HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE DISTRICT @ CAMPUS WEST - PDP - PDP120003 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (19)�r
hUilk�N�
C-)
Niccft &ibbtro
Bohn
V
Cr s l P2 � Ih
Cal Hn)mchon
Mine WmAitf
Je nno WWrnso n
c6 i G) P hl u Y-�
d6,�1�n
We, the members of the Zeta Tau Alpha Sorority, oppose the construction of
The District, on the grounds that the excess shadowing caused by this five -story
structure will lead to the accumulation of ice and snow in our parking, creating
hazardous and unsafe conditions for months at a time. In addition, we have
privacy concerns related to the views of our backyard that would be afforded by
such a tall structure. Please take our concerns into consideration.
Name
shavil nU� !A n2.
tfr5-C CITCA(1
LCvMVe LRMr L
K'mktn sIIvivim
�ouren t1o� n �s
GGb r ; Q.Ql24 l..i cyoiK�
?)Qw)
Signature
rr•
�e1 set �C+;eg ear ���c
kCkA
en n SrY) I th
r3re+t t a n 3e�'
-T,'S5' L VakA1-' #Xfz(
Regular Meeting, Minutes
JuIX 20, 201:1
7. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Page 2
A. Bike Box — David:"DK"Kemp, Bicycle Coordinator
DK showed a video produced by Channel 14 about the new Shared Lane Arrows "Shatrows" and the.
Bike Box on Plum Street at Shields.
Jordan: I'like the bike box, but think cyclists should have attention drawn to theta when they break
the rules.
Thomas: How do you resolve City Code versus the bike box concept when code says cars are to get in
the far right lane near the curb to turn right (meaning the bike lane).
' Olson. Right turns are restricted when a bike box is in place, so it really is a moot point.
Kemp: We've begun to install skip stripes as well.
S Olson: The bike box concept is experimental to allow us to evaluate how it affects the right hook and
whether it is worth pursuing. It isn't a perfect solution, but is worth trying. Austin, Seattle, New York
City, and Portland have them.
Frazier: I've been on Plum and Shields many times. This is when you come to a stop. If you are
continuing, do you get in the right turn lane?
Kemp: There is no right turn lane here.
Lund: How many right hooks have happened-atthis intersection? Why this intersection for the box?
Kemp: The rationale is that it has a very high cyclist volume and no tight turn lane. We wanted to
avoid=a,potential crash
Olson: There is one reported right hook crash. They are random events with low event rates which
makes a study difficult: Instead, where taping the intersection to evaluate close call conflicts to
evaluate if conditions were right for a right hook crash.
Simonson: It's a goodidea in theory, but taking the slowest vehicles on the road and putting them in
front of cars; it impedes traffic and doesn't seem safe to me. One car in the video changed lathes in the
middle of the intersection to go around the bikes crossing in the shared lane.
Olson: VJe have the same concerns, but it seems worth an opportunity to evaluate.
Ken+p: Cyclists have the right to take the center of a travel lane if it is the safest option.
Miller: If the redesign decreases safety, it isn't a good idea.
Olson: The law requires bikes to stay as far right as possible. Some lanes are not wide enough fora
car to get by a bicycle, so it makes more sense to be in the middle of the lane.
Robert: Have you thought of using a bike signal (with a bike silhouette) that turns green ahead of the
automobile signal?
Olson: Some communities are using them. We would have to get approval to install them.
Kemp;-NACTO.org has an article about bicycle signal heads.
Thomas: There is a trolley signal head.
Lund: I am hearing two messages about the law for bicycles.
Olson: If the cyclist can't ride to the right safely, they can take the lane. The law says that cars have
to give a 3' space between the car and the bicycle. The point of the markings is to illustrate where it is
safest to take the lane.
Thomas: Mulberry is oriented toward automobiles. Downtown is oriented toward bicycles and
pedestrians.
Kemp: We teach cyclists to be in the right 2/3 of the rear wheel well along streets thatAo not have
bicycle facilities.
Miller Inconveniencing people in their cars is a lot safer than falling in front of a car traveling 45
mph.
Skutchan: Are you only monitoring car/bike incidents or are you comparing car/car and car/bike?
Kemp: At Shields and P.luni we are evaluating both.
Simonson: Did we see something about turning one lane of Mountain into a bike only lane?
