HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE DISTRICT @ CAMPUS WEST - PDP - PDP120003 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGby-passes a somewhat more formal type of input process for community development. The
multi -person Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board's function and responsibility is to review and
consider such compatibility issues, thoroughly evaluate the project from multiple points of view,
and reach consensus. To date, the process has not involved this body, and we have concerns in
this respect especially in light of what we consider as significant impacts of this project on
surrounding property owners.
2. 674 residents in the proposed complex, of which the majority will most likely be CSU students,
in our view is cause for particular concern. Many of us have been college students before, and,
as we all know, once the weather warms, younger folks often have a tendency to kick back, call
some friends, and start a party which can quickly grow to hundreds of participants. And, history
has repeatedly shown that those areas in which the proposed project is located west of the CSU
campus are especially prone to beat greater risk for such activities to develop. We have
concerns that the tendency for large-scale parties to develop and spillover to neighboring
properties will be incrementally increased based merely on the size of this development.
Please understand that Sunstone HOA is not opposed to re -developing the proposed area. In fact, we
welcome it. But this particular proposal is not compatible with our interests.
Again, we thank you for the opportunity to provide our input and listen to our concerns.
4
Towed". Such a situation places Sunstone managers in the unenviable position of becoming parking lot
police which, without a doubt, will incur increased costs for our association, and will likely not serve to
promote friendly relations with our neighbors. We hope you understand that we will not appreciate
being placed in such a position.
On the lighter side, perhaps CSU will develop some sort of a "virtual parking structure" to park cars at
their new proposed, on- campus football stadium that they would be willing to share with all of us,
thereby eliminating the need for a parking structure at all. I won't hold my breath!
Concern #3. Our third concern centers about what I will term "building effects". In particular we are
very concerned about the visual, lighting, and noise impacts that may occur from having a large parking
structure literally in our backyard. The new proposal describes very nice looking apartments adorning
the southern and east faces of the parking structure so as to make the parking structure visually
appealing for those travelling down either Plum or Bluebell streets. In contrast, our inspection of the
proposal shows that the northern face of the parking structure that Sunstone residents will view each
day is just that — a stark, concrete parking structure without much done to minimize the nagging visual
effects created. A few trees planted outside likely will do little to mitigate such effects either from a
visually -friendly or property value impact perspective. We have concerns that little was done to
mitigate the visual effects and impacts created in the minds of those viewing the parking structure from
the north as opposed to those viewing from the south , and makes one pause a bit to consider if the
developer may really not be as concerned with impacts to all neighbors as they claim. We certainly
hope this is not the case. To be a bit more blunt, the schematics describing the look of the north face of
the parking structure are character -less, un-imaginative, and tend to remind one of the multi -story,
grey, concrete building located on Howes Street one block north of the CSU campus. In respect to our
property owners and residents, we request attention be focused on improving the visual appearance
and appeal of the north face of this structure. We cannot accept it as currently proposed.
We also are concerned about the effects of lighting and noise coming from the parking structure. We
need to have more assurance that lighting and noise coming from this structure is sufficiently mitigated
such that disturbance to our residents does not occur. Our reading of the proposal does not address
these concerns sufficiently in our opinion.
Concern #4. Our fourth and final more general concern relates to the overall "mass and scale" of this
project. Although we understand that the project plan may conform to certain specific requirements as
elucidated in City Plan and existing city code, we hope that you will share our concern that this project is
"huge" in terms of physical size and the concentration of people and their associated vehicles in a
relatively small area. It dwarfs most all other facilities in the immediate area and does not encompass
any property setbacks. Even though existing code may allow such proposed development to occur, we
ask consideration of the following:
1. Are 4 and 5 story buildings located in generally residential -type areas compatible with existing
structures? And, is this the vision that most Fort Collins planning officials wish to embrace?
Classifying this project for consideration as a Type 1 versus a Type 2 project, in our estimation,
0 •
Our HOA also feels that the shadowing data presented in the developers study is, at best, conservative.
Other shadowing studies conducted by owners in our association suggest that the impacts of shadowing
on our buildings are likely to be substantially greater. For example, our models predict shadows to be
cast ranging in length from 55' to as much as 131' from the parking garage. Considering that the parking
garage structure will be located only 40' south of our buildings, we hope you can understand our
concerns regarding the immense amount of shadowing that will occur. Our HOA requests that the City
of Fort Collins review and consider the impacts of our modeling results also in their decision -making
process. These model inputs and outputs are attached as part of our comments.
