, Senior City Planner Cathy Chianese, in a
letter to Frank Vaught of ZVFK Architects and Planners stated that
the staff refused to support the Heritage Park P.U.D. Preliminary
Site Plan, which was the predecessor to the Courtney Park P.U.D.
Preliminary Site Plan. Ms. Chianese stated that, as designed, "the
Heritage Park P.U.D. is not compatible in density, unit design, and
building mass with the adjacent single family units." The single
family units to which Ms. Chianese referred are the Melody Homes
Wagon Wheel single family homes which start at approximately
$50,000.00 are are 3 units per acre. The Heritage Park P.U.D. pro-
vided for 304 apartment units at a density of only 15 units per
acre. The apartment buildings were to be of the same design as
those of the proposed Courtney Park P.U.D., except the majority of
them were(mly 31 feet high and the square footage of each building
was to be several thousand square feet less than the square footage
of the proposed Courtney Park P.U.D. apartment buildings. Each
Heritage Park P.U.D. building was to contain only 16 units, as
opposed to the 24 units per building proposed in the Courtney Park
P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan.
The City Planning and Development Staff was clearly correct in
refusing to support the Heritage Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan.
That planned unit development was not compatible in density, unit
design and building mass with the adjacent Wagon :wheel single family
homes. For the exact same reasons, the City Planning and Development
Staff and the City Planning and Zoning Board must deny approval of
the Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan, the Golden Meadows
P.U.D. Master Plan and the Golden Meadows Neighborhood Center Prelimi-
nary Site Plan. Those proposed development plans are even more
incompatible with the "density, unit design and building mass" of
the Whaler's Cove, The Landings and the Golden Meadows neighborhoods
than the Heritage Park P.U.D. was to the Wagon Wheel homes.
June 20, 1984
Page 6
The June 11, 1984 revision of the Courtney Park P.U.D.
Preliminary Site Plan falls far short of a serious effort on the part
of JLB Construction to make the proposed project compatible with
the existing neighborhood. The revised plan is merely a token ges-
ture on the part of the developer. Under the revised plan, all of
the proposed apartment buildings will be 2 1/2 stories (i.e. 38 feet
6 inches), instead of the previous mixture of 2 story and 2 1/2
story buildings. Despite the revision, the density of the proposed
apartment complex will still be almost 19 units per acre, a decrease
of only 1 unit per acre from the initial plan. While two of the
proposed apartment buildings have been deleted by the revision,
two of the remaining buildings have been increased in mass by several
thousand square feet The rest of the revised project remains
basically unchanged from the initial plan and thus,is still subject
to all of the problems cited in the preceding paragraphs of this
letter. Clearly, the "density, unit design and building mass" of
the revised plan is just as incompatible with the existing neighbor-
hood as was the initial plan.
The Guidance System expressly states that the development poten-
tial of any particular site is to be evaluated on its own merits
size, shape, location, natural features and site concept, rather
than according to predetermined zoning district classifications. The
Guidance System further provides that the maximum density permitted
for an area shall not be allowed as a matter of course. At best,
the proposed development plans score only 70 points on the Guidance
System's Residential Density Chart. The remainder of the points
taken by JLB Construction are questionable. Despite whatever out-
dated zoning classifications that may exist for the area, the proposed
development plans do not incorporate a high enough level of quality
design to qualify for maximum density. Therefore, under the Guidance
System, the City Planning and Development Department and the City
Planning and Zoning Board must deny approval of the proposed develop-
ment plans.
I moved to Fort Collins from Aurora because I was extremely
impressed by the well -planned, high -quality development that currently
exists here. The City is to be commended for its past planning efforts.
Approval of the proposed development plans would signal the decay of
those planning efforts and help start Fort Collins on a path of un-
controlled urban sprawl like Aurora now suffers from. The Harmony
Road Exit on I-25 is the first exit to Fort Collins and the one that
many visitors to the City will use, given the current pattern of
development on South College. It would be a shame for those visitors
to form their initial impressions of the Choice City by looking at an
June 20, 1984
Page 7
incompatible 670 unit apartment complex as they first drive into
town. Residential development of 8 to 10 units per acre will be
much more compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Ohn W. Pharris
JWP:dm
GORDON E. HADLOW
4106 ATTLEBORO COURT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525
20 June 184
City Flannin7 and ,
Ward
300 La ,o ht s Ave
Ft Collins, CC 10502
Gentle:_:en:
As a .cmcow er in the Golden Meadows subdivision, I
would a„ , that y3u vote t., deny approval of t._.. Courtney
Part = la,.__.ed Unit Development as submitted tted on 11 j _.n 1924.
Such a r,ro j ,ct is totally incompatibles wit__ t_,e exi._ti
nei "hborhcod, lo inconsistent with the Land Davelc7nant
Guidance QstW, and c:,._ ;letely ignores the t, nfic l fact
on Leway Avenue, which al_ e- dy is a dar_erEous situation.
Density is _. major issue. This develonmant _rc cses a
den._ity of p rc__inately 19 units oer acre, where Z ,ot ;.cross
the ,_..re..t are densit_ss of three to four u._its aer ..cre, -
ith litnia 10 no :)u ferinq. i_1 addition, the builli -s
Irc-
rosod are two and ons-Aalf stories, where the exists n Etruc-
tures are no higher than two stories. The lack of open _pace
in the development makes it inconsistent with prior apartment
units in Fort Collins.
In analysing the :proposed development usinS the Lard
Deveic -nt Guidance 57szen,, it quickly becomes apparent
that such _3 dave_ o .__ait is nothing more than a Tcc7,ery of
the -uidciinec. Were are serious auiestions cor_csrninS the
validity of the yoint 3 clamed (jee Section H) . Further,
it is obvious that the criteria ( see Section A) unde_ .eigh-
bor^cod ccnratibility and site design were not niven adecuate
ccnslda_ .t ion. fact, the only real ecnsiderit_; n in site
desi7n ,ea_ _ to be just how many units can be crsimed on to
four _yen acres. VainE the criteria as .,all as considering
ex=ati ng quality apartnent developments in : t Collins, it
would be difficult for me to c: nceive of such a poorly desiEned
site z1an Oei_ S ayyrovsd anywhere it in tte city Bait c.
7'o Connist_on of _e._ay Avenue south of : o_ setccth Road
tas dra :ed n fop ye-rs, :already we Lave a erivus traffic
urcblom the area. 20 cor_tinute further d.eve,y_..ert ._tr-
,ut ..._^ traffic tar" to the _'forth would be steer Kil =. T, re
uat he no now revelo m nt in this area w `fit -- r :nay Avenue is
comp) t e`1, it t_,-t cuot de yelo,nmesit ia contingent on the coy -
lotion W Le`r
22 zS22=rz, t2e t225e &e/ 1g9:ee are 2e1/22---,- 12oa2-
2atIb121t\, I&--o ZI tea 2��. ezta',11 e% 3ol2eI e—s
a s 2a7eee 12a2{1c isj\o\ 2as?It r, 22=a tKe ƒa2= c2 cze-
2IC-4— c2 7e2&7 Ivcnni.e. I : o±§ exc2 32
\?Q to 7St2 to \e23 sgg2o7a± 202 Jou2t«e§
dl2oafe-1 2,
,
� ✓�` � ��= � z
Jc r322 2. Z262c «
RECEIVED
June 20, 1984
JUN 2 1 11B4
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning & Development
300 Laporte Avenue
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Gentl--men :
As homeowners in the Golden Meadows Subdivision, we
would like to register our objection to approving
the Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan, the
Golden Meadows P.U.D. Master Plan and the Golden
Meadows Neighborhood Center Preliminary Site Plan. ,
The high density of the proposed apartment complexes,
along with the homebuilding now in progress, would
make the area entirely too congested (:like Aurora is
becoming).
Until something is done about paving Lemay Road and
making travel safe between Horsetooth and Harmony,
all building should be curtailed. Probably nothing
will be done until there is an accident and someone
ends up in the lake.
The presentation for the Courtney Park P.U.D. Pre-
liminary Site Plan at the Neighborhood Meeting on
June 6 was quite incomplete in describing the end
result. Ms. Chianese more or less indicated that
the plan already had ner approval regardless of other
input from the group.
Sincerely,
i
Alfred E. Zeschin
C '
Mrs. Dorothy H. Zeschin
1672 Shenandoah Circle
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
FO
RECEWED
June 20, 1984 .1UN 2 2 1384
City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning & Development
300 Laporte Av.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Sirs:
As a resident of the Golden Meadows neighborhood for the past three years I have
a serious concern for the future development of that area.
Mr primary reasons for moving into the area was that it provided the social
environment conducive for raising a family as well as making new, longterm
friends. It -is truly a community onto itself. A rare thing to find in
todays fast, quick changing, transient lifestyle. Having the same neighbors
and friends for years to come is a desired element in ones lifestyle. It's a
sense of "belonging".
The current proposal for building 280 apartment units(13 buildings) as part of
the Golden Meadows neighborhood is totally incompatiable with the current social
and community lifestyle. To allow 20 units per acre,where as Golden Meadows and
Whalers Cove are aproximately 3 or 4 per acre is inconsistent in design and
development. Having one and two bedroom apartments adjacent to a very
family oriented, single family residential area will adversely affect the
development of the neighborhood. Apartments in themself, especially one and
two bedrooms will attract a more transient, get up and move type of people
thus detrcting from the sense of a settled community.
Of additional., but important concern is the architectural design. Having almost
40 foot high buildings, with open carport parking is not in keeping with
the architectural format that has been established in that area. Even though
we have a settled neighborhood with modern housing, the builders were able to
maintain part of the natural environment, part of the natural beauty of
Fort Collins and the surrounding environment. The trees and bushes, Warren
Lake have all been kept up, and we have maintained some of the small town
charm.
As a parent of two very active boys, I am very concerned about the additional
traffic as a result of the 280 units. Even if that is only one car per unit,
we are talking about a significant impact on the traffic conditions. It is
already getting abit out of hand. I would like to see speed bumps be considered
for slowing down cars who rotinuing travel above the speed limits. Thats another
issue.
Inclosing, let me reiterate my concern and hope that the City Planning and
Zoning Board will give sincere and thoughful consideration to this serious
situation. Put your feet in our shoes, come visit the neighborhood and see
for yourself. Talk to the people first hand.
Thank you for your time and consideration. See you on June 27, 1984.
Best regards;
Bob Gaines 1412 Ticonderoga, Fort Collins CO 80525
;t _Waw -
une N , 1984
I"s. Cathy Chi.anese RECEIVED
Cffice of Planning and Development
300 Laporte
Ft. Collins, Co. P0522 J U N 26 1984
Dear Fs. Chianese, PL;,,NHlS.,
DEPARTMENT
4'Je are writing to you concerning; the Courtney 7ark = •�•
We feel that the density of tAk is too great in relation
to the density of the surrounding area. That transition
from 3 to 4 units per acre to 20 units per acre seems Moo
abrupt to us. Towrhomes or patio homes would be a better
transition.
Another major problem would be the traffic problem this
would create. Since Lemay remains unfinished, the smaller
streets such as ',_Theaton and Whaler's Way will become
very heavily traveled and they aren't designed for that.
Another problem all the cars creates is a salty problem
for the children. We have clot of children now and that
many apartments would bring many more children. You
combine all those children with all those cars and there
is bound to be accidents.
It also appears that the trees along Lemay are not included
in the plan. It would he a shpme to destroy these
beautiful old trees. With a lower density the trees
could be worked into the plan.
we hope you will take all the aspects into consideration
before ,raking any decision. Thank you. f
j�.
"eorge and Cheryl Hilgendorf
1400 Tarryton Dr.
Ft. Collins Co. 80525
Carry and Christina Johnson
1701 Hotchkiss Drive
Fort Collins, Co 80525
June 20, 1984
City of Fort Collins, Office of Planning
300 :LaPorte Ave
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Co 80522
To Whom it May Concern:
RECEIVED
JUN 26 1984
i
DEPAnTt.l =sdT
It has been brought to our attention some concern regarding
the -plans of Courtney Park and Golden Meadows Master plan.
It is our opinion that the plans set forth by the developer
J.L.B. Construction of Dallas, Texas do not adhere to the
personal reasons why we purchased a $105,000.00 home in
the Golden Meadows Sub Division. We purchased our home as an
exclusive upper level income investment. With the interference
of 453 uncovered parking stalls and much lower purchase price
in apartment housing, not to include the way people take care
of rental property, I doubt that our investment would be as
attractive on the resale market.
We have worked hard to get to this point in our lives, and quite
selfishely do not appreciate the possibility of being engulfed by dense
architectural structures, that may very well be an eye sore to
many families in the Golden Meadows Sub Division.
The Planning and development committee needs to consider all of
the above reasons why so many families have moved to this south
east sub division.
Thank you,
._qcut�-n
Garry and Christina Johnson
S r
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibilityy. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No cammitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NW ADDRESS PHONE
2)
3)
4UYK'
t �.
C
RECEIVED
JUN 2 6 1984
PLANNING
C1T�E �t ��i_ Coil►1S ,� 2nr�`�i an�1�"�nlc�pmLi�� DEPARTMENT
3u,'
F-o rt �CF-,Q
��Pf,GPL��� C�Ui�C�•���� v� :�uc' 6'l��C�`1,b0�!�1�C,;�` �� thsL
C1Ju�in �ar�c� v ls.D �rc�,rr�grl J J,�e. �`: n •T GC��(�Fn C�c�vw
�.Ul, p . C�60.�to� p1 Irv, � �r� �o�dm �c�O� ���� hr;,��� •��n���
` ( lam' n 0'(9 J \ t - Na7� C v�1
1 ++1
.Ltl Un `x-
P
Kaza r ci , than
\tCLlu-(�-6— �OOv , �3 ��z j cj�j r
0.r\. o�jj -d -S��}�
tc `f
1 {�
Q' or� TC� Ak-1 f kqi �, C EO >'��a �E.�c)j
L2�t �_ �, �h`� 1� l� fir, c1�� � C��Se_s��r
\12L rlo ILI 1
Exhibit 1
KZVFK architects/planners
a professional corporation
218 west mountain avenue
fort collets, co 80521 usa
telephone 303 493-4105
June 21, 1984
Office of Planning and Development
300 LaPorte Ave
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
ATTN: Cathy Chianese
RE: Courtney Park, P.U.D.
Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members,
Located at the intersection of two arterial streets, Harmony Road and South
Lemay Avenue, the proposed Courtney Park PUD is a site well suited for high
density development as designated in the Golden Meadows Master Plan.
Close proximity to city parks and neighborhood and regional shopping cen-
ters give further justification for the proposed density of 18.77
units/acre.
