WHEREAS 12 neighborhoods in northeast Longmont are adjacent to the Ute Creek Golf Course including: Fairways at Ute Creek, Provenance, Sundance at Ute Creek, Clubhouse Terrace, The Reserve at Ute Creek, The Greens at Ute Creek, Wyndemere, Sonoma Village at Ute Creek, Pleasant Valley, Spring Valley, Spring Valley Golf Estates, and The Villas at Ute Creek; and
WHEREAS on August 21, 2020, the City of Longmont Recreation Services submitted a proposal to the City of Longmont Planning Department to re-locate and build a new 2-acre maintenance facility for the Ute Creek Golf Course; and
WHEREAS the current maintenance facility has been located along highway 66 for 25 years as per the original Ute Creek Golf Course layout professionally designed by Robert Trent Jones II Golf Architects; and
WHEREAS the City applicant has a $1.4M budget to update the Ute Creek Golf Course maintenance facility and claims they cannot afford infrastructure at the current unobtrusive highway 66 location; and
WHEREAS the two "new maintenance buildings and service yard with outdoor storage" will be located east of the Club House parking lot, south of the practice driving range and chipping green, west of the 6th hole tee-box and north of homes on Lochmore Drive, and will replace a current naturally landscaped berm; and
WHEREAS the City’s 2002 non-public administrative approval to move the Ute Creek Golf Course maintenance yard to the Club House location expired one year after project inactivity, making the posted sign announcing the location change invalid, misleading and false; and
WHEREAS the application includes a 5,500 sq. ft. Maintenance Building which will also house staff offices, meeting space, and an employee break room, a 4,800 sq. ft. Storage Building, and “a concrete structure erected to provide separate and contained open air storage bins for bulk landscaping materials...such as sand, gravel, earth, etc.”; and
WHEREAS the design of proposed Maintenance and Storage buildings includes “approximately 11,000 sq. ft. of conditioned and unconditioned space”, shows pre-finish metal panels with largely uninterrupted roof lines and exterior wall lines, and includes no 4-sided architecture to enhance the back of the buildings that will be seen by the public; and
WHEREAS the City applicant, in addition to centrally re-locating the maintenance yard, is not holding itself accountable to City standards by "requesting variances from fencing, non-residential design and residential compatibility standards" which exempt the City applicant from meeting building standards for design and compatibility with surrounding residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS the City applicant is justifying holding itself to a lesser design and residential compatibility standard by citing development cost savings, following “form follows function” building design, and maximizing "economy of structure of metal building"; and
WHEREAS all homes along the 18-hole Ute Creek Golf Course may not see the "two buildings, material storage bins, and a central maintenance yard to support daily operations of the golf course", homeowners will be impacted by this centrally located eyesore that will dominate the golf course entry-way, devalue the golf course itself, and depreciate the value of homes throughout the Ute Creek Golf Course neighborhoods;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City’s decision to re-locate the maintenance facilities and service yard to the Club House location, and the City’s request for variances, modifications, and exceptions, is a cost-based, short sighted plan that will negatively impact the golf course ambiance and branding for years to come.
The signers of this petition object to 1. the re-location of the Ute Creek Golf Course maintenance facilities and storage areas adjacent to the Club House parking lot, and 2. approval of variances, modifications and/or exceptions to fencing, non-residential design and residential compatibility standards that allow the City to build a highly visible, centrally located maintenance yard not compatible with the “premier” golf course in Longmont.
Updates
November 19, 2020
I really thought this might just float around in the digital ether forever but the traction we have now is honestly surreal and kind of overwhelming to look at when I log in. It feels like the city finally has to pay attention to these neighborhood concerns because so many people are speaking up at once which is just wild considering how quiet things were when I first started this.
Reached 100 supporters
November 19, 2020
54 Comments
The decision to locate the maintenance facility away from the heart of the golf course was a mistake made at the time of construction. Homeowners should not be penalized 20 years later for the lack of planning and foresight by the city.
To move the facility is a costly, wasteful, and totally optional expenditure. It is City Employee focused versus citizen focused. We invest in golf course community because of the environment and the view. If Longmont needs facility improvement, MAKE USE OF THE EXISTING LOCATION!!!
With the facility comes the trucks and traffic associated. Our neighborhood is busy enough with the golfer traffic. I don’t live on Ute Creek drive, but those homeowners did not sign up for the traffic associated with the maintenance facility.
I am in agreement that there is little or no upside to this design proposal. A project like this would certainly have a negative impact on the property values in the area. This is a commercial maintenance and storage facility and doesn't belong in the middle of an area that is zoned for residential single and residential mixed development.
Who would build a multi-million dollar home and then put a shed in the front yard to store their lawnmower? Neighborhoods always have that one neighbor that either paints their house an awkward color or has multiple junk cars out front or lets weeds grow wild etc. Ute Creek Golf Course would be that one neighbor amongst all other golf courses. City Planners, you can do better.