Wen+pe: As part of Plan Fort Collins we had a graphic of.Magnolia Street illustrated as a shared travel
lane. That planhasn't progressed.
In consideration of The District at Campus West, Project Development Plan, #PDP120003.
Hearing Officer,
The following summarizes the impacts of the proposed development on the local neighborhood:
• High level of existing east -bound traffic on Plum Street. Cars are not allowed to turn right on red
lights, and are thus blocked by pedestrians/cyclists heading towards campus. In many instances, a car
might have to wait through one to two lights before being able to turn on to Shields in either direction,
since they are also blocked by cars going straight and pedestrians/cyclists heading west.
• High level of existing traffic at City Park Ave and Plum Street. This area is highly utilized by cars, as
well as by pedestrians/cyclists, providing the potential for an accident given that the intersection is
currently only a four-way stop. Moreover, traffic will undoubtedly increase in this area as drivers
avoid the Shields and Plum intersection due to traffic increases and long stoplight wait times.
• All residential buildings within considerable distance (excluding the dorm -room towers on campus)
are three stories or less. Additional buildings in the area should strive to maintain that height aesthetic.
• Proven high-level shading and shadowing impact from large building onto Sunstone Condominiums
and the Tri-Delt sorority house.
• The area already lacks adequate parking. Commuters already frequently park along Baystone and
Bluebell Roads (as well as the Sunstone Complex parking lot) in order to commute to the CSU
campus. Further, during events at Moby Arena, the streets are fully -packed with cars. Adding (674 —
495 =) 179 potential cars to the area will undoubtedly impact parking availability in the area. By
reducing the size of the buildings and therefore the number of residents/cars, there will be a much
smaller impact to local parking availability.
• Existing policy under Fort Collins' Three -Unrelated Law. The law, which was designed by City
Council to minimize the detrimental impacts of a "party -like" atmosphere on neighboring residences,
has in effect created an artificial housing shortage. By allowing new developments to occur that
include housing for four or more persons, the City would in effect be taking the side of developers
over landlords who own houses. Essentially, the city would be picking and choosing economic
winners in the market that they themselves have inhibited.
Development is great, especially in seemingly blighted areas with potential. However, in order to
maintain the aesthetic of the area, minimize impacts to parking and traffic, maintain a sense of economic
fairness, and reduce the impact of the development to neighboring residents, the Hearing Officer should
request that the developer reduce the size of the project to three stories and develop a plan which
incorporates proportional four -person dwellings (-33-40% versus the current 64%)
Thanks,
Matthew Lloyd
720 City Park Avenue, Apt D434
Sunstone Condominium Owner Since 2009
• Local observations of Swedish Columnar aspens growing along north facing walls
were provided in the photographs. Again it is assumed they are growing
significantly below photosynthetic maximum.
• Species vary greatly in shoot growth response to light intensity.
• In a study of 4 broadleaf species of trees (two birch and two maples) shoot growth
was not adversely affected by reducing light intensity to 45% of maximum.
However, further reduction in light intensity caused decreases in various aspects
of shoot growth. One very shade tolerant species of maple had maximum height
growth between 45%-13% of maximum. All Species had more height growth at
45% of maximum compared to 100% of maximum.
• In another study light intensity had only limited effect on shoot elongation of
American Linden seedlings, which is considered to be a shade tolerant species.
• Local observations of broadleaf trees growing in shade to varying degrees are that
they may be as tall, have thinner crowns and twigs and in some cases orient
growth to a zone of higher light that makes them appear to lean toward the light.
In very dense shade height growth can be slowed considerably and crowns are
thin.
• Trees use carbohydrates produced in photosynthesis for physiological processes
of growth, reproduction, storage and defense. As less and less carbohydrates are
produced the tree makes adjustments to the allocation within its genetic limits.
Low light stress can be tolerated by shade tolerant species. At the extreme limit
that a species can tolerate, growth may be very slow and energy reserves may not
be adequate. This would be at or below the compensation point. The most shade
tolerant trees have the best adaptability to grow and function in low light
environment's
• When trying to determine the degree of impact from long term exposure to lower
light levels on different species in urban plantings, most often shade tolerance
ratings and empirical observations are used to infer results. The best observations
are those that most closely replicate the site being evaluated.
The trees selected for planting have the primary tree selection characteristic identified
for this site to varying degrees so do have potential to grow and function at this location.