Courtney Park is an apartment project of 264 units with 144 one bedroom
apartments and 120 two bedroom apartments ranging from 637 S.F. to 1120
S.F. with fireplaces and sunrooms among some of the features. Buildings
contain 24 units and are broken into three segments containing 8 apartments
each and are separated by an outdoor breezeway. These segments of the
building are offset by 12 feet which in combination with the breezeway
helps to give variation and interest to the street facade and reduce the
overall mass of the building. Roof masses are interrupted by varying shapes
of dormers to further enhance the interest of the building elevations
EK,
Planning and Zoning Board Members
June 21, 1984
Page Two
and reduce the scale. The 2J story buildings range in height from 32'-6"
to 38'-6". Colonial grid windows along with exterior materials of brick
and horizontal siding in neutral colors combine to create a traditional
style of architecture very similar and in keeping with the existing Medema
housing in Golden Meadows second filing. Amenities include an outdoor pool
and clubhouse complete with exercise room, men's and women's lockers,
saunas, and community room.
The buildings are arranged along a circulation loop which divides the site
into those buildings around the perimeter of the loop and those on the
interior of the loop along with the clubhouse. Access to the loop is pro-
vided from Lemay Avenue, an arterial and Wheaton, a collector. Head -in
parking is provided along the length of the circulation loop and at various
points along the route parking areas widen into secondary loops thereby
reducing the monotony of a continuous uninterupted drive. The minimum
building setback from the property line along Lemay Avenue is 30 feet with
a typical green landscape buffer along the majority of Lemay of 73 feet.
The minimum building setback from the property line along Harmony Road is
84 feet with a typical green landscape buffer of 95 feet. The minimum
building setback from the property line along the east property line is 28
feet with a similar landscape buffer of 28-40 feet. The minimum building
ZVFK architects,/planners. 218 west mountain avenue, fort collins, co. 80521 usa. telephone 303 4934105
Planning and Zoning Board Members
June 21, 1984
Page Three
setback from the property line along Wheaton Road is 57 feet widening to
80 feet with a major portion of the green landscape buffer at 125 feet.
Since the original submittal of the PUD to the neighborhood, several
noteworthy revisions to the plan have been implemented. Buildings A-1 and
A-2 have been eliminated from the northwest corner of the site thus
reducing the unit count from 280 to 264 and increasing the amount of
recreational open space. The resulting lesser parking requirement has
also increased the amount of recreational open space and decreased the
amount of asphalt area resulting in an open space of over 60%. The
landscape plan has been redesigned to provide better screening along Lemay
and better buffering along Wheaton. The curbcut on Wheaton has been relo-
cated to the west to line up with Revere Court to help reduce the impact of
traffic passing by Golden Meadows Second Filing and alleviate the possibi-
lity of traffic entering New Bedford Drive as a result of the proposed pro-
ject.
To summarize, the proposed Courtney Park PUD is well situated at the afore-
mentioned site based on the following Land Development Guidance System
assumptions and conclusions. (#1) That any land use likely to occur in
Fort Collins can in most cases be made compatible with any neighboring
land use through careful design and buffering. Attention has been given to
ZVFK architects/planners. 218 west mountain avenue. tort collins, co. 80521 usa. telephone 303 493-4105
MK
Planning and Zoning Board Members
June 21, 1984
Page Four
architectural design, as previously mentioned, to help blend of the
buildings into a character similar to the existing neighborhood. The
smaller and lower one bedroom buildings have been grouped at the perimeter
of the site facing Wheaton Drive to help complete a transition to the lower
density of Golden Meadows Second Filing. To further buffer the single
family housing from the proposed apartment project, more than adequate set-
backs have bene provided along with substantial landscape screening and
earth berming. (#7) The City of Fort Collins should provide guidance for
the location of higher density residential and neighborhood commercial
uses. The location of the proposed Courtney Park PUD adjacent to city
parks, neighborhood and regional shopping centers, and at the intersection
of two arterial streets conforms to the Ci ty's parameters for location of
high density uses. Existing utility services are available to the project
which when extended to future adjacent projects will promote the phased
expansion of utilities and promote a pattern of contiguous growth.
As stated in the Land Use Policy Guidelines heading of Neighborhood
Compatibility - "Any negative or adverse impacts shall be effectively miti-
gated in the planned unit development plan. When two adjacent parcels are
developed simultaneously, the responsibility for mitigating conflicts is
upon the more intense use." The developer of the proposed project has
taken steps to work with the concerns of the neighborhood as outlined in
ZVFK architects/planners. 218 west mountain avenue, fort collins, co. 80521 usa. telephone 303 4934105
Planning and Zoning Board Members
June 21, 1984
Page Five
Appendix C of Land Use Conflict Mitigation Measures. (1) Open space set-
backs have been provided in relationship to the amount of conflict to each
adjoining neighbor. (2) Landscaping and earth berm buffering have been
provided to screen the project both from the Lemay property line and espe-
cially the Wheaton Drive property line. (3) Buildings for the most part
have been oriented completely away from the single family housing of Golden
Meadows Second Filing with the larger buildings being located on the
interior of the circulation loop or to the opposite end of the site along
Harmony Road. Measures (4) Barriers and Alleviation and (5) Architectural
Compatibility have been discussed with regards to landscape screening and
buffering and building and site design. (6) The placement of the drive
and parking area at the northern part of the project provides a further
buffer to the single family housing of 99 feet which when taken into
account with the landscaped buffer of 125 feet and the 80 foot R.O.W. of
Wheaton Drive produces a total setback of over 300 feet for more than half
the length of the northern property line.
The Courtney Park PUD as proposed exceeds the percentage points required by
the density chart under the criteria as established by the Land Use Policy
Guidelines. The developer has effectively mitigated negative or adverse
impacts to existing neighborhoods to an extent considered reasonable. With
ZVFK architects/planners. 218 west mountain avenue, fort collins, co. 80521 usa. telephone 303 493-4105
Planning and Zoning Board Members
June 21, 1984
Page Six
the possibility of making minor technical revisions in mind, it would
appear that the project as proposed meets the requirements for approval.
Best regards,
ZVFK Arc itects/Planners
Frank Vaught
Principal
FV/mk
ZVFK architects/planners. 218 west mountain avenue, fort collins, co. 80521 usa. telephone 303 493-4105
C
C
)-arzlcl—1
No Text
—PLa a.J -�?ay-SpEnavc
4112 (fLayton eourt
9ort eollins, e2olotado S0525
June 21, 1984
Nis. Cathy Chianese
Uffice of Planning and Development
300 LaPorte Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado 0522
Dear Nis. Chianese,
We are writing to you in regard to the Courtney Park P.U.D.
Preliminary Site Plan, the Golden i'eadows P.U.D. i•laster -21an,
and the golden :Ieado-,s _;eighborhood Center Preliminary Site
Plan. As residents of the G.--1den lieado:rs subdivision, T.re are
Opposed to these proposed developments for tie folio�-rin."
reasons.
1 . ) 'traffic problems. T.ie feel that the graveled cortion of
Lemay is already hazardous. 'We believe that it simply cannot
safely handle any increased traffic that would undoubtedly
result if the proposed developments were approved and built.
2.) School overcrowding. Children from this area are already
being bused due to overcrowding. There are man --,_single parents
now living in a,-,artments, especially lo-a rent apartments.
','ithout a new school in t'n_is ��.rea, the school overcrowding
problem twill only be aggravated.
3.) Uncov=red parking. The covenants for Golden Eeadows
subdivision restrict on -street parking. This helps maintain an
attr:_ctive nei=rhborhood w -.ic h is pleasant to live in and
enhances resalability. Open parking in the proposed
develo--ments is incorapatable with Golden 2ieadows subdivision.
Neighborhood incompatibility. ':ie do not feel that the
desi,7n of the proposed developments "mesh" witL olden i=eadows
subd.va
Ls ion. I'he architectural design, building scale, bulk
and hei_ht of the proposed arartment units are not comoatible
:%rith the architectural design and f e�tures of the single
family residences in the ::olden i eadows subdivision. lso, we
think that the proposed t ees and number of businesses in the
Golden '-,eado--Ts ieighborhood. Center Preliminary cite Plan ! re
incompatibile w-itL_ tize area and that the development would draw
too =Large a volume o -Traffic for a residential area.
5.) _Ieighborhood overcrowding. Th�- current density of the
area is 3 to __ units =r acre. the rropo:,ed development_
would have density of 20 units per acre. The 1�=rge influx
Of peo_:;le to tr_e area would create numerous pro-olems. _�he
,y s
NAME ADDRESS
10
13)
14)
15)
17)
PHONE
18)20)
:7�- L Anxe�
19)
J
22) ct
23) F.4
24)
251
26'�d �U
27)'(l/�a� r�;(QG.�i"tom r.Z� o�%a3I r%j,
23)
29)
-��30) ti(' .G� •.�w �� 3 3
3 1 bu cj/-�
32 )
33)
34 )
lira aml cRay cSP-ence¢
4172 C'Lay&on eouzf
90tt CfolZins, C'olozado SO525
neighborhood park ana recreation facilities would be
inadequate. Also, we are concerned about public safety
with. so many families living in such a small area.
We arpreciate this opportunity to exyress our concerns.
thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
a,,J—�
day and Lisa 6pencer
City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning and Development
300 LaPorte Ave..
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Sirs,
21 June 1984
RECEIVED
JUN 2 5 12)94
DE P A FiTIVIF-NT
We have recently moved to Ft. Collins from California and have purchased a
home in the Medema Golden !Meadows Development.
Although we did not question the developer at the time of buying this home
we did assume that the area was zoned for single unit family dwellings. It now
comes as somewhat of a surprise to us that immediately adjacent this development
it is proposed to develop a large number of apartments and businesses. (re.
Courtney Park F'UD, Golden Meadows PUD Master Plan and Neighborhood Center)
While not questioning the need for such housing and facilities we do regret
the apparent intent of the city to consider locating them in such close proximity
to the present area of single family units. Specifically we see an inherent
incompatibility between high density rental 'housing and single family homes
including the traffic and safety problems posed to the area by the large number
of residents of these proposed unitsgive very serious consid-
eration is my hope that the City of Fort Collins will
to these proposed developments and their likely highly adverse impact on
this area of the city before reaching a decision in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. D. L. Lile
June 21, 1984
City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Dear members of the Planning and Zoning Board,
I am writing this letter with very sincere concerns about the proposed
Courtney Park P.U.D. Development. I have lived in the Golden Meadows
area for some time, and know it to be a stable, well establised and
very much family neighborhood. The development of this project, as
proposed, would definitely devalue the existing surrounding properties
and make Golden Meadows and Whalers Cove a lesser desirable neighborhood
to live in.
I am a real estate salesperson in Fort Collins, and have never seen a
project of this density and magnitude built in a neighborhood with
home values of $100,00.00 plus. Projects such as Mission Hills
Condominiums was a well planned and built project for its surrounding
areas. The condominiums currently being built on Landings Drive is
another project that blends well with The Landings neighborhood. The
Govenor's Park complex, even with its size was well developed with a
large amount of green open space and amenities, none of which this pro-
posed project is offering. I refer to these surrounding areas of these
apartment/condo projects as, "NEIGHBORHOODS". The definition of such
a 'neighborhood' is "a section lived in by neighbors and usually having
distinguishing characteristics'.
This project with as many one bedroom apartments and very little open
greenbelt area does not connote neighborhood living. Therefore the
extreme problem of social and neighborhood development incompatability.
If built, I would like to see this project scaled down in size, bulk
and building height to better blend with Golden Meadows and Whalers
Cove neighborhoods.
The density, design and incaTatability are just a few of the major
problems this project causes. One severe problem I foresee, is that
of traffic impact on this newly developed area of town. Not only for
traffic flow on the undeveloped Lemay extension, but also the concern
for neighborhood children safely walking to and from their bus stops
each morning and afternoon. The proposed high density would therefore
increase substantially the traffic flow and possibly cause safety
problems for those people already living in the area. From the resource
protection aspect, we would be sacrificing nearly all of the large trees
that this neighborhood has to offer. We are speaking of old established
trees. This poses a two fold problem; one of beauty and preservation
and the other of buffering of noise from the highly traveled Harmony
Road.
There are various other distressing situations that this proposed pro-
ject would cause, but too niurnrous to mention. `MOse r ntion above
of extreme incompatability, traffic impact, safety difficulities,
possible devaluation of property values and architectural design problems
are I believe the most serious. I, along with my neighbors, would like
you to reconsider the Planners decision of allowing this project to
begin. If not halting this project altogether, at least the redesigning
of a much laver density to a livable 10-12 units per acre. This would
alleviate many many problems.
Thank you for your consideration,
Susan D. Barnett
Homeowner @ 1112 Monticello Court
CC: Ms. Cathy Chianese
F rom
To
Dilip Mu.ranjah
1 656 Shenandoah Circle
Ft.Collins,CO 80525
City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning and Developement
300 Laporte Avenue.
P.O.Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522
Re: Courtney Park
Golden Meadows
Golden Meadows
Site Plan
.June 21 . Fly
RECE It' i0.
JUNI 2 6 Q34
P L A Pd N i '!
DMARTIv &T
P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan
P.U.D. Master plan: and
Neighborhood center Preliminary
Dear sir
I an a. homeowner of a Medema home in Golden Meadows and
I am concerned with the present Courtney Park P.U.D. preliminiary
site plan.Golden Meadows P.U.D. Master Plan and Golden Meadows
Neighborhood Center preliminary site plan.
My concern starts with neighborhood incompatabilty
i.e. rented vs oweneo, renters do not take good care of the place
as owner which leads to undesirable unclean neighbouhood which in
turn pulls down property values of nearby properties.
High density housing means increased traffic which creates safety
problems along with increased noise and unclean neighborhood.
I understand that there will be non covered parking and
most of the buildings will be more than 35 feet or so,this does
not go with surrounding housing .
The more I study about the whole plan which includes the
three apartment complex consisting of 670 units.neighborhood
center consisting of rest.aurents,bank.,super market,office building
and also car wash. According to me all this does not belong to the
neighborhood of single family houses with average value of 120 k$I
instead these sites should be developed exclusively as single
family owner occupied hosing. I even think density of 8 to 12 units
per acre as suggested by some neighbor at last meeting is not
acceptable if these are going to duplexes and triplexes non owner
occupied housing.
I hope you take note of my concerns and I believe most
my neighbor has same concerns,the bottom line is deny the
approval of Courtney Park,and also. get rid of neighborhood center.
T.gincere,ly,
(Dili, Muranian)
MR. AND MRS. ORIN L. BARTHOLOMEW RECEIVED
1601 BuxUngton CouAt
Fwrt CoUims, CO 80525
J U N 2 C, 1384
June 21Nj.0� ,.