Even though the modified proposed has attempted to address, to a certain extent, the detrimental
effects of shadowing on our properties by reducing the height of the buildings that would be
constructed, we do not feel that such effects have been adequately mitigated in the new proposal. The
proposal refers to existing trees already casting shadows on our buildings during these same periods of
the year which is true. But what is critical to this discussion is that significant amounts of sunlight
continue to be cast onto our buildings now, as evidenced in the pictures presented, which serves to
allow the parking lot to "clear" and fosters a much more friendly and bright environment for our
residents. The proposed structures, if allowed to build as per the proposed plan, will significantly
increase the "blocking effect" on existing sunlight that currently exists at those times of the day in which
residents are likely to be outside.
Concern #2. This concern centers about the traffic impacts and available parking for our residents and
tenants. The proposal we reviewed does not contain a Traffic Impact Study which is referred to in the
proposal. Only the conclusions of the traffic engineer representing the developer are discussed.
Without having the opportunity to review such study and critically evaluate its methods as related to the
conclusions made, our HOA is not able to render an informed decision or make a recommendation at
this time. We feel, however, such a study should be presented for public review, and we request the
opportunity to do such and present our views and opinions before any decision is rendered regarding
this project.
The project proposal indicates that as many as 674 residents would be housed at "The District" if all
rooms are occupied. Although no one knows for sure how many cars the proposed project would
eventually attract to the area, potentially 674 cars would need to be parked if all residents arrived in
Fort Collins with a vehicle. Considering that the proposed parking structure will accommodate 495 cars,
possibly 179 cars would be seeking parking in other places in the nearby neighborhood likely on the
surrounding streets of City Park Avenue and Baystone Drive, and probably in the Sunstone Parking lot
resulting in a significant "spillover effect" that will need to be continually addressed. These streets are
already being occupied by residents of both the Sunstone and Baystone condominium complexes, and
additional cars will only add to existing pressures of locating an available parking spot. Of even greater
concern to Sunstone HOA members is the impact that such a "spillover effect" will have on our own
resident's available parking in the Sunstone lot. We would all be naive to think that District residents
would not quickly figure out that parking in the Sunstone lot was closer to some of their apartments,
and they would certainly test our resolve until such time penalties that the Sunstone HOA would need to
impose were successful in getting the message out of "Don't Park in the Sunstone Lot or You Will Get
2
•
0
Comments Regarding Proposed Development, The District at Campus West
From: Sunstone Condominium Home Owners Association (Buildings C&D) k P n I
Presented by: Bob Meyer, President �v ,� ,-J
Date: March 7, 2012
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our position and relay our concerns related to the proposed
development at this second neighborhood meeting. Our Sunstone Condominium HOA appreciates the
attention that both the City Planning Department and the developer have given to our initial concerns
which were identified during the first neighborhood meeting and in correspondence received from
individual property owners since. (Letter from Kelvin Doss attached). However, following a review of
the modified proposed project plans and discussions held with our HOA Board of Directors recently, I
have been asked to relay our continuing concerns with the project as currently proposed.
Concern #1. This concern centers around the "shadowing" impacts that the proposed development
immediately to the south will have on the buildings and parking lot of our properties. In the shadowing
study presented by the developer, significant shadowing is predicted to occur directly on the Sunstone
buildings themselves beginning in mid -November thru at least January. Data was not presented for the
February time -frame, but likely such shadowing will still be occurring then also as the sun is still
relatively low on the horizon at that time. This building shadowing encompasses over one-half our
building's existing structure depending on the time of day as shown in the schematics presented with
the proposal, and the study shows certain degrees of shadowing occurring between the hours of 9 AM —
3PM each day for the 3 month period of November, December, and January. As previously mentioned,
similar shadowing impacts would also likely occur over a continuous 4 month period if February data
was also included. Negative economic impacts of 25% or more on our property values have been
estimated by realtors related to this shadowing effect.
Of equal concern is the shadowing effect on our main parking lot located between our existing buildings
and those of the proposed project. The study shows that at NO time during the months of at least
November thru January, and likely thru February, will our parking lot see the sun at all. Certainly we all
can understand and appreciate the resulting impacts which may occur if a late fall or early winter storm
dumps snow resulting in ice formation. Without sun, the ice would likely remain all winter potentially
resulting in injuries to our residents and visitors from falling or from increased automobile accidents.
Economically, our HOA will be also be impacted by the increased costs of snow removal from the
parking area.
1