Performance is stated as potential because there are not locations to evaluate that
replicate what is being proposed for 3 of the 4 species being used, and in the case of
Swedish columnar aspen two sites were evaluated with different wall heights. With
littleleaf linden one shade site with over topping trees was evaluated and one close
planting to a east facing wall was identified. The lindens were a different cultivar of
littleleaf linden than used on the project. Potential tree performance and function is
inferred from species tolerance ratings, literature reports and a some field
evaluations. There could be variance.
3
This is a standard requirement that is typically addressed in a note of the plans.
How will initially having no light (direct light) on trees at first affect photosynthesis
and growth rate.
I provide the following information taken from these and other sources and a few of my
empirical observations.
Physiology of trees by Kramer and Kozlowski, 1960
Growth and Development of Trees by Kozlowski Volume 1, 1971
• In the dark there is no photosynthesis
• With added light increments a compensation point is reached at which
photosynthesis and respiration are equal and there is no net carbon dioxide
exchange.
• With additional light above the compensation point, photosynthesis is
proportional to light intensity until light saturation occurs, and the ascending part
of a photosynthesis curve then becomes horizontal
• Three broadleaf trees in one study achieved maximum photosynthesis at one-third
or less of full light and any further increase in light intensity produced no further
increase in photosynthesis. Other broadleaf trees reach maximum rates of
photosynthesis at relatively low light intensities
• Three species considered to be shade tolerant to varying degrees are shown to be
at around 40% of observed maximum photosynthesis at 300 foot candles. One
species was at 100% observed maximum photosynthesis at 1000 foot candles
while two others were at around 70%-85% of observed maximum at this level of
light.
• Shade -tolerant trees make better use of light of low intensity than did trees
described as sun trees.
• In one accepted usage, of the term shade tolerance, it is defined as capacity to
endure shade; a tree which reaches maximum photosynthesis at relatively low
light intensity is tolerant while one whose rate of photosynthesis continues to
increase with each added increment of light up to full sun is considered intolerant.
• Shade is considered a stress just as drought is, and trees that have adaptations can
better deal with it.
• Shade tolerant trees can grow in light levels below photosynthetic maximum.
Some shade tolerant trees can grow under a forest canopy.
• The Delaware Plant partnership provides this information on Norway maple,
"Today Norway maple is a frequent invader of the urban and suburban forests. Its
extreme shade tolerance especially when young, has allowed it to penetrate
beneath an intact forest canopy".
• Local observations of Littleleaf Linden were made growing in a lot of shade from
the over topping canopies of Siberian Elm and have been provided in
photographs. It is assumed they are growing significantly below photosynthetic
maximum for this species.
II
In your professional opinion, what is the typical maximum radius for the four trees
scheduled for planting on the north face of the building?
Crimson Sentry Norway Maple
Height: 30'-35'
Width: 12'-15'
Radius: 6'-7.5'
Source: Fort Collins Wholesale Nursery Descriptive Guide
Corinthian Littleleaf Linden
Height: 45'
Width: 15'
Radius: 7.5'
Source: Manual of Woody Landscape Plants by Michael A. Dirr
The photo I provided of a putative Corinthian Littleleaf Linden appears to be close to
these dimensions.
Swedish Columnar Aspen
Height: 30'-40'
Width: 10'-15'
Radius: 5'-7.5'
Source: Fort Collins Wholesale Nursery Descriptive Guide
My observations are that crown spread is most often narrower than than listed is the
descriptive guide.
Pyramidal Hornbeam
Height 30'-35'
Width: For the cultivar `Columnaris' Dr. Dirr states that it is spire -like but does not give
a width dimension. He goes on to discuss that there is confusion in the nursery trade
between the cultivar `Columnaris' and one called `Fastigiate'. "It is obvious that there is
confusion among upright -growing cultivars or that more than on fastigiated clone is in
the trade". The trees of pyramidal hornbeam that I provided in the photos appear to the
narrow growing cultivar `Fastigiate that I would estimate could have an eventual crown
spread between 10-15 feet.
Source: Manual of Woody Landscape plants by Michael Dir and field observations of
local specimens.
Do you have photos that available that demonstrates successful growth and
maturity of the Maple, Hornbeam, and Linden on the north face of a tall structure?
I have no additional photos available demonstrating the other species. Previously
included is a photo of a Littleleaf Linden growing in shade and another along an east
facing wall.