DCEPAR T H,IE dT
City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning and Development
300 Laporte Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Dear Friends:
We, Doris and Orin L. Bartholomew, are opposed to the Courtney Park P.U.D.
Preliminary Site Plan; Golden Meadows P.U.D. Master Plan; and Golden Meadows
Neighborhood Center Preliminary Site Plan.
We are primarily concerned for the following reasons:
1. Neighborhood social incompatability:
The density of 280 apartment units in thirteen buildings will
bring into the area many, many transient residents who will
not be interested in maintaining their property. Low income
problems of crime, drugs, and alcohol will come into this area.
Traffic hazards to children and adults are bound to interfere
with the freedom of living in this area of single residential
homes which are family oriented. High density problems spill
over into the community adjacent to it even though they are
not living in the private residential area. We believe the
persons in this area of private residential homes have earned
the right to enjoy freedom of living in comfortable circumstances
without the worry and concern of high density problems nearby.
If the 280 apartments are approved, soon the 670 apartment
units will be approved and the business park will also bring in
undesirable traffic problems into this area.
2. Neighborhood development incompatability:
The density of 280 apartment units or any other apartment units
will lower the value of the residential homes already established,
landscaped, and beautified. 22' story apartments tend to be
architecturally the same regardless of minor changes in appearance
of the buildings. A ''closed -in city area'' with narrow streets,
uncovered parking of loads of automobiles, and lack of aesthetic
values in living make this an area in which residents use it as
just a place to eat and sleep. The people in this neighborhood have
progressed beyond this stage of developmentare entitled as taxpayers
to a compatible development of residential homes and low density
condominiums which will enhance, not lower, the property values.
Therefore, we wish to register our negative vote to the Courtney Park
P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan; Golden Meadows P.U.D. Master Plan; and Golden
Meadows Neighborhood Center Preliminary Site Plan.
Thank you for giving this disapproval your careful consideration.
OLB:dwb
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. Orin L. Bartholomew
RECEIVED
sUr12Cz 19134
A� CEPARTM[-:NT
C) a LAG Ci./w�
S
CT —. _.� d' U D M CL� , �v $ ��� Cyr
wre c� per,,, ✓ Y.�,,,,•4, t)./`a�.�.�..r..� � V'h�•C-�-+�v� XI-�� •.
LAID
p,�w�.+-o•� wKkt- �..; ;tea �� � � .a�,a.,►.-...� i�..a_ aw.Y� C,�
C.,-,a, -Ja
— 2_ —
ML
Zia
Cal
, .. -rr^: n „><+""•"�^° �'!'75=+.vy .+r �Rpi�.-r�rr* y """A'��p`s�7^..re�u �Y'��?F{NtiS,� "'Xs:'Cf i F° : �,[/'�r'..`.�"ge:�f x rvnf,.� r aem�+C"'hR'f`+Lr�?llrr.=arrw'. .
�1
CG'Tv LAC FL [ C�LI3l1`J
�� , JUN27 1984
C� 1C`_F OF t•
l�TT1J tni� �AT�1`I l �1tA13 E PLANNING
uL� DEPARTMENT
Ci- M\l fir_ _u r�cs5 0 oPPC ��n>J -cD RLI � A2v�St
�f�t2_tNLv t'A:2_ BUDQucr,�ilu :�,T
is �►��n TAE
MITta Ccm t.�?t.�
L1u t t� i .iE �nv�+✓ At-+ �C tlt+CT -��1 t L
na !:
CtiA{=w����.�ilU►_
.W,c�y �Ef(1 1�.\� t ;KVE -I L,ktAA' Eil to t�i_� OrAl D�L Pop, . CA`Q CA�it��Ell
R)O. t 1;7 �ii?�C(1Zp
V:-,
RECEIVED
JUN 26 1984
NI PLANIN't-
N T
t,7
tLl
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Ccnlpati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemagy Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this projec� on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAME
2)��
3) A-�
ADDRESS PHONE
2Z3'
9457
ale/
, 7'e �2 .3 '(
7) ` it
.� I
i�j �-,�c l Z SLR- ► ��— _ 22 f, - `I a7
// -
MEDEMA HOMES, INC.
A DIVISION OF
AMERICAN CONTINENTAL CORPORATION
DATE: June 24, 1984
TO: Ft. Collins Plannin; & Zoning Commission
FROM: Curt Schreiber, Golden Meadervrs Community 11'1anal7er
RE: Courtney Park PUD
As both a homeowner in Golden :eadows & a salesperson, for 11(.,,dema Homes
in this area, I stronnly object of the proposal for Courtney Park as it
now stands. The primary reasons for my opposing the plan are as follows:
1. The plan for more than 1- units per acre is both socially &-
architecturally-i,appropriate for the area which is comprised of
sin,-Je family homes in the $ 1C0,000 to 1_60,C00 price ran,,^e with
the nei^hborhood of predominently families :.ith children.
2. The addition of such a lar-e number of livin- units at the present
time ;-i'_1. defi-:itely overload the streets in the area with traffic
coming, to C- from the apartments. The result ,Till be that some
residential collector streets will be turned into major arterials
until the City of Ft. Collins can provide proper access around
17arre:n Lake by pavin- Lemay Ave. south of Horsetooth Rd.11
3. The tv o major concerns listed above as well as the problems of
par.:i.n^ & hi -,her crime rates will have an adverse affect on the
nronerty values in the area. ?,bile an apartment complex does not
r.eces:sari'_y decrease ones property value, a project of this density
and desi.7n which is totally incompatible with the surrounding
area would have a negative affect on both property values & on
the quality of Life that the residents in Golden i'eadows
currently enioy.
MEDEMA PLAZA • SUITE 208
3665 JFK PARKWAY • FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 • (303) 226-5531
City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning and Development
300 Laporte Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Lear Planning and Zoning Board Members:
RECEIVED
June 25, 1984
JUN 2 7 1984
PLANNING
ING
CEPAR s'MENT
I attended the "neighborhood meeting" held on June 6, 1984
at the City Council Chambers. I have several major concerns re-
garding the proposed Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan
as it was presented at the meeting.
I live at the south end of New Bedford Drive approximately
200-300 feet from the proposed Courtney Park buildin,; site. The
proposed site clan calls for a curb cut onto Wheaton Drive that
is directly in line with New Bedford Drive. I strongly feel that
this location of a curb cut will greatly increase the traffic
along New Bedford Drive. I have a two year old child and am
concerned for the safety of my child and other children living
along New Fedford Drive and the adjoining cul-de-sacs. Therefore,
I would like to recommend that the Courtney Park curb cut onto
;Wheaton Drive be located 20-30 feet to the west of New Bedford Drive
to minimize unnecessary traffic down New Bedford Drive.
A second concern that I have of the preliminary plan is the
development incompatibility of having such a high residential
density to 20 units per acre immediately adjacent to a neighborhood
having 3-4 units per acre. I mi-ht suggest that, a density of
10-12 units per acre and a landscaped buffer zone of 100 feet between
Golden Veadows second filing and Courtney Park, be considered as
an alternative to the current proposal. An excellent example in
Fort Collins at a development that would be compatible with the
Golden Meadows subdivisions is the Scotch Pines apartment complex
located on East Drake Road.
A final problem that I see with the Courtney Park P.U.D.
plan is the increased traffic burden that would be placed on
Lemay Avenue, particularly with the road being unfinished around
Warren lake. Again, my main concern is for the safety of
neighborhood children walking and riding their bikes along
Lemay Avenue near the lake. I would like to point out that, if
the number of planned units per acre were reduced at Courtney
Park, then this and other traffic prob�!ems would be alleviated
proportionate-Ly.
Thank you for reviewing my letter
Sincerely,
John ;;latter Irving
4330 New Bedford Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Landings (2.0mmunity Fkiz5ociation , Unc.
PO. Box 9537, Fort Collins, CO. 80525
July 13, 1984 RECEIN'EQ
City of Fort
Collins
31j6 2 2 1984
Planning
and
Zoning Commission
300
LaPorte Avenue
Fort
Collins,
CO 80521=;"
Re:
Courtney
Park PUD and Golden Meadows PUD
To: The Planning and Zoning Commissioners
At the request of the Golden Meadows and Whaler"s
Cove (Wood Brothers) Homeowner's Association the
Landings Community Association Board of Directors has
considered the above mentioned proposals and their
impact upon the Landings Community Association.
The Board has voted at its regular meeting on June
11, 1984 to recommend to the Plannning and Zoning
Commission that the above projects be denied as
presently formulated.
The Landings Community Association Board of
Directors wishes to express the following concerns with
regard to the proposals as currently presented:
1. Until completion of Lemay Avenue North to
Horsetooth Road the proposals would have a
serious negative impact on the neighborhood
due to increased traffic through the
residential streets in the neighborhood.
2. Even following completion of Lemay Avenue
increased traffic resulting from the large
number of units being proposed would have
an adverse impact on the existing residential
streets and areas.
3. Large numbers of additional dwelling units
proposed in the area would create significant
problems in the administration of Warren
Reservoir as a private lake. The proposed
projects are within walking distance of Warren
Lake which is a privately owned reservoir not
located within the City of Fort Collins.
4. The proposals call for high density dwellings
without adequate buffer, greenbelt or other
medium density dwelling units between the
proposals and the existing low density single
family residential neighborhoods immediately
adjacent and nearby.
Thank you for giving our comments in this matter your
consideration.
Sincerely,
THE LANDINGS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.
i
By:
Lynh rlis e, Pres dent
RLH/pb
cc: Golden Meadow Homeowner's Association
Whaler's Cove Homeowner's Association
EXHIBIT 6
ZVFK architects/planners
a professional corporation
218 west mountain avenue
fort collins, co. 80521 usa
telephone 303 493-4105
July 16, 1984
Ms. Cathy Chianese
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Courtney Park
Dear Cathy,
It has become apparent that the opposition to Courtney Park is divided in
two factions. Prior to our most recent neighborhood meeting I felt very
encouraged that our meetings with representatives on the homeowners asso-
ciation (Gordon Hadlow and Larry Marsh) were moving in a positive direction
acceptable to both parties. However, with the recent appeal of the Master
Plan and with attitudes of certain residents, I do not feel a compromise
can be reached in good faith with those residents who are interested in
negotiation.
As you are aware, we feel the proposed density to be appropriate and our
efforts to achieve compatibility have been directed at mitigation through
open space, landscaping, and reducing building height along Wheaton. We
have studied a total of six site plan alternatives and have reduced the
total units from 280 to 264. Several hours have been spent meeting with
neighbors but still no apparent solution has been reached.
At this point we feel there is nothing more that we can do until we know
where the neighborhood stands. We are therefore requesting the following
of the neighborhood:
Unite to the extent possible as one group with a common goal of
achieving an acceptable compromise.
If unification can be accomplished, then withdraw the appeal of the
master plan.
If total agreement cannot be reached then agree to speak out as a
group in favor of the master plan.
Agree to work together to push for the completion of Lemay Ave. at
the earliest possible date.
T
e-
I►,L0 7 L �171 •_-1I
Ft. Collins, Colorado
January 8, 1987
JLB Construction
760 Whalers Way
Bldg. B
Suite 102
Ft. Collins, Colorado
Attention: Bill Bowden
Dear Bill:
As indicated in our phone conversation January 7, 1987, Mountain
Bell has no problem with the encroachment by 2.65 feet into the
twenty foot utility easement between bldgs. 4 & 5 at Courtney Park
PUD, located in the southwest quarter of Section 31, T7N, R68W, of
the 6th PM, Larimer County, Colorado.
Yours truly,
RL Snow
Assistant Manager
Mountain Bell
PARSONS &
ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
January 14, 1987
Jan Kimsey
Storm Drainage Dept.
City of Fort Coll -ins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Courtney Park P.U.D.
Dear Jan:
Parsons and Associates has been asked by JLB to investigate the drainage
problem at Courtney Park P.U.D. A 12" diameter pipe was installed instead of
an open swale that was shown on the plans. The pipe carries runoff from an
area of approximately 1.35 acres to detention pond C (see attached sketch).
Conclusions:
The 1.35 acre sub -basin will generate 2.79 c.f.s. runoff volume for the
100 year storm under developed conditions. The 12" pipe will carry 1.84 c.f.s.
flowing 82% full. If water ponds at the pipe inlet above the 82% depth, it
will reach the finished floor elevation of the nearest dwelling unit.
Recommendations:
To decrease the volume of runoff reaching the 12" pipe, a re -alignment of
drainage patterns in the sub -basin will be required. By blocking an existing
curb chase and constructing a new one in a different location (see sketch),
the flow to the pipe can be reduced to 1.67 c.f.s. The pipe can carry this
flow at only 75% full. The other 1.05 c.f.s. from the sub -basin will be di-
verted through the parking lot to an open swale and carried to detention pond
C. As an added safety factor, an additional curb chase should be constructed
as an emergency overflow (see sketch) to help prevent flooding of dwelling units.
To increase the inlet efficiency of the 12" pipe, a flared end section
should be added to the inlet end.
If you have questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Donald M. ParscA
DMP/ln
Enclosure
• 432 Link Lane Plaza Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524 • [3031 221-2400
ra
ti
\j ILI
jn I
�' - -- A DO
03
Ul
:mNAAV AVVJ:1-1
1 }-
NAME
ADDRESS
r
i
�;A'
(J
of
JAI
20)
2S)
2*
2C
2&)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
PHONE
�z6 /c 1
aI;0-qv
7 7-5v
�2-3
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
2) l
6)
7)
8)
9)
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surroundingg neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, 6u11Zg height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAME
a
2)
3)
4) k 7-e-z
- /dlcll�
�frZr�
5)
i�t3c v Tca zw-cc,
7) �� �, , L �7 3c,
PHONE
22-G - 2-/3S-
-22 - 4R 11-3
t
J
ADDRESS PHONE
10)
11) ij, G� 47112-L'
12) � " C�� �/ / -� u
13)
14)
15)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
Zi
3 > Z
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Plann inq a►)d Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Ccmpati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
p n
q)�q .2,2..?-',�7
Cw
6)
7)
8)
9)
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lamy Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact
of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAME
ADDRESS PHONE
,
r 4)12,
7
-
6)
7)
STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES
Courtney Park is located at the intersection of Harmony Road and South
Lemay in the Golden Meadows subdivision. Access to the site is provided
by two entrances, one from Lemay, an arterial, and the other from
Wheaton Road, a collector.
Whalers Cove single family housing is across Lemay to the west while
Golden Meadows single family housing is across Wheaton to the north thus
providing a pattern of contiguous growth. Existing services are
available to the project which, when extended to future adjacent pro-
jects will promote the phased expansion of utilities.
