Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE DISTRICT @ CAMPUS WEST - PDP - PDP120003 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (17)Shadow length between Sept 22"d and March 22"dfor a 50' structure Entire parking lot is in the shade during the fall and winter months. Maximum shadow length reached on December 22"d for a 50' Structure by-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 spill over 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, 3 Our HOA also feels that the shadowing data presented in the developers study is, at best, c?cam a+ive. 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 modeli� ults 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 Comments Regarding Proposed Development, The District at Campus West From: Sunstone Condominium Home Owners Association (Buildings C&D) V "r) Presented by: Bob Meyer, President �Q v a�\ 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 a "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 presentedit the proposal, and the study shows certain degrees of shadowing occurring between the hours o AM — (Jp�I1 3PM each day for the 3 month period of November, December, and January. As previously mentione similar shadowing impacts would also likely occur over a continuous 4 month period if February data was also included. Negative economic impactsof 25% r more on our property values have been estimated by realtors related to this shadowing effect. A� 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 fa lingo orIFom increased automobile accidents. Economically, our HOA will be also be impacted by the increased costs of snow removal from the parking area. 1 Fort Collins, CO 12:00 PM on each Date 9/22/12 12/22/11 3/22/12 6/22/12 Sun's Angle 49.3 26 50.4 72.8 Shadow Length of 53ft Residential Structure 45.59 108.67 43.85 16.41 Shadow Lengthof 64ft Parking Garage 55.05 131.22 52.95 19.81 costs for the condominium association as well. Decreased solar load on the buildings will also have a significant impact on the heating bills for the residents that are impacted by the parking structure shadow. Consider the fact that a 58' tall parking structure will present an imposing visual impact from any location on the Sunstone property. Would you or anyone for that matter, appreciate an imposing 58' tall walled structure directly out your front door? This is not a small structure, not only is it tall it is excessively long as well. From an aesthetics perspective it will not be pretty to look at. In fact it will be an eyesore. As far as I know, no other parking structure located in Fort Collins is this tall. Another significant concern is the potential for light trespass and vehicular noise from the parking structure. Both of these items will substantially reduce the quality of life of the Sunstone Condominium Home Owners. Given the collegiate environment that the proposed development will bring, the potential for vehicle noise well into the night is highly likely. Additionally, potential noise from the roof mounted mechanical equipment is a real and valid concern. Being in the Consulting Engineering business, typically, we see large commercial roof mounted mechanical equipment impacting adjacent homeowners due to excessive noise. This is particularly noticeable in the evening and night time hours. Given all of these valid and realistic concerns I have no doubt that my property value will be significantly impacted. My realtor believes that it could impact property values by as much as 25% in the Sunstone Condominiums. That means the value of my property could decrease by as much as $30,000. This is a real and valid concern that exists. I implore you to reject the plans as they currently exist when the developer submits them to the city. During the 8/31/11 meeting several people voiced significant concerns regarding this project. I believe that these concerns are real enough that they should be taken into account. I believe that growth is a good thing when it is done with appropriate considerations and minimal impact on adjacent property owners. This project will have a substantial negative impact, not only from a quality of life but from a property value as well. I appreciate your fair and unbiased review regarding this project. If you have any questions please do not hesitate top contact me. Sincerely, Kelvin K. Doss Kelvin K. & Regina M. Doss 720 City Park Ave. # D422 Fort Collins, CO 303/708-8906 doss4 c(�r.comcast.net October 10, 2011 Emma McArdle City Planner City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: The District at CSU Dear Emma, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the potential project located near Shields and Elizabeth called "The District at CSU". t a As an owner in the adjacent Sunstone Condominiums located directly north of the proposed development I have many valid concerns regarding the approval of this project. The projects 58' tall parking structure will be located directly south of my property in the Sunstone Condominiums. These concerns include the following issues: • Blocked Sunlight • Noise pollution from vehicle traffic in garage. • Noise pollution from roof mounted mechanical / HVAC equipment. • Light Trespass/pollution • Visual impact of a 58' Tall Structure • Decreased Property Value As a professional in the built environment I understand and appreciate the efforts and value that go into a project of this nature. However as an adjacent property owner my concerns are large enough that I must communicate them to the City of Fort Collins. Based on the plans presented at the 8/31/11 Public Meeting, the 58' foot tall Parking Structure will abut the southern property line of the Sunstone Condominium complex. The parking structure will be located approximately 40' away from the existing Sunstone Condominiums. A 58' tall structure will virtually block all sunlight from late October thru early April casting shadows not only on the Sunstone Condominiums Parking Lot, but onto the buildings as well. This will create a substantial snow removal problem as well as an ice build up problem in the parking lot. There is no doubt that it will increase snow removal Ted Shepard From: Iloyd [Iloyd@engr.colostate.edu] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 5:44 AM To: Ted Shepard Subject: Support for The District at Campus West M Ted, I want to express my support for the project called The District at Campus West. This project works so well on many levels that it will be of great benefit to our neighborhood and community: -It meets the vision for this area as expressed in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. It provides convenient, well located high density residential development with all the amenities of state of the art student housing. -It redevelops an area that is underutilized and in great need of such up upgrade and makeover. -It successfully addresses the principles and policies of City Plan. -It meets and often exceeds the standards of the Land Use Code. -It is located in the Transit Overlay District, providing much desired opportunities for use of transportation alternatives. It further facilitates alternative transportation by its provision for bicycle use far in excess of the LUC standard, -It can serve as an example of how the infill and redevelopment concept as envisioned by the Planned Development Overlay District can be implemented. -By its development as a silver LEED project it addresses energy efficiency standards which are and will increasingly become essential to maintaining our community in a sustainable fashion. -It can serve as an example and set a standard of the type of redevelopment that our community expects in order to address our future needs. -It addresses a long neglected need for appropriate student housing for our community and in so doing it provides the opportunity to re-establish the function of nearby single family neighborhoods as affordable housing for a broad range of citizens of Fort Collins. Thank you consideration of my views on this project. Regards, Lloyd Walker 1 Page 1 of 1 Ted Shepard From: Doug Brobst [brobst@peakpeak.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 9:31 AM To: Ted Shepard Subject: The District Proposal Mr. Shepard, D 30 e> t" I am writing in support of the proposed student housing project known as The District on West Plum Street. Having been involved with the issue of student housing in Fort Collins for a number of years it is very exciting to see a well designed project like the District coming forward. This project "fits the bill" in so many ways to help solve the problems that the neighborhoods around the university are now facing. Among the ways it does so are: . It's close proximity to campus will be attractive to students, walking and biking to class and other activities will be a natural choice for its occupants, even though the site will have a parking garage. • This project is a great example of how infill close to campus can be achieved, making very good use of property that is not currently being used to its full potential. • The design is very attractive and yet functional, meaning that it will be an appealing addition to the area while being attractive to students. . In keeping with the planning priorities of the city, it is being designed as Silver LEED certified, not only is this energy smart, but it also adds to the attractiveness for students. . With the estimated enrollment of CSU to be in the area of 35,000 students in the next ten years there is no doubt we need to be looking to developments like The District to fulfill the needs of the additional students and to take the existing and any additional burden off our neighborhoods. Thank you very much for your time Mr. Shepard; please feel free to contact me if you'd like to discuss this matter further. Doug Brobst 1625Independence Road Fort Collins, CO 80526-1712 (970)222-4046 3/30/2012 ATTACHMENT Materials submitted by Citizens prior to the Administrative Hearing April 5, 2012, continued to April 23, 2012