Need to meet self imposed guidelines for landscaping required for other commercial development
I feel the maintenance facility should be kept at its current location and teh funding used to upgrade that facility.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Copy link or share directly
WHEREAS 12 neighborhoods in northeast Longmont are adjacent to the Ute Creek Golf Course including: Fairways at Ute Creek, Provenance, Sundance at Ute Creek, Clubhouse Terrace, The Reserve at Ute Creek, The Greens at Ute Creek, Wyndemere, Sonoma Village at Ute Creek, Pleasant Valley, Spring Valley, Spring Valley Golf Estates, and The Villas at Ute Creek; and
WHEREAS on August 21, 2020, the City of Longmont Recreation Services submitted a proposal to the City of Longmont Planning Department to re-locate and build a new 2-acre maintenance facility for the Ute Creek Golf Course; and
WHEREAS the current maintenance facility has been located along highway 66 for 25 years as per the original Ute Creek Golf Course layout professionally designed by Robert Trent Jones II Golf Architects; and
WHEREAS the City applicant has a $1.4M budget to update the Ute Creek Golf Course maintenance facility and claims they cannot afford infrastructure at the current unobtrusive highway 66 location; and
WHEREAS the two "new maintenance buildings and service yard with outdoor storage" will be located east of the Club House parking lot, south of the practice driving range and chipping green, west of the 6th hole tee-box and north of homes on Lochmore Drive, and will replace a current naturally landscaped berm; and
WHEREAS the City’s 2002 non-public administrative approval to move the Ute Creek Golf Course maintenance yard to the Club House location expired one year after project inactivity, making the posted sign announcing the location change invalid, misleading and false; and
WHEREAS the application includes a 5,500 sq. ft. Maintenance Building which will also house staff offices, meeting space, and an employee break room, a 4,800 sq. ft. Storage Building, and “a concrete structure erected to provide separate and contained open air storage bins for bulk landscaping materials...such as sand, gravel, earth, etc.”; and
WHEREAS the design of proposed Maintenance and Storage buildings includes “approximately 11,000 sq. ft. of conditioned and unconditioned space”, shows pre-finish metal panels with largely uninterrupted roof lines and exterior wall lines, and includes no 4-sided architecture to enhance the back of the buildings that will be seen by the public; and
WHEREAS the City applicant, in addition to centrally re-locating the maintenance yard, is not holding itself accountable to City standards by "requesting variances from fencing, non-residential design and residential compatibility standards" which exempt the City applicant from meeting building standards for design and compatibility with surrounding residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS the City applicant is justifying holding itself to a lesser design and residential compatibility standard by citing development cost savings, following “form follows function” building design, and maximizing "economy of structure of metal building"; and
WHEREAS all homes along the 18-hole Ute Creek Golf Course may not see the "two buildings, material storage bins, and a central maintenance yard to support daily operations of the golf course", homeowners will be impacted by this centrally located eyesore that will dominate the golf course entry-way, devalue the golf course itself, and depreciate the value of homes throughout the Ute Creek Golf Course neighborhoods;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City’s decision to re-locate the maintenance facilities and service yard to the Club House location, and the City’s request for variances, modifications, and exceptions, is a cost-based, short sighted plan that will negatively impact the golf course ambiance and branding for years to come.
The signers of this petition object to 1. the re-location of the Ute Creek Golf Course maintenance facilities and storage areas adjacent to the Club House parking lot, and 2. approval of variances, modifications and/or exceptions to fencing, non-residential design and residential compatibility standards that allow the City to build a highly visible, centrally located maintenance yard not compatible with the “premier” golf course in Longmont.
Updates
November 19, 2020
I really thought this might just float around in the digital ether forever but the traction we have now is honestly surreal and kind of overwhelming to look at when I log in. It feels like the city finally has to pay attention to these neighborhood concerns because so many people are speaking up at once which is just wild considering how quiet things were when I first started this.
Reached 100 supporters
November 19, 2020
54 Comments
The Hwy 66 facility must be upgraded, not relocated; the Clubhouse must not be left half-completed, not further decimated by locating a commercial landscaping yard and lawnmower rapair shop on back of the parking lot.
The decision to locate the maintenance facility away from the heart of the golf course was a mistake made at the time of construction. Homeowners should not be penalized 20 years later for the lack of planning and foresight by the city.
To move the facility is a costly, wasteful, and totally optional expenditure. It is City Employee focused versus citizen focused. We invest in golf course community because of the environment and the view. If Longmont needs facility improvement, MAKE USE OF THE EXISTING LOCATION!!!
With the facility comes the trucks and traffic associated. Our neighborhood is busy enough with the golfer traffic. I don’t live on Ute Creek drive, but those homeowners did not sign up for the traffic associated with the maintenance facility.
I am in agreement that there is little or no upside to this design proposal. A project like this would certainly have a negative impact on the property values in the area. This is a commercial maintenance and storage facility and doesn't belong in the middle of an area that is zoned for residential single and residential mixed development.
Who would build a multi-million dollar home and then put a shed in the front yard to store their lawnmower? Neighborhoods always have that one neighbor that either paints their house an awkward color or has multiple junk cars out front or lets weeds grow wild etc. Ute Creek Golf Course would be that one neighbor amongst all other golf courses. City Planners, you can do better.
Need to meet self imposed guidelines for landscaping required for other commercial development
I feel the maintenance facility should be kept at its current location and teh funding used to upgrade that facility.
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 250 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
The Hwy 66 facility must be upgraded, not relocated; the Clubhouse must not be left half-completed, not further decimated by locating a commercial landscaping yard and lawnmower rapair shop on back of the parking lot.