The addition of Courtney Park to the neighborhood with a density of
19.90 DU/AC enhances the policy of mixed housing densities with existing
single family housing adjacent. Higher density residential usage at
this location is further justified by proximity of community shopping
centers, neighborhood parks, and availability of water and sewer facili-
ties. The higher density is also well located at this site due to the
intersection of two arterial streets.
The site design for Courtney Park allows for a good deal of open space
considering the density achieved and parking required. Active open spa-
ces are effectively used to buffer the proposed two story buildingsfrom
adjacent single family housing. Access to the project, with the excep-
tion of the access from Wheaton as required by traffic engineering, has
been kept away from existing single family neighbors to lessen the
impact of traffic circulation on lower density developments and direct
it toward collector and arterial street.
Site detention is located along Harmony Road and helps to create a major
setback and buffer for the south border of the project.
Landscaping will also be used to provide screening and further enhance
the buffer space between single family housing.
Open space and street R.O.W.'s will be privately owned and maintained.
Construction is expected to begin in the Summer of 1984 with a complete
buildout in a period of 18-24 months. The clubhouse and recreation
facility will be built in the initial stage of construction and will
serve as a leasing office.
NA ADDRESS
10) �` �l L7�� r,
12)
13 >
15)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32 )
33)
34 )
PHONE
71
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Le -many Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NA7 ADDRESS PHONE
2) L{�� 1A z
3)
4) ✓I11�/�%� `%/) iclr_�CG�C.Ct�c ✓ �cSLi�� /c '/
,
'/
NAME: ADDRESS PHONE
10)
11) lc�7
12)
13)
14)
15)
16 4�---
17)
18)
ig) "WallS-
LF
20)
21)
22) _j(y
t,,f' LA o 5z- 5
23)
25,)
26) 441
27)
2 Lk Wz-
29)
a
7K 30)
31)
32)
33)
U u",
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAME
2)
3)
5)
6) �. L� C-X—
ADDRESS PHONE
7G�t%L%
vL
8}
9}
?Z3-7-7S�
7'a-J-
zZ3 -SS 7F
zZ3-SS7%
e I6�
�� 3 6,/6 j.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
10) ' �1 vu 5('
11) j-')( I nl� A� ' G 1 *�i I Jb N Gv p{r `fY' ` I
12) C�,� �D r� (�VItiLvCa� 4L2o� ✓1/la5W CT- 2-z-3
13)?ti G%� C 4 2U 7 rS z Cr zz
14)
16)
17)
18)
19) L�Lti _✓kt,%t� �1� �l �' ��i �n���. �c cQ
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34 )
d 1�6 -spa
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1.) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAME
2)
3)
5)
ADDRESS
lx/CG ae'2�2zi�V4� (,/-.'
ti l y &//` L_11-e Ct
PHONE
C�
�119 117rl
l
8) a�-r. % X,.� �-..� I i rf ate,
z
z Z3
9 76
zz3
223--72-o(,,
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
�) / /
10)
11)��ti��� l tires fca� s DY
12) uL-41 4
14 >�
16),�
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
3 7.', I
RECEIVED
JUN 2 2 1984
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social incompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAMEf ADDRESS PHONE
20a-
71",a,
3) ��C� ��� C Z73-n< <
7)
9) ,,
T %�2y/U
��. -ZLT
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
10,
12)
15>, J
16)
17y'
18)
19) ,
2
21)
2 2 ) /L/ayrafo',cr—
23)'�
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
r 7 A,;5 p ,v Gam: 7-7-3 e�
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Le -many Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAME
2) � �,r A�
3)
4)01
G1J�
5) ' 7 /,-/,
7),
9)
ADDRESS /PHONE
0A-JI "t tl Gd-
/ZOro Ah/Qcr„r �f-
1I!A
o22-3—off
a� & "y_5�
it
Z � 7— -7
z z� - 3�73
Exhibit 3
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY
On Wednesday, April 25, 1984, at City Hall, a neighborhood meeting was held to
discuss the proposed Courtney Park PUD (refer to attached City notice dated
April 9, 1984). Of the fifty notices sent out announcing the meeting, 11
persons were in attendance. The meeting was primarily a question and answer
session among residents, the developer and his ,epcesent atives, and Cathy
Chianese, project planner.
At the request of the neighborhood, including the Golden Meadows Subdivision,
Whalers Cover PUD, and the Landings PUD, a second meeting to discuss the
project was held on Wednesday, June 6, 1984. A neighborhood resident took
responsibility for neighborhood notification of the meeting (refer to attached
letter dated May 10, 1984, from Ms. Kristen Jensen).
Seventy-four (74) residents attended the meeting and unanimously voiced their
strong opposition to the project. A summary of the neighborhoods' comments
follows:
1. Density. The project density (18.7 DU/ac) is too high and inappropriate
iv -the site's adjacency to existing single family residences. A more
acceptable density would be the 8-12 DU/acre.
2. Specific Site Design Concerns. A number of issues concerning the specific
Courtney Park PUD were raise :
a. Setbacks of buildings from streets are inadequate.
b. Landscape plan does not provide for an adequate quantity of materials
nor effective screening through placement of berms and plantings.
c. Open space is not well located on the site and the amount provided is
not adequate for the size of the project.
d. 2 1/2 story buildings are inappropriate given 1 and 2 story height of
existing single family residences in neighborhood.
e. Garages or carports should be provided instead of open parking.
f. More access points for project should be provided on Lemay Avenue or
Harmony Road.
g. The proposed curb cut on Wheaton Drive lining up with New Bedford
will encourage traffic through the existing Golden Meadows Subdivi-
sion.
h. The project contains too much asphalt.
i. Will existing trees along Lemay Avenue be retained?
3. Traffic.
a. Improvements to Lemay Avenue are to be completed before building
permits for Courtney Park are issued.
ADDRESS
,z0 1 �'
PHONE
- A�Z?
\-� �c�,C� aA 0(,03
15)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34 )
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
1) ,� C*t� i.o� / Y l � u t< t � � � I car ✓ Y �- J � zz
�'� y,�, (� �
3)
CA
cl
9)
L
_22 6�99
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
1) _IbZ
3j
r
�� 1
4)
5)`:'�
J
i
Z 71 `r
IE
z_ 13-0 / / h
_;?2-("5'cz F
2 Z 3 - /021
No Text
/y7
4207 Shiloh Ct.
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80525
June.12, 1984 RECEIVS)
JLJN 15 1984'
DEPART KIENI
The City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning and Development
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522
Recently it was brought to our attention that a planned unit development will
be located on Tract 4 north of Monte Carlo Drive and on the corner of Harmony
and Lemay Avenues. We are appalled and angered over the proposed density plan
of 20 units per acre. We have serious concerns over the effect this proposed
density would have on traffic and reduction in property value of current home-
owners in the area. It has also been our experience in this community and others
in Colorado and New Mexico that crime increases within a mile radius of apart-
ments with such density.
The Scotch Pines Apartments were built 10-12 years ago when careful planning
was conducted as to aesthetics and with community pride and input a great factor.
However, in recent years Fort Collins has experienced a boos in runaway apartment
buildings, and the "Choice City" has become the "Chance City." Would you purchase
a house across the street from a soon to be apartment complex? Would you resent
the traffic increase on a street that connot now handle the traffic flow (dirt
road)? Would you, as parents, become more concerned about your children's safety?
Would you be concerned about your property value? Would you consider living across
the street from ugly monstrosities that are presently being built in the "Choice
City?"
It is imperative that serious consideration be given to those families that
have made Fort Collins a Choice City rather than accosodating thousands of
people who have yet to pay city or state taxes.
We, of course, recognize that growth is inevitable and encourage it; however,
we are urging the Planning Board to at very least consider reducing the density
in said areas to no more than 12 units per acre and to leave Tract 4 (North of
Monte Carlo) to single family houses. We intend to be at the meeting on the 25th
of June concerning this issue.
Sincerely,
Ken and Phyllis Bledsoe
1 VED
C) JUN 14
PLAANI.14e
"-'ARTMENT
WD,
Llly\
REC:-:,v�-0
JUN 1 v '984
PLA �?t
/Vo
Q)d _
, "Ile Z- e,
61�
No Text
Courtney Park PUD
Neighborhood Meeting on
June 6, 1984
Page Two
b. Are the streets in the area sized adequately to handle projected
traffic volumes?
c. The City's timetable for completion of Lemay Avenue is not acceptable
given the need today for improvement of the street.
4. Incompatibility of Project. The Courtney Park PUD project is incompatible
with the existing surrounding single family neighborhoods for the
following reasons:
a. Single family owner -occupied homes vs. multi-famiy non -owner occupied
apartments.
b. Subdivisions with families and children vs. unstable, transient
apartment community of primarily single persons.
c. Pride of single family home ownership vs. no pride of ownership.
d. Design of units, height, scale, architecture, not compatible with
existing neighborhood.
e. Future quality development of area will be discouraged by Courtney
Park project.
f. Higher density project will burden existing facilities (streets,
parks) in neighborhood.
g. Need in Fort Collins does not exist for 280 apartment units, thus
project will be vacant and become a blight on the neighborhood.
h. Courtney Park PUD will be the largest apartment project in Fort
Collins and as such should be better located.
5. Density Chart. Points awarded for the following items were questioned:
a. Criterion "A" - credit should not be awarded for adjacency to a
planned neighborhood center, only if the facility is constructed.
b. Criterion "D" - credit should not be awarded for adjacency to the
planned Golden Meadows Neighborhood, only if the facility is
constructed.
c. Criterion "J" - how is credit for contiguity calculated?
d. Criterion "V - what energy conservation measures are proposed?
e. Criterion "M" - active open spaces are inappropriately calculated,
i.e., detention area along Harmony Road.
No Text
RECEIVED
MAY 14 1984
May 10, 1984
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
Dear Neighbor:
A public information meeting was held April 25th on a planned
unit development (P.U.D.) to be located at the northeast corner
of Lemay Avenue and Harmony Road (see attached map). The pro—
posed P.U.D. calls for 280 apartment units on 14 acres, or 20
units per acre. The property is presently zoned R—M—P, Medium
Density Planned Residential. Such zoning allows a density of-
12-20 units per acre. To give you a very rough idea of what
such a development might resemble when built, refer to PIER
apartments located at the intersection of Boardwalk and Whaler's
Way. They have an approximate density of 24 units/acre.
Some of the neighborhood residents who attended this meeting
feel that a reduction in the proposed density of this develop—
ment would render it much more suitable in relation to Golden
Meadows and W ha.lcr's a,/2 low density, single family
residence developments. In addition, if you refer to the
attached map you will see that apartment complexes are planned
(at an unspecified future time) for 2 adjacent acreages. These
developments raise some potentially serious concerns regarding
traffic and the Lemay Extension, which to this date is still in
the traffic study stages. Funds have not been raised or des—
ignated for its construction and it must compete for these funds
with a number of other equally pressing public improvement pro—
jects.
A public plan of this P.U.D. is now available from the develop—
ment Center located at 300 Laporte Avenue. Phone 221-6750.
Features of the P.U.D. that the architect mentioned include:
1) Both 2 and 2 1/2 story units.
2) Units from 650 — 1100 sq. ft. in size.
3) Open parking
4) Egress from the P.U.D. that gives directly
onto New Bedford Drive.
The development is described in detail in the public plan
mentioned above.
Steps that we can take to attempt to reduce density to a more
suitable level include:
1) Obtain a copy of the public plan and read it. It's
not a lengthy document.
RECEIVED
Office of Planning and Development
City of Fort Collins MAY 15 lc?'?
300 Laporte Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80522 PLAP•2N11VG
DEPARTMENT
May 12. 1984
Dear Staff:
The purpose of my letter is to describe the concerns that my family
have with regards to the proposed PUD on the northeast corner of
Harmony and Lemay.Since I live more than 500 feet from this
development I did not receive notice of the April 25th meeting.
Therefore I wanted to write my comments to you at this time. The 280
unit apartment building prosposed for that location seems to have a
density which cannot be supported based on Land Development Guidance
System. The following discussion describes why:
1. The very high density does not meet the criteria on Neighborhood
Impact and Quality, item#2. This level of development is a radical
jump from single family homes of about 4 units per acre to 20 units
per acre. Intermediate types of development such as townhome,
condo's or duplexes would be a more realistic transition and blend
much better with the current neighborhood environment. The current
neighborhood environment is characterized by owner occupied homes.
It is characterized by families, generally with several elementary
or junior high aged children. High density apartment that are 600 to
1000 square feet would not likely be consistent with current
development in the area.
This high density of development would also add a large volume of
traffic on New Bedford Drive. This is currently a quiet residential
street. Children learn to ride bvcycles on this street. baseballs,
frisbees and other toys that go astray from games played on
culdesac's and front lawns frequently end up on New Bedford. A
development that has the potential to add 560 people and cars would
represent a very serious safety harzard to children in a very nice
quiet neighborhood.
2. The area proposed for development is not serviced by Transfort
Bus system. Therefore this should detract from the points needed for
this high of density due to great reliance on automobiles of people
living in this apartment complex.
In terms of Neighborhood Servic Center Criteria this project is
not in Northern Fort Collins and would contribute to South College
corridor traffic.
1
4. In terms of the Density Chart this proposed development is:
a. More than 650 feet from an exisiting transit stop.
b. More than 4000 feet from any park:. The nearest park is Warren
Part-- which has become very crowded in the last year as a city
soccer site and the Bartran Cherry Hills condo development has added
hundreds of people.
c. The -480 unit apartment complex is not near any existing
schools. Even if it was near Shepardson, that school is filled. The
elementary children are currently bused to Rif+enberg Elementary.
The junior high and high school students are also bused. It is clear
that adding this level of density may contribute to an already
unsatisfactory school situation. Many of the children in my
daughters class live several miles from where we live. This
certainly reduces the opportunities for interaction after school and
on weekends for our daughter and her classmates.
d. This project does not receive any points for being in North
Fort Collins and no points due to distance away from Central
Business District.
One critical factor that I have not discussed so far is traffic and
transportation problems associated with 280 units in a residential
area with limited access to the main city. by limited access 1 mean
the fact that LEMAY AVE IS A DIRT ROAD FROM TICONDEROGA TO
HORESTOOTH ROAD' Since Lemav is likely to be one of the main roads
for residents of this development no person in their right mind
would approve more development until Lemav is actually been made
safe. As it is now, I am not aware of any concrete time table to
even begin the straightening and paving of this very dangerous road.
This road also serves as our community's access to Warren Park.
Currently, children on foot and on bvcycles compete with cars and
trucks on this narrow dirt road. The gravel nature of the road makes
control of bvcycles and automoblies very difficult. This is the same
road that the 300 to 400 people who would live in this apartment
complex would use to get to Foothills Fashion Mall and Toddy's. It
is the same road that their children would also try to use to go to
Warren Park. At a minimum no approval of development should be
allowed until Lemay Avenue is brought up to cite standards.
In terms of the PUD before you, MY family suggests that the density
of development be substantially reduced so as to blend into our
neighborhood. Based on the points earned by this project and the
surrounding established neighborhood, duplexes and fourplexes would
seem to be the maXimum density compatable. Townhome would be more
consistent. The transition from the single family homes at the
Landinqs to the War+ multi -family development by Harmony Reservoir
would be a good example of what is a good transition. These units
have covered garages and they are generally owner occupied.
2
Hopefully this rather long letter expresses my concerns and provides
a rationale for these concerns. High density development does save
valuable land, but often times I wonder what does it save valuable
land for. If this developer would acquire all of the land saved by
not building townhomes to house these 280 families and dedicate it
to open space, I would be a very strong and vocal supporter of high
density development. As it stands, higher density development just
saves land for more higher density development and no land is really
saved by the higher density development!
Please add me to the mailing list associated with this PUD. Even
though I do not live right across the street (in fact probably more
like 1,000 feet away) my family is very concerned about this high
density development in an RMP zone so close to an established single
family neighborhood. My address is 1206 Ashlawn Ct. , Ft. Collins,
CO 80525.
Thankyou for consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
'
John B. Loomis
~-
pr'��2- ��� �����' `
~- �'~^-~~~—=` ~7 V-"-Q /
No Text
June 12, 1984
i.,A @V11W Yd3Q
i WNNYld
Office of Planning & Development
City of Fort Collinsj Nnr
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
C AGOE a
Dear Staff:
The purpose of my letter is to describe my concern with
regard to the Proposed Courtney Park Planned Unit Develop-
ment on the northeast corner of Harmony Road and Lemay.
I worked for the telephone company for thirty years in and
around Denver. In my position I was able to see the impact
of this kind of development on a community.
The Land Development Guidance System is a good tool to help
prevent this, but I find many points that can, and are,
twisted to meet the needs of the developer. To name a fewt
1. Shopping Center not built, and may or may not
be completed for years.
2. Streets not up to expected city standards, such
as Lemay.
3. Parks that are not in existence, and may or may
not be developed.
4. Ample recreation areas not planned or in existence.
5. The Planned Development is not compatible to the
neighborhood. This level of development is a
radical jump from single, owner -occupied homes
of about four per acre to rentals of twenty per
acre. all existing homes have garages, they have
ample set -back from property lines, and have well -
kept lawns. The proposed P.U.D. has a set -back from
the property line along Wheaton Drive of ten feet.
No units will have garages, only open asphalt
parking.
There is no way this project can be considered
compatible with the existing homes.
Office of Planning & Development -2-
It appears to me that the developers are only interested
in profit, with NO regard to the existing neighborhood.
I ask - "Why should so many sacrifice so much for a profit
for so few?"
Let's keep Fort Collins a choice city, and reject the
Courtney Park Planned Unit Development.
Respectfully,
Paul Johnson
1113 Monticello Court
Fort Collins, Colorado
80525
June 12, 1984
June 12, 1984
Cathy Chianese
Senior City Planner
Office of Planning
and Development
300 LaPorte Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Cathy:
RECEIVED
,JUN 1 1984
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
Thank you for having the public information meeting on June 6th
to better inform a larger percentage of the homeowner's in the
surrounding areas of what the Courtney Park Planned Unit Develop-
ment (on the northeast corner of Harmony Road and Lemay Avenue)
entails.
Please find enclosed, to be included with the public record, a
summary of the comments I made at the meeting last Wednesday and
a copy of the article written on the meeting by James Griffin of
The Coloradoan.
The areas that I covered briefly in my comments on Wednesday,
June 6th, included the following aspects of the Courtney Park
P.U.D.:
1) Egress form the P.U.D., directly onto New Bedford Drive.
2) Economic impact of the P.U.D. on surrounding property values.
3) The economic need for such a development in Fort Collins at
the present time and the market study regarding the target
group for such a complex.
4) The issue of neighborhood compatibility.
5) The Density Chart in the Land Development Guidance System.
6) The Lemay Avenue Extension.
One of the features of the proposed P.U.D. is a road that will
empty out of the apartment complex directly onto New Bedford
Drive. The Golden Meadows Homeowners Association would like to
recommend to the developer and the city planners, that this
access road be removed, either so that both ingress and egress
for the complex are located on Lamy Avenue. Dr il this goes
a ag inst regulation, we would recommend that tbi access road onto
Wheaton Drive be offset substantially to the east -QL west of New
Bedford Drive and that this access road only serve half of the
apartment units, or less,
One of several good features of the Golden Meadows Subdivision is
it's traffic flow lay -out. For example, the court that I live on
is adjacent to, but does not give directly on to Lemay. You have
to drive out of the court and around the block to reach the
arterial. This type of planning contributes greatly to the live-
ability of the subdivision in terms of noise, privacy, safety and
traffic volume.
The second and third points covered related to the economic im-
pact of the project in terms of property values in the surround-
ing neighborhoods, and the need for a project of such magnitude
in Fort Collins at the present time. A general concensus among
the homeowners at the meeting on June 6th was that anytime you
have such a drastic change literally from one side of the street
to the other in scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity,
density and ownership vs. non -ownership, the property values in
the owner -occupied homes surrounding this development are going
to suffer,not to mention the question of resale of those prop-
erties in the future.
We would still all like to hear from you as the project
manager or Frank Vott as the developer, regarding the market
study, as not much was said to throw any light on it at the
June 6th meeting. When queried at the April 25th informational
meeting regarding who was targeted to live in the complex, the
answer was "young professionals" and retired people. It has
been my observation that while Fort Collins is growing at a
considerable rate, it has a severely limited job market for young
professionals when compared to Denver, which often times
offers higher salaries in addition. In the past as a young
professional trying to find a good job, I found it necessary to
cormute to Denver to work. I am aware of a growing number of
people in the same situation.
As for retirement -aged people, why would they think it so advan-
tageous to live in a complex located so far from mass transpor-
tation and shopping, with no covered parking and no amenities in
the complex design such as elevators to suit their needs? In
additicn, rough calculations show that rents for these units
are going to be high in comparison with other rental rates in
Fort Collins. Hopefully, you will provide us with some c r-
ification on the market stud- and the renter profile for this
P.U.D..
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surroundingg neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the corer
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
ADDRESS PHONE
4)�n
Z�3
z,2 (, , /y0 z-
The third point brought up in relation to the Courtney Park
P.U.D. was the issue of neighborhood compatibility. On page 6 of
the Land Development Guidance System, point #2 listed under
Neighborhood Compatibility asks the question in relation to the
proposed P.U.D.: "Is the development compatible with and sensi-
tive to the immediate environment of the site and neighborhood
relative to architectural design; scale, bulk and building
height... and visual integrity?" The Golden Meadows Homeowners
Association would recommend that a planned unit development with
8-12 units/acre with a building height that does not exceed 2
stories more actin recreational 9ipen space and dither attached
garages or covered parking on this site would have a better
chance of falfilling the criteria for neighborhood compatibility
than the development sus i t tas been presented,
At the June 6th meeting, I also made a number of points regarding
the Density Chart located on page 30 of the Land Development
Guidance System. The first refers to criterion "a" which spec-
ifies that a maximum credit of 20% will be given if all dwelling
units are within 2,000 feet of an existing or approved neighbor-
hood shopping center. It has been my understanding that the plan
for the neighborhood shopping center is also currently up for
approval, hence the 20% credit given the developer.
At the April 25th meeting, Mr. Tiley mentioned that the neighbor-
hood shopping center would not be built until there were
"sufficient" numbers of people living in the area to support such
development. This seems to be putting the horse before the cart
in that the developer can use this criterion to gain points to
win approval of a P.U.D. on a project that doesn't necessarily
carry with it any guarantee that it will be built. The Golden
Meadows Homeowners Association recommends that in light of the
act that the neighborhood showing center does not exist, and
at Wrovaf the plan 7�oenot guarantee that t will be
built .ghat -a m imum of 10% credit, rather than 20%. is all
atujd bg given -the devej op� under criterion
Although you spoke to this point at the June 6th meeting, I would
like to suggest again, that the planning staff consider a modifi-
cation to the Land Development Guidance System under criterion
"a" that makes a differentiation in bonus points awarded between
existing and planned shopping centers.
Criterion "j" specifies that a maximum credit of 30% be given to
the developer for a project whose boundary is contiguous to
existing urban development, i.e., Whaler's Cove and Golden
Meadows subdivisions. The developer has awarded himself a bonus
of 23% out of a possible 30%. Although I do not have exact
ficnzres to calculate with,_ from looking at the P.U.D. man.
it axADears as though a bonus of no more than 15-20% is in order,
as there seems_ to be about 20-30% contiguity to existing develop-
ment.
Criterion "M" in the Density Chart allows a bonus of 1/2 the
percentage of total acres in the P.U.D. that are devoted to recre-
ational use. In this instance, the develper has listed on the
neap under "LAND USE DATA", 21.68% of the net project area as
falling under the category of "active" open space, or space
designated for recreational use. My question regarding this is:
can the 80' easement required by the city along Harmony Road
technically be regarded as space feasible for recreational use?
If so, please explain. As I mentioned at the Wednesday meeting,
I have a hard time imagining anyone out playing Frisbee with
their dog or having a picnic in this area. The Golden
Meadows Homeowners Association recommends —that the figure
used in�culatinq this bonus be adjusted accordingly an
that the bonus awarded be reduced.
Last by not least, a few remarks regarding the Lemay Extension
project. At the April 25th meeting, we were informed that the
Lemav extension is still in the traffic study stages and that no
funds for completion of this project have been appropriated. In
light of these facts, The Golden Meadows Homeowners Association
recommends that until the Lemay extension is constructed,
approval for additional building in the area, including the
Courtney Park P.U.D•, SHOULD BE WITHHELD. The traffic
situation on this gravel road at the present time is dan-
gerous at best. Any increased traffic on this road now or while
it is in the construction phases is only going to increase this
hazard manifold.
Sincerely,
Ktisten; e en
1119 Mont'cello Ct.
Fort Col ins, CO 80525
Resmidennits resist
ent plar,7
Traffic, transients are concerns
JAMES GRIFFIN
The Coloradoan
The architect of the Courtney
Park, a large apartment complex,
received a cool reception from con-
cerned Whaler's Cove and Golden
Meadows homeowners at a neigh-
borhood meeting Wednesday night.
Architect Frank Vaught gave
details of a plan to build a 280-unit
apartment complex, south of the
intersection of Lemay Avenue and
East Harmony Road, near the
Whaler's Cove and Golden Meadows
homes.
The developer is the JLB Con-
struction Co. of Dallas, Texas.
The proposal calls for the con-
struction to begin in August 1985 if
approved by the Fort Collins Plan-
ning and Zoning Board. The board
will discuss the proposal at its meet-
ing June 27.
Opposition to the plan. was strong
Wednesday night, as about 150
homeowners expressed their objec-
tions to the plan.
John Pharris, a spokesman for the
homeowners listed some of their
concerns:
• Increased traffic from the plan
would be a problem for current area
residents. The widening of Lemay
Avenue, which the city plans, will
add to the traffic problem by making
It a thoroughfare.
Residents say that occupancy of
the apartment complex before the
Lemay Avenue improvement
"would be like putting the horse
before the cart." They said that
moving people into the apartments
before road construction is complete
would compound traffic and other
problems.
• The increased traffic would
endanger children who live in the
area, especially those who have to
catch the bus at the same time
apartment dwellers are leaving for
work.
• The plan is socially incompatible
to the existing community. As one
person put it, ''We are going to go
from one-familv homes to — boom —
college dormitories."
• Young transient renters, who the
homeowners think the proposal is
geared for, wouldn't mesh with the
community of single-family homes.
Transient renters would drop the
property values of the homes, which
average $120,000.
In response to the concerns
expressed by the homeowners, the
project architect said he didn't think
traffic would be significantly
increased.
He said any increase in traffic
wouldn't come on Lemay Avenue.
Instead, he said, most additional
traffic would flow onto Harmony
Road because there would be better
access to Harmony from the apart-
ment complex.
As for property devaluation,
Vaught said that wasn't always true.
He cited Scotch Pines Condomini-
ums on Lemay Avenue as a complex
that is compatible with surrounding
single-family houses.
Cathy Chianese, a city senior
planner, said her staff had reviewed
the technical aspects of the plan and
saw no problem with the number of
apartments or the location.
This brought loud disapproval
from the homeowners. They recom-
mended the developers consider
some modification in the proposal.
They suggested restructuring
access and exits of the complex to
more suitable points and more dis-
cussions on the economic impact the
project would have on the neighbor-
hood.
They also want to discuss further
the compatibility of the proposal to
the neighborhood.
Vaught said he would consider
some modifications to the project
based on the concerns.
I
I
June 13, 1984
RECEIVED
City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning & Development
300 LaPorte Avenue JUN 15 1984
Fort Collins, Colorado
Gentlement
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
As relatively new residents in Fort Collins, we feel
compelled to express our views regarding the proposed
Courtney Park Planned Unit Development on the corner of
Harmony and Lemay.
Before moving to Colorado we gave consideration to three
cities in this area, but decided that Fort Collins was the
best choice we could make. We found the .,,edima Homes
adjacent to the proposed development to have everything
we wanted in a permanent home - well built homes which,
without exception, showed the determination of its
residents to make it a neighborhood Fort Collins could
be proud of.
It comes as a total shock that consideration is now being
given by the city of Fort Collins for a high density rental
apartment community completely incompatible with its
surrounding neighbors. The proposed plans also show
dangerous exits from the development, one in particular
entering on New Bedford Drive. What kind of harmful
obstacles are we placing on the children who use school
buses which have stops on New Bedford at 7130, 8, and 8130
A.M., precisely the times many dwellers of 280 apartments
would be leaving for work?
Lemay is likewise a deterent to adding an additional traffic
problem. It is our understanding that Lemay along Warren
Lake is not scheduled for completion for several years,
and, as it is now, it has proven to be hazardous at times
to those who do choose to use it.
Inasmuch as a Texas developer has singled out Fort Collins
as a proposed site for this project, it would seem that
his interest is not in keeping it the choice city that it
is, but as a financial advantage which will benefit only
the developer, and at the same time lower the property
value of several hundred dedicated prople who chose Fort
Collins because they wanted to help make it No. I.
-2-
Office of Planning & Development
Recently at a Newcomer's Luncheon, a lady was asked why
she chose Fort Collins as her new home. She responded -
"I heard from so many residents that it was a city that
cared about its people." We hope that you in the
Planning & Development office will care enough to reject
the proposed Courtney Park project..
Yours truly,
P.S. 14hy cannot the area in discussion be re -zoned?
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Bowie
1125 Monticello Court
Fort Collins, Co. 80525
June 15, 1984
Cathy Chianese
Senior City Planner JUN 2 0 1984
Office of Planning and Development
300 LaPorte Ave. 0LAyN;�
P.O. Box 580 DEPAf{TMEN7
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Ms. Chianese ,
I am a resident of the Golden Meadows subdivision, I have lived
here since October of 1983- I am very unhappy with the proposed Court-
ney Park P.U.D. and would like to present my concerns and recommenda-
tions.
After living in Greeley for 10 years, we moved to Ft. Collins last
October when my husband transferred to his firm's office here. While
living in Greeley we made numerous shopping trips to Ft. Collins and
always took the Harmony Road exit. We always admired the Golden Mea-
dows subdivision which is clearly visible from Harmony Road. When we ,
decided to move here Golden Meadows was our first choice. Had there
been 22 story apartments between Golden Meadows and Harmony Road we
may never had known of this beautiful area. I also feel that the de-
velopment on the outskirts of our city reflect the city's image. Hav-
ing an apartment complex the size and density of Courtney Park , located
where so many tourists and visitors enter our city is not desirable
to me.
I am originally from Denver and have chosen to raise my family in
a smaller city. I have watched my parents house become surrounded by
large apartment complexes and seen the effect it has had on their
property value and traffic in their neighborhood. I do not want this
to happen in my neighborhood.
Golden meadows is a wonderful neighborhood in which to live. There
is a nice mixture of people who live here. Some of our neighbors are
retired, some have high school age children, some are young couples
without children, but the majority of the families have small children.
As the president of the Golden Meadows Babysitting Coop I have con-
tact with many mothers in this neighborhood. Most of us feel very com-
fortable letting our children play outside and ride their tricycles
and bicycles in the neighborhood. My children are two and three years
old and I like the fact that there is limited traffic through here.
I feel that if Courtney Park or any other high density apartment complex,-�
is built the traffic will increase., I would like to feel that in
a few years my children would be able to ride bicycles safely on the
neighborhood streets.
Aside from the increased traffic I do have other concerns about
the Courtney Park P.U.D. We have saved a long time to be able to afford
this house and plan to live here for many years. I feel that apart-
ments with such high density and inexpensive rents will lower our pro-
perty value. I would like to see the apartments limited to two story,
have covered or enclosed parking, and most importantly limited to a
density of 6 to 12 units per acre. I think townhomes or condomin-
iums would make this area much more compatible with Golden meadows.
Page 2
My last concern is the section of Lemay Avenue that is unpaved.
I am outraged that this even exists. The danger is such that it should
be a number one priority with the city. To have a dirt road as a main
street is bad enough but then to have it bordered by a lake only in-
creases the danger. With the Courtney Park P.U.D. there would be at
a conservative estimation, 300 more cars in this area, many of whom
would use Lemay. As a mother I cannot tell you the fear I have of
myself or someone else going into the lake and being unable to get
babies and children out of car restraints. With increased traffic the
chance of such an accident is almost inevitable. In Denver it is a
common criteria to use fatalities as a guideline for putting stop-
lights in dangerous intersections. It appears to me that it will take
the same tragedy to get this road paved..Until Lemay is paved I urge
you not to approve any further development in this area.
I love living in Fort Collins, to me it is the "Choice City". I
appreciate the fact that the city allows its citizens the opportunity
to have a voice in future growth and development. I hope the concerns
and those of my neighbors will be considered in regards to the Court-
ney Park P.U.D.
Scerely, R
Deanna Atchison
4118 Clayton Ct.
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
1401 Ticonderoga Dr-i vrm
Fort Collins, CO 8052
June 15, 198.44
City of Fort Collins- JUN 2 0 1984
Office of Planning and Development
PZANPJSPd S
ZOO Laporte Avenue DSP
P . 0. Box`�30 4R N�-
Fort Collins, CO 3052
Dear Sir;
We are writing regarding the Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site
Plan; Golden Meadows P.U.D. Master Plan; and Golden Meadows Neighbor-
hood Center Preliminary Site Plan. As residents of Golden Meadows,
we are opposed to the Courtney Park: P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan, the
Golden Meadows P.U.D. Plaster Flan, and Golden Meadows Neighbonccod
Center Preliminary Site Plan. Our major reasons for opposing the
proposed plans are as follows;
1.) Golden Meadows is currently a family development. The
proposed plans emphasize a "singles" lifestyle incompatible with
family orientation.
2.) The juxtaposition of the 290--apartment units to single-family
dwellings is exactly what the responsibility of intelligent zoning
is designed to prevent. The business park: proposed to be
Meadows Subdivision,
immediatelyimmediatelysouth!.th of the Med�=ma homes, r �a,� cd^ n
in redundant to the existing commercial area at College and
Horsetoo'th.
.) We have deep concerns to the .-achieving of architectural
aesthetic harmony among the existing residential area and the
proposed buildings. The large areas required for parking
inevitably cannot be hidden and will be a distraction. In our
opinion, a parking .lot looks like a parking lot. The addition of
multiple -story buildings and large supermarket/retail buildings
must inevitably block: views of the surrounding topology rendering
the area an asphalt -wasteland.
4.) As tanpayers of Fort Collins, we are concerned with the
incremental increase in cost associated with the anticipated
increase in traffic, sewage, and water resources.
5.) As parents, we moved to Golden Meadows as a development where
we felt children :are welcomed. Increased traffic, a transient
population attracted by apartment dwellings and the flow of
non-residents through the neighborhood pose f _ars as to how the
City of Fort Collins can possibly guarantee the same level of
public safety as currently exists.
In concl _isi on, we plan to attend the June C?th meeting of the City
Planning and Zoning Hoard to register Our total opposition to the
aforementioned proposed plans. As residents of Golden Meadows and
the City of Fort Collins and as tax payers and voters, it is our
hope that the City Planning and Zoning Board deny approval of the
Courtney Park P.U.D. preliminary Site Plan.
Sincerely,
Sam and Di e Brown
`v
r , Ivel.
3�z
1., 76- ellLe-
RECEIVED
JUN 19 1984
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
sx,
JacIk
17
41
NAME
10)
11) P A
12)
13)
14)lR�
15)
16) J`/
17)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24 )
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34 )
ADDRESS
a
l3Ul
PHONE
1.7G- /5lV .7
a 3-175 5
Z Z3 - r-755-
9'3-�1 S�
0 z
'D 3 3 :3c —
TIECEIVE0
J U N 19 1984
1712 Hotchkiss Dr.
Fort Collins, CC 80525 PLANNING
June l7, 1981� DEPARTMENT
;ls. Cathy Chionese
City of fort Collins
Office of Planning and Cevelo-,merit
3CO Laporte Ivenue
F.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CC 80522
Dear iis. ,Chianese:
Please include this letter with the information to be rev e—vied by the Cit;;
Planning and Zoning 3o--d. t 1S Jc?1i1 virluteil t0 E': 're SS O��r S�rOn
op- osition to the follo.ring :
1. The Co=rtney Park P. U.D. Freli ;r�na_x7r : ite Plan
2. The Golden :seadows F.? .D. zster clan
3. The Golden-adoti-:s ieighbcrhood Center Preli^a-nary Site Plan
'e orpos.e -these plans fcr many reasons and sone of our reasons are explained in
the follo,rin- paragraphs.
1. These plans have an ad-,7erse traffic effect on the existing
neL71-iborhoods. One of the reasons re Ci10Se to live in t-ie 'olden 1" adw.is Sub-
division is due to the relatively low traffic volume. ' ith three young children,
we worry about their safety because these plans 1--rill definital - increase the
traffic tltirough the subdivision.-:heaton and 'Nei-: Bed-fordTrill become
ver-- heavi l,t used due to the Courtney Park P.U.D. Pre 1-�- nary Site Flan. Thep.
the Golden i'eado-.s F.U.D. Haster Tian adds injury to insult. sore streets in
the subdivision .,-ill become major a-:terials. ;Sore cars travel on
^� r ' T ay. For t "CEe cf us i n C:Clden-ead0:: S the noise level 'v+i ll
to L_conde_ oga �o men - -
incre� se, our privacy Tall be np,:.a.ti vel ' affected, and t1ne safet ' o� our c lC= en
vnll be i n eopardy . ;, e SC i•l it I-!= en in Tuc--on--ar artment S re2.tl ' 121CreaSO
traffic vol,=e on neig=-corin streets. .nd all of this =s for •;:aet pu_rpo e--
41t car --Till end ur. o:'� a'� already ve-_ 7 Clan,:er oils road-- ne ye:Qa., dirt
all ��. e se �� -
road.
2. The Courtney Park F.U.�.-reLirin�r;.' Cite Flan and the Golden 1•seadows
P . U ... -,.:aster lap are not CO"Tat ibI ;pith nei�hbcrhood dev glop: ent. g dens; t
Of 20 '7Sli t5 per acre iS nCt CC:lpatible 1,4 tn the golden eadowl s a: -,A ,.haler'
Co-1-1- dens;t-11 of 3 to L �inits per acre. The arc_itecttral ties; fin, uildi_:c
scale, bulk. and '--uildi.:g heig:-t- of ti_e Courtney =ar'_c i . T.D. not corn atible
T•rt1 '.—La-
e-, -t
-gie ir Tucson.
-1-vk
i¢ lOm@S. Saw _i
More '�eauti` -acmes ,re: orse=ed b apartmments
*.�ra�n' � _one :,� - - --- � .il ho ', -
ho aes TM: s deeras�a --their rrorert;�
and the effect cn the si `= re ;dance -�-g -
r;..�
d
r ror:
velues de`reciaced. r-CTes next to esisve
^Jare
e_enn iLT_.Oen rou =ave a %u- _nCi^i~riborhood.
-orei'cej T o l<e c.e -n „w nei:
rach
J
^ ie r O'JrtnoV! 7 .'i.1 . ''^Pli^"l:la "'T `� tf' 1.1= and Uric C01den ead0:7S
seer Plan are =Ocla.7 -7co =at4 le :J? th 4 -a re- _-i1:;crhOod. n�T
-i'i c ah0 Tu=Chase( homes in t_ c e:.=3 t_n- neigh-boori'.00ds ,;ore estabi.4--l"ircr
?
"root,S. t _t i snit eco-acm- cal �% feasi'�lE and for T1ost c= us 't -snit even
econor:icall" possible to r_c-n �;O __'ie i._ our ni-hbor'acodS far a snort 77e_1od
.i J' �' � __ 1 T�
of ti:., e are i:e"re to sta,-!, to ?ra:ce -Lriends, and to _et involved. i.t_le
babysitti Pg co-Oz: in Goide ead.O i s 1., just one Of t .e 7.a7,s some 01 '.ems have
-7ottzn to i-•:no�i our nei7nlocrs ti_^ou�hout the Subdi _si on. -::e are ':ere to sta%,
and 'such Z ermanency greeds common co-_ ce-r-iz ena i.Iterests. . partment renters
are not normally establishing ttr00ts. it 1'::C rei7t FOES ul, and they move On,
a better lob �.S available and they move on, etc., etc. Ind -. hat does such
mobllzt;r d0 to pride in t1.e nei='abOr1:icod--she e__�ecL _: ileFat_vE. o:G about
ttStr n'`er dan_"er?tt The more moJi-_t;y there is t::e more t hat danger stares us
in the face. -Please hel_r, us keep our neig'abo_,hood stale.
It is our understandinthat you professionals and retired peorle are
the tie _-=:lent of the population tar; eted to live in the croposed co�,�_ le . ..here
lcompatibility? `-ne e .isti. ? nelghbor_�oods consist Of mostl-y
is tilE SOClg_ �__
fardlies. '!hose live in the exiEtin_ neirl bonccods that are: sh ale at
least have the common interest of o::Tnersaip.
"de chose to :.lake our home in the Golden i-eade -rs Subdivision for many
reasons that :-ie feel :ill be ne ativel; affected o t'.iE adorti on of tiE
Courtney Park :.ir . D. Preli. =nary Site Flan, the- Golden .':eado-is P . � ._ . -raster
Plan, or the Golden 1Ieadows=ieighborl,00d Center irel ,>i ary `site Plan. :'lease
deny approval of these plans.
Thank you.
Concerned homeovmers,
i.)
Vic_ T Deck
'.uck Decker
2
HAL C. BECKER ENTERPRISES, INC.
June 17, 1984
RECEIVED
Ms. Cathy Chianese, Senior City Planner
Office of Planning and Development
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
SUBJECT: Proposed Courtney Park Apartment Complex Construction
Dear Ms. Chianese,
Thank you for your letter of May 31 notifying us of the June 27 meeting
of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins, at which
discussion of the Courtney Park PUD will be heard. Unfortunately my
wife and I will be out of the country on that date.
This letter is to state our wholehearted agreement with the documents
entered into the record by Mrs. Kristen Jensen and Mr. John Pharris
regarding the severely adverse effects Subject construction would visit
upon the Golden Meadows neighborhood.
Fort Collins would simply be repeating the same tragic mistake made in
New Orleans, Louisiana (our home town until we relocated to Colorado
last August), where such a high -density rental apartment complex over
a period of ten years deteriorated from a nicely designed complex with
moderate rent to a slum which ultimately became so run down that it was
condemned and demolished. The entire area of single homes "went down"
with it.
In our opinion, it is unfair to subject the above to any area which has
been developed as beautifully as the Medema homes. The proposed one -
bedroom rental units at $350/mo. will attract the wrong element for the
most part. Such a complex has no way but to "go down."
We would propose a much lower density, larger unit complex which ulti-
mately would probably be turned into a condominium -- where its owners
would pride in "keeping it up" instead of letting it "go down."
Thank you for your consideration of this and other communications which
you will receive in behalf of the Golden Meadows residents. Although
our home (Sumter Square at Ticonderoga) is not directly affected by the
proposed Courtney Park PUD, we feel great concern and empathy for the
residents who would be closer to it.
nc rely
Hal C. Becker, Ph.D.
Patricia T. Becker
HOME ADDRESS: 4104 Sumter Square, Fort Collins, CO 80525
P.O. Box 8856 • Fort Collins, CO 80525 • (303) 223-3172
RECEIVED
Cathy Chianese
City of Ft. Collins JUN 2 0
Office of Planning and Development I�G�
PO Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522 KANN NG
DSPARnwEN I -
Glen Colton & Trudy Haines
1524 Ticonderoga Dr.
Ft, Collins, CO 80525
Ms. Chianese
We would like to express our concern over the Courtne'v Park. P.U.D. Preliminary
Site Plan and the Golden Meadows P.U.D. Master Plan. One of our concerns has
to do with the traffic problems that the proposed plan would cause. Already,
the traffic over Lemay Avenue is very heavy on a poor gravel road. Addirrg to
this the volume of traffic that could be expected with the addition of the
apartment complexes would be dangerous at best, In addition, Whalers Way,
which is not built to handle large volumes of traffic, would certainly gain a
lot of traffic. Another concern is that the proposed apartment complexes are
of compatible with the rest of the neighborhood, The tact that these are low
cost, high density apartments with uncovered parking is significant. They
certainly do not fit in with the rest of the housiny in the area.
In addition to these two problems I feel there are other questions that need
to be answered before these plans are approved, These include such things
as proximity to schools and parks, shopping centers, and other services for
the thousands of people that would live in these dkpartments
I hope you give full consideration to these and other concerns before deciding
to act on these zoning requests
Sincerely,
WENDELL E. FREY
1212 ASHLAWN COURT RECEIVED
FORT COLLINS. CO 80525-3348
June 17, 1984 JUN 19 19841
City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning and Development PLANP1NG
P.O. Box 580 CFPA,8TMENT
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Sir:
It is our feeling the proposed Courtney Park P.U.D.
would be quite detrimental to our neighborhood.
Generally, apartments, such as those which are being
proposed, draw a very transient population, and it
is our view this is very undesireable, especially
when one considers the heavy traffic created with
such a density of housing, noisy parties, and the
somewhat typical "I-don°t-care" attitude of most
renters.(i.e. trash scattered about, broken-down
cars, screenless windows, etc.)
So, we strongly oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Plan.
Sincerely,
r
Mr.
& Mrs.
Wendell E.
Frey
wef
June 1, i934
Ms. Cathy Chianese RECEIVED
City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning and Devetcpment
300 LaPorte Avenue JUIN 2 11984
P.O. Box 15,90
Fort Collins, CO 90 j2
PLANNING
Dear M s . Chi ane se : DEPA RTP EN-
SU7--lJ11-7:I.The Golden Meadows P.U.D. Master Plan
2.The Aden Meadows Neighborhood Center Prelininary
Site Plan
3.The Courtney Park P.U.D. Prelininary Site Plan
"Te are writing this letter in response to the proposed
clans for the above building projects. As homeowners in
the :,;olden 'Meadows subdivision, we are opposed to these projects
Y_ecause of the adverse affect they will have on the surrounding
neighborhoods.
The development of these projects will have an extremely
adverse a''fect on the traffic in the existing neighborhoods.
;olden Meadows and 'Whalers Cove are subdivisions that consist
of families with young childen. The increased traffic volume
would create a very serious problem that will endanger the safety
of these children. Also, the unfinished portion of Lema,y Avenue
Is already a traffic hazard. The development of these projects
will only increase an already existing problem.
knother major concern surrounding the development of the
above projects is the negative economic impact they will have
on the existinx �!omes in the adjacent subdivisions. The
probability of property values decreasing because of such a
hi;h density residential developments is extremely certain.
M
,'here prcjects are just too large and therefore will be
socially incompatible with the exis`.,r.g neighborhoods.
The proposed development is inc,irsistent with the
character of the surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of
architectural scale, bulk, building height` visual integrity
of the project from off -site and social incompatibility.
These and many other reasons make the development of these
projects a negative situation affecting many citizens of
Fort Collins.
As concerned citizens of Fort Collins and homeowners in
the -olden Meadows Subdivision we hope the City Planning and
Zoning 3oard will carefully review these plans and consider all
the adJerse affects such developments will have on Fort Collins
and the adjacent neighborhoods.
Sincerely yours.
3arry F. and Mary C. Fancher
r
-- - -- --- - - - - - . - ---- --- - -- -- - --RECEIVED
JUN 19 1984
//".AxI/ � /a Z _. PLANNING
_ } DEPART MENT
------- __._
Z,) .S
4111- C-4 S e_r 4--Z oz
- � /-rvC 74 �'e h71-1i7
T� T /o? �-c, e C.�'r +iC /a/J rrS r
7ZXIC' Ir`7
_A/'aq�� _ _Cf��e __U,` 4•,-, p -- -
No Text
�zr2l ".4 J-� r.1�� S S %`>rS . ��o C✓��'-, -
/7
74 74C-7Z-
r
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
1) q,_ „-,,gV02,,(�J_ ///e/41a ITc-,e//,j(�_t- (o
2) 111 f WoAc —IlcEILa C!,�1,7' 6 - 57o i
5)
6j(`�/
8)
9)
-z&
CT
a 03-0 99�
C-4 I— 6za ___� — FS(-c.f
Z ""0377
0
3W
P o. r3� sSo
caz
1°��J.
b�- MS, U;,A - .
No Text
clqA--O-1
_bat L
Z�,
7L
fl
,11*Altl 1 4-
5" 5�,
No Text
�RECEIVSD
U N 2 1 1984
,�une 18, 1984 -PLANKING
l,OEPA.RTME,NT
C,L tcf. o s 3o r-t Co tt Lna
O ff •_cv_ of P•eanni_.ng and Zeve-Zo pment
300 Xapor•te ivenue
P. 0. So , 580
,7or•t CottLn4, Co•torado 80522
Re: Courtn.eu_ Park P. U. 2. Pret•i.mtin.arr.,_ S_te P•ean;
Cotd.en r7ieadowA P. U. 2. '!nas.ter Ptan; and Co4den
lteadow4. 71e•_ghborhood Center Pro-ti.m•i.narrr. Si.-•te
P•ean
Cent.t emen :
phi Peter tia i n rP�pon�e to the larotoo�ed above three
pro j,ect'll..
Wp- _-,tronct•eu_ feet that three p.ro,�ec•tA are en-ta_re-ey.-Lncom-
pa•tah,'e wtiih our ne•c.ghborhoocl and wowed crrta•i,nP.g detract
2 rom the �-am•i.--ey. a•tmo�phere that now r�cc SiiJ and that we wowed
e Ap_ to eer cont•c.n.ue to Jh.e dena•i,•tu of- the propoe.ed
un•i.t� tin add ,tLon to be<.ng unattractive, wowed brtin.g mane
re ea•trcl p.rob•eeme to area; L. e. , heavy. ,tray', -'{,-Lc. on roaclA
not, �u•_tabte �or heavu •traff-c, neLghborhood deve•eopmen-t
ti.n.comr_a•tab•c.-e•i..-tu, and open Apace p.rob•eeme. •c.n that -too man4
p.eop.•ee wowed be occupc ,ng too wnatt an area.
We �s•trongtr.� urge Con%i•truc•t•_on to wLth.draw -U,5. ap.p.t-LcatLon
and conn,i, fer cone.-truc-tting three Firop.oaed. untie. in an area more
e.uL•tab•ee to •th•i,e tr,tpe o� dweeeLng brcauee they. wooedoutd be moat
unwe•ecome in our ,,�•tngee . unLt famt tLe re,ea-ted ne•+-.gh.bo rhood.
2!oure •tru•er.y,
mot( and Xi_ncla 3arn.abu_
Co•eden lleadorue.
1730 Uo•tchh•c.ae- Zr-i..ve
Tt. Co•e•e<.ne, CO 80525
226-2778
The City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning and Development
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Gentlemen and Ladies:
June 18, 198�RECEiVEa
JUN 2 1 1984
PLANNING
OR'PARTMENT
Four years ago, after visiting areas along the entire Front
Range, we chose Fort Collins as the most desirable city in which to
settle. Its wide streets, low density housing, and careful land-
scaping seemed to indicate good city planning and pride of ownership
on the part of its citizens. We were pleased to find attractive
housing in the Medema Development southeast of warren Lake, which has
evolved into a pleasant uncrowded neighborhood.
We protest the approval of the Courtney Park PUD as currently
proposed on the grounds that its density and crovilng will be quite
incompatible with the one -family, widely -spaced dwellings of the
Medema Development.
The establishment of 453 uncovered parking stalls, a parking
lot of immense size, filled with vehicles of all types, including
recreational vehicles, trucks and motorcycles will create an
unsi.ghty situation.
Because of lack of storage space, the scenery will be marred
by crowded balconies and the grounds will be cluttered with multiple
and sizeable trash collectors. The landscaping proposed would do
little to screen this, especially the parking area along Lemay Avenue.
What landscaping is proposed would take a number of years to reach
maturity.
It has been our experience with out-of-town owners that they
have little concern with maintaining property in keeping with
community standards.
We believe the establishment of Courtney Park will cause the
depreciation in values of surrounding property. This will be
especially true if two other high density apartment complexes and
a business development will be built in the adjoining areas. To our
knowledge, no other area of Fort Collins has been subjected to this
kind of crowding. At the neighborhood meeting, which we attended,
it was the expressed opinion and desire of virtually all present
who live in close proximity to the proposed project that the
application should be denied.
It seems to us that congestion within the development, with
that many cars exiting onto Lemay and Wheaton at the morning rush
hour will be very bad, especially as Lemay will be carrying much
through traffic once it is completed.
It appears that this kind of planning can only reduce the
description of Fort Collins as the "Choice City" to a mere slogan
rather than a reality. We trust that the views of those living
in this area will be given consideration°
Ver, truly yours
S . D . and/nary Jane McLean
1200 Standish Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525
190`4
Plannina and Zonino Board
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80522
June 18. 1984
Dear Planning and Zonina Board Members:
The purpose of my letter is to describe the concerns that my
family has with regards to the proposed PUD on the northeast
corner of Harmony and Lemay. known as the Courtney Park. I
will be out of town the entire week of the meeting is being
planned for. Therefore I wanted to write my comments to you at
this time. The 280 unit apartment building prosposed for that
location seems to have a density which cannot be supported
based on Land Development Guidance Svstem.
The "Golden Meadows PUD Master Plan" is also areatly out of
character for what was originally planned here when we bought
our home. The original zoning at the time was RP for all of the
land not desinaated RMP (which had a MAXIMUM of 2C) units). The
RP land which made up a majority of the land had a maximum
density of 12 unites per acre. This was to serve as a buffer in
between the regional shopping (accesible from Harmony we
assumed) and the 12 units per acre housing development. The
proposed master plan changes this dramatically and this is
unfair to people who bought in an area under one set of
guidelines to change those guidlines. Traffic from the business
part:: is not being discharged to Harmony Road but rather into
our residential area. Adding more and more traffic.
The following discussion describes my concerns about the
Courtney Part: Development:
1. The very high density does not meet the criteria on
Neighborhood Impact and Quality, item#2. This level of
development is a radical jump from single family homes of about
4 units per acre to 20 units per acre. Intermediate types of
development such as townhome. condo's or duplexes would be a
more realistic transition and blend much better with the
current neighborhood environment. The current neiahborhood
environment is characterized by owner occupied homes. It is
characterized by families, generally with several elementary or
junior high aged children. High density apartment that are 600
to 1000 square feet would not 1ik:ely be consistent with current
development in the area.
1
This high density of development would also add a large volume
of traffic on New Bedford Drive. This is currently a quiet
residential street. Children learn to ride bvcvcles on this
street. Baseballs. frisbees and other toys that go astray from
games played on culdesac's and front lawns frequently end up on
New Bedford. A development that has the potential to add 560
people and cars would represent a very serious safety harzard
to children in a very nice quiet neighborhood. While the site
is near Harmony. the we were told that traffic cannot exit from
the Apartment complex onto Harmony. Thus much of it will funnel
up Lemav and New Bedford as that is how the curb cuts are
planned. Thus the advantage of being near Harmony road hardly
seems a real advantage.
i. The area proposed for development is not serviced by
Transfort Bus system. Therefore this should detract from the
points needed for this high of density due to great reliance on
automobiles of people living in this apartment complex,.
3. In terms of Neighborhood Servic Center Criteria this protect
is not in Northern Fort Collins and would contribute to South
College corridor traffic.
4. In terms of the Density Chart this proposed development is:
a. More than 650 feet from an exisiting transit stop.
b. More than 4000 feet from any park. The nearest park is
Warren Park, which has become very crowded in the last year as
a city soccer site and the Bartran Cherry Hills condo
development has added hundreds of people.
c . The '280 unit apartment complex is not near any existing
schools. Even if it was near Shepardson. that school is filled.
The elementary children are currently bused to Riffenberg
Elementary. The junior high and high school students are also
bused. It is clear that adding this level of density may
contribute to an already unsatisfactory school situation. Many
of the children in my daughters class live several miles from
where we live. This certainly reduces the opportunities for
interaction after school and on weekends for our daughter and
her classmates.
d. This project does not receive any points for beinq in
North Fort Collins and no points due to distance away from
Central Business District.
One critical factor that I have not discussed so far is traffic
and transportation problems associated with '280 units in a
residential area with limited access to the main city. by
limited access I mean the fact that LEMAY AVE IS A DIRT ROAD
FROM TICONDEROGA TO HORESTOOTH ROAD! Since Lemay is likely to
2
be one of the main roads for residents of this development I
SUPPORT the idea that NO "certificates of occupancy be aranted"
until Lemav Road is completed and therefore has actually been
made safe. As it is now. I am not aware of any concrete time
table to even begin the straightening and paving of this very
dangerous road. This road also serves as our community's
access to Warren Park::. Currently, children on foot and on
bvcycles compete with cars and trucks on this narrow dirt road.
The gravel nature of the road makes control of bvcycles and
automoblies very difficult. This is the same road that the 300
to 400 people who would live in this apartment complex would
use to get to Foothills Fashion Mall and Toddy's. It is the
same road that their children would also try to use to go to
Warren Park. At a minimum no approval of development should be
allowed until Lemav Avenue is brought up to city standards.
In terms of the PUD before you, my family suggests that the
density of development be substantially reduced so as to blend
into our neighborhood. Based on the points earned by this
project and the surrounding established neighborhood. duplexes
and fourplexes would seem to be the maximum density compatable.
Townhome would be more consistent. The transition from the
single family homes at the Landings to the Harmony Reservoir
multi -family development by Harmony Reservoir would be a good
example of what is a good transition. These units have covered
garages and they are generally owner occupied.
Hopefully this rather long letter expresses my concerns and
provides a rationale for these concerns. High density
development does save valuable land. but often times I wonder
what does it save valuable land for. If this developer would
acquire all of the land saved by not building townhomes to
house these '280 families and dedicate it to open space. I would
be a very strong and vocal supporter of high density
development. As it stands. higher density development just
saves land for more higher density development and no land is
really saved by the higher density development!
Thankvou for consideration of these comments.
�Si.ncerelY.
John B. Loomis
n ADDRESS PHONE
10)
(I f- i o -7 r'Y1r- as 3 3 i
12)
13) f K3(Z nl r'4 zZ
14)
q-3 / b ;" 6eO)C)a" L)iL
Z, Z ,�S - 7 ff �
15) ti�. �'' .
�3�0
2b -6 Y-S�L
�}
20)
/lZ S'��Zb.�
2 2)
�i•' "r— �
1 9
0
23)
r�� r
24 )
25)
26) �'�"✓
2 7 ),
28)
29)
>
31)
32)
33)
1113 14ah7-,-cc1/v c-T
l / 3 ,Y26 -Z� c
3�� il;o��/r.fr,re
I l o�
i l o
LAE
,2;23- 60-�- Z
4�3_s/05.L,�
z�,—fie/�
226 S 1S2,
2-6 - �59:S�
��3 4 /Z7
.�z�3- e.s�i
34 )
RECEIVED /�y lqy-�j
JUN 2 0 1984 il"72L
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
No Text
No Text
Cathy Chianese
Senior Planner
Office of Planning
and Development
300 La Porte Ave.
P.O. Box- 580
Ft..Gollins, CO 80522
Dear Ms. Chianese:
As a concerned homeowner living in Golden Meadows; I
am writing regarding the proposed Courtney Park Planned
Unit Development. I think an apartment complex of the size
of 20 units per acre is not compatiable with this neighborhood.
The reason we bought a home here was because we like the
openness of the area. Putting an asphalt jungle just a
few blocks away would not only lower our property values
but would detract from the whole area. Imagine driving
into Ft, Collins to be faced with several unimpressive
concrete buildings instead of seeing the nice looking homes along
the golf course. Had this been my first view of Ft. Collins
I'm not sure I would have moved here eight months ago.
I also think that traffic would be a problem. Since the
Lemay extension is still a gravel road and is a real problem
for the homeowners in Golden Meadows, I don't see how it
can handle 600 more cars.
I hope you will reconsider the�)approval
project in it's current state., A change
to 8 or 10 units per acre woula be much
to the homeowners in Golden Meadows.
Thank you for listening to my concerns.
to seeing you at the June 27th meeting.
Sincerely,
Debi Reep
4106 Clayton Court
Ft. Collins, Co 80525
223-3219
of the proposed
in the density
more acceptable
I am looking forward
� G ��Gi (,�lrt✓
�C
J
EECENSO
JUN 2 1 1984
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
IX
"4
0
' c lic3- � Grp/ i%sLGY� �J t��••�
No Text
No Text
REGEIV5-®
lUN 2 0 1984 June 19, 1984
PLOI"tING
City of Fort Collins 09PARTR!'ENT
Office of Planning and Development
300 LaPorte
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
To whom it may concern:
It is with great reluctance I write this letter regarding the
planned project known as Courtney Park, south of Wheaton Drive.
When n.y husband's company transferred him to Northern Colorado, his
office being in Loveland, we spent over six months house hunting. We
selected a Medema Home in Golden Meadows, at a cost of over $100
thousand, plus the usual improvements a new home requires, plus the
extra improvements we made in anticipation of making it our permanent
home.
Our final decision to buy this home was based on several phone
calls to the City of Fort Collins, at which time I was assured "whatever
would be built south of Wheaton Drive would be compatible with the
existing neighborhood."
I do not consider the plans I saw at the June 6th meeting
compatible to my home.
My number one concern is the fact that this complex will be
rentals, with an out of state owner. I am familiar with what happens to
such a complex, managed by managers who come and go. When a question
arises, concerning such a complex, the new manager is not familiar and
so it goes.
My number two concern: People desiring a home in the $120 thousand
category and up will not want to buy next to a complex as described at
the June 6th meeting, which brings me to my final concern: Resale of my
home at a loss if this project goes through.
In conclusion, I would like to protect a rather large investment,
not to mention the peace and serenity of my present way of life.
Sincerely,
Mary Grimes
4331 New Bedford Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
June 19, 1984
City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning & Development
300 Laporte Avenue, P.O. Box 580 RECEivm
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522
Attention: Ms. Chianese SUN 2 0 11$4
Re: Courtney Park P.U.D.
Preliminary Site Plan PLA-IISINNG
flEPAATMFNT
Dear Ms. Chianese:
By means of this letter we wish to oppose the above captioned
plan for the following reasons:
1. Neighborhood social compatability - we do not feel
this can occur with such a large complex.
2. Adverse traffic impacts - The high density of this
complex adds additional traffic to an ever increasing
traffic situation in this area. The safety of our
children will put at high risk.
3. Architectural design problems - we do not wish to have
buildings such as the "Boardwalk Dormatories" in this
area. The slides presented at the recent meeting could
have been designed by my 7 yr. old.
4. Adverse traffic impacts - South Lemay Avenue is not
completed and poses problems daily for those who use
this substandard dirt road. An increase in the amount
of traffic generated by a complex of this size will only
contribute to this already dangerous situation.
5. In addition with the buildings and parking so close to
Lemay and '11heaton this makes for unpleasant viewing for
those who live immediately adjacent to this property.
In conclusion, we would like to see the density reduced considerably
and with the possibility of condominiums considered in their place.
Sincerely,
Douglas an� Jane Crabtree
1100 Monticello Court
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80525
C u�-u.� c�= .�}.e—��<.c,•.✓ ;—tom^•— ✓�� '�»-ct...i.4,,.-�-.
We the undersigned do hereby oppose the approval of the Courtney RECEIVED
Park Planned Unit Development by the Planning and Zoning Board
for the following reasons:
JuN 19 1984
1) The proposed development is inconsistent with the character
of surrounding neighborhoods on the basis of architectural PLAN NIbra
scale, bulk, building height, visual integrity of the project DEPARTMENT
from off -site, and social imcompatibility. Therefore, it
fails to meet the criteria mandated for Neighborhood Compati-
bility under the Land Development Guidance System.
2) No commitment has to date been made to undertake the com-
pletion of the Lemay Avenue Extension, presently a gravel
road. Because of the increase in traffic pressure that this
development would put on this road, we recommend that
approval for any development should be withheld until the
Lemany Extension is completed.
3) The economic impact of this project on homes in the area,
particularly those adjacent to the P.U.D.,would be negative;
i.e.,we feel that property values would depreciate.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
1
(-? 6 6 c� r J D v. Z724^ O C? C
z0 6,K", �a6-a 775�
I7r Z
�{otc6
JUN 2 2 1984
PLANNING
DEPA.-(Ta•,ENT_
Cou ll\,O
c"O 4
` I
S-E.
CA-
G W t. -R- thi-C)
V
J`�1 G�-p'L1, DavJ NLiit;`. j-ticZ eG�LG
r A c v
/Dcikto
�
1.
\C l(N
,J'�lo vim:
cc
�� c- .
O e cQ tt�>j Ole �. o (JLu _kl-el L J
p �
cC
YbLl-
PR
N pq P Zc v t.,; c 4/Lt/-�>-e 0 \-C G4 .
�-n i`_7 C f\ J
J
c) (2, L J../d -Alpy-, G�
(D
P, 0, 1c-- ._ (a- , �- - Go VLs" ,
GL tc C �r-c�, —Q� caw
�}-- Cl..o a �rno'�, e�( � c'��.� � ate-. r,
4
City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning and Development
300 LaPorte
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Sir:
19 June 1984
RECEIVED
JUN 2 2 1,984
r! A'NtNG
r,EPARTMEN.T
I would like to voice my concerns over the proposed land
development :Located at Harmony and Lemay for which there will be a
public hearing on June 27, 1984.
First, I would like to say that I do not oppose the development. I
look forward to a well planned project filling in the vacant acreage.
However, I am concerned with the present manner in which it is planned.
I have two very strong objections; the traffic and the density of units
per acre.
First, the traffic. The Fort Collins Land Development criteria
states: "Is the project designed so that the additional traffic
generated does not have a significant adverse impact on surrounding
development?" Please note that the development egress feeds directly
into New Bedford Drive for a couple hundred cars which will belong to
occupants of this development. I recommend this egress be moved to the
east (closer to the proposed shopping center) or west (closer to the
proposed arterial of Lemay) to alleviate the concerns of Golden Meadow
residents. This was a major concern of persons attending the meeting at
City Hall last month.
Second, the density of the units. The density as proposed will
have buildings which are a subtle contrast to the Golden Meadows
development. The Fort Collins Land Development criteria states: "Is
the development compatible with and sensitive to the immediate
environment of the site and neighborhood relative to architectural
design; scale, bulk and building height. ." The present development
plans do not meet this criteria.
I sincerely hope the developer will be sensitive to these concerns
and consider necessary changes.
Sincerely,
Gordon L. Grimes
4331 New Bedford Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
-bl / q gv-
w
dt .
JUN 2 0 1984
June 20, 1984
City of Fort Collins
Office of Planning and Development
300 LaPorte
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
ATTN: Cathy Chianese
RE: Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan, Golden
Meadows P.U.D. Master Plan, and Golden Meadows Neighborhood
Center Preliminary Site Plan
Dear Sirs:
I am a resident of the Whaler's Cove Subdivision and live
at 912 Sandy Cove Lane, Fort Collins, Colorado. My home is
approximately 1 1/2 blocks northwest of the proposed site of the
Courtney Park P.U.D., the Golden Meadows P.U.D., and the Golden
Meadows Neighborhood Center. I strongly oppose the proposed
development plans as presently designed and hereby formally request
that the City Planning and Development Department and the City Planning
and Zoning Board deny approval of the proposed development plans
as presently designed.
The City of Fort Collins currently operates under Ordinance
§118-83, more commonly known as the "Land Development Guidance
System For Planned Unit Developments (hereinafter referred to simply
as the "Guidance System"). The express purpose of the Guidance
System is to improve and protect the public health, safety and
welfare by pursuing the following objectives:
1) To foster safe, efficient, and economic use of land,
transportation, public facilities and services.
2) To avoid inappropriate development of lands.
3) To encourage patterns of land use which decrease trip
length of automobile travel and encourage trip consoli-
dation.
4) To improve the design, quality and character of new
development.
June 20, 1984
Page 2
5) To protect existing neighborhoods from harmful
encroachment by intrusive and disruptive uses.
The benchmark test for planned unit development approval under
the Guidance System is Neighborhood Compatibility. The purpose of
the test is to protect existing neighborhoods against intrusive
and disruptive development. The Guidance System requires that all
negative or adverse impacts must be effectively mitigated in order
for a planned unit development to be approved. The neighborhood
compatibility of a proposed planned unit development must be deter-
mined based upon social compatibility and development compatibility.
A proposed planned unit development must be compatible with and
sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and neighborhood
relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, and
visual integrity. Furthermore, a proposed planned unit development
can only be approved if it is designed so that the additional traffic
generated does not have significant adverse impact on surrounding
development.
The Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan, the Golden
Meadows P.U.D. Master Plan and the Golden Meadows Neighborhood
Center Preliminary Site Plan all fail the benchmark test of neigh-
borhood compatibility and, therefore, cannot be approved as presently
designed. Whaler's Cove, The Landings, and Golden Meadows are
currently composed of single family owner -occupied homes. The pro-
posed development plans call for multi -family non -owner -occupied
rental units. Whaler's Cove, The Landings, and Golden Meadows are
stable subdivisions comprised of families with many small children.
The proposed development plans provide for an unstable, transient
apartment community of primarily single persons. Whaler's Cove,
The Landings and Golden Meadows exhibit a tremendous pride of owner-
ship. The proposed development plans provide for approximately 670
apartment units in which there will be no pride of ownership. The
owner of the :proposed development, JLB Construction, will be in
Dallas, Texas and will not have to live with the development. Clearly,
the proposed development plans are socially incompatible with Whaler's
Cove, The Landings and Golden Meadows.
Even more obvious is the design incompatibility of the proposed
development plans and the existing neighborhood. Whaler's Cove is
4 units per acre. Golden Meadows is 3 units per acre. The Courtney
Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan provides for approximately 19 units
per acre. The Golden Meadows P.U.D. Master Plan provides for addi-
tional development of up to 20 units per acre. Whaler's Cove, The
Landings, and Golden Meadows are comprised of 1 and 2 story homes.
June 20, 1984
Page 3
The Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan provides for eleven
2 1/2 story buildings which will be approximately 40 feet tall.
Whaler's Cove, The Landings, and Golden Meadows homes have garages.
The Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan provides for the
uncovered open parking of up to 482 vehicles. The proposed Courtney
Park P.U.D. alone will be the largest apartment complex in Fort
Collins with 264 units. The Golden Meadows P.U.D. Master Plan would
add an additional 360 apartment units to the neighborhood. Clearly,
the design of the proposed development plans is not compatible with
the existing neighborhood.
The additional traffic generated by the proposed development
plans will have a significant adverse impact on the existing neigh-
borhood. The Courtney Park P.U.D. Preliminary Site Plan, by itself,
seeks to add approximately 482 vehicles to the existing traffic of
the neighborhood. The Golden Meadows P.U.D. Master Plan and the
Golden Meadows Neighborhood Center Preliminary Site Plan will easily
increase the traffic in the neighborhood by 1,500 to 2,000 vehicles.
Lemay Avenue is unfinished and extremely dangerous from the north-
west corner of Golden Meadows, around Warren Lake, north to Horsetcoth.
This has caused Wheaton Drive in Golden Meadows and Whaler's Way in
Whaler's Cove to be transformed from collector streets, as they were
designed, into major arterials to Boardwalk and College. There is no
traffic light at Lemay and Harmony Road. Given the speed and volume
of traffic on Harmony Road, most residents of the neighborhood avoid
it and use Wheaton Drive, Whaler's Way, and Boardwalk as a shortcut
to College. The residents of the proposed apartment complexes will
do the same. This will continue until the Lemay extension to Horse -
tooth is completed around Warren Lake.
Contrary to the Guidance System, automobile trip length for the
residents of the proposed apartment complexes will be increased, rather
than decreased, because no activities currently exist in the neigh-
borhood for singles. The residents will have to travel all the way
up College for work and entertainment. Thus, the proposed development
plans do not encourage trip consolidation as is called for by the
Guidance System. There are no bus stops in the neighborhood, so
apartment residents without vehicles face the prospect of a long walk
in order to go anywhere. The extremely limited number of college
students who might choose to live that far from campus will have a
considerable drive up College, which is already feeling the pressure
of increased traffic from the south. Currently, neighborhood children
may ride their bicycles in the area in relative safety. This will no
longer be so if the proposed development plans are approved. Everyone
admits that it was a mistake to allow Whaler's Cove, The Landings, and