Given the high tree density and narrow space on the north side of the building, will
an irrigation water delivery system be required to ensure tree survival?
/23/12
Gmail - Tree Growth Question
insect will hit the aspen, and their life span isnt too long in landscape situations usually. plus they regenerate by
root sprouts, creating a landscape maint headache.
hombeam might be a good one, don't have specific experience with this one, but its best suited for northern
exposure so, that could be useful in your situation..
personally i dont like linden, they are usually messy trees (drop lots of seed) and softer wood, where i see lots of
included bark leading to failure. this Corinthian is adapted to be a street tree, might be a good choice, but i
guess it wouldnt be easy to find in Colorado (it might be though)
here is some additional info on large landscape trees:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07419.html
also, in addition to growing space, you need adequate root space. in many urban landscape situations, folks
plant big trees in little spaces (between sidewalks), they need more room than that, giving them space will give
them a better chance for survival. following illustration should make my point:
http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/resources/New TreePIanting.pdf
hope that helps. it all comes down to putting something in that meets the needs of the landowner and will offer
what you need to meet your project goals. the list you narrowed it down to should be good. i also recommend
planting more than one spp if you are trying to put several in. in that case, if something hits them (insect or
disease issue) it will not take them all out.
you can also speak with folks at the nursery to get some info on what they see works well in the city, and even a
reputable certified arborist could be useful to speak with. good luck!
don't hesitate to let me know if you need any more info. i hope this was helpful!
John Rizza
Western Region Specialist
Small Acreage Management
2674 Compass Dr., #232
Grand Junction, CO 81506
(970) 243-5068 Ext. 128
(970) 241-3643 (Fax)
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/sam/
From: Timothy Erickson [timaedckson@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 5:10 PM
To: Rizza,John
Subject: Tree Growth Question
[Quoted text hidden]
ttps:l/mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=76a500b289&view=pt&q=riaa&qs=true&search=query&th=1... 2/
/23/12
Gmail - Tree Growth Question
•
by(;00? ]
Tree Growth Question
2 messages
Timothy Erickson <timaerickson@gmail.com>
To: john.dzza@colostate.edu
Hi Mr. Pizza,
T s»o0y 0cirson <4islae ic',cscy@:rr tail.co >
My name is Tim Erickson. I am an engineering student here at CSU.
I had a question related to tree planting in Fort Collins. If one wanted
to plant trees on the North side of a 48 foot tall building, what is the
recommended planting distance from the building? How would shading by the
building affect their growth rate, and specifically how do think the
following types of trees would do long-term: Crimson Spire Oak, Swedish
Columnar Aspen, European Fastigiata Hombeam, and Corinthian Linden?
Best,
Tim Erickson
Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Pizza,John <John.Rizza@colostate.edu> Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM
To: Timothy Erickson <timaedckson@gmail.com>
Tim,
Thanks for your question. There is a lot that goes into planting trees in the city, so here are a few of my
thoughts.
Shade tolerant trees can do better when masked by a building for most of their likes. however, that tall building
will most likely not shade a tree all year long, more during winter and less so during summer. so that building
may shade the planting area about 20 feet out or so in the summer sun (dont quote me on that just an
observational finding), that that is at the ground level, so a tree that reaches 20 or more feet, should be able to
get adequate sun to have growth rates that are acceptable during its lifespan.
The distance away from the building all depends on the projected size of the tree at maturity, to illustrate this
point, take a look at an interesting link:
http://www.arborday.org/trees/dghttreeandplace/dghttree.cfm
The oak is a English x white cross. its columnar growth form lends well to landscape situation you describe.
aspen is okay, but they are like a Iamb, born to die. they have lots of issues, about every known pathogen and
ttps://mail.google.com/maiVu/0/?ui=2&ik=76a500b289&view=pt&q=rizza&gs--true&search=query&th=1.,. 1l
Conclusion
• The developer's current plan is in violation of the land use
code on many fronts.
— Shadowing, Neighborhood compatibility due to massive
scale, Possible Tree Issues
• This project needs to be put on hold until the developer can
submit a plan in compliance with code.
14
Email to John Rizza, CSU Extension,
Land Stewardship and Forest in Range
• Hi Mr. Rizza,
My name is Tim Erickson. I am an engineering student here at CSU.
I had a question related to tree planting in Fort Collins. If one wanted
to plant trees on the North side of a 48 foot tall building, what is the
recommended Planting distance from the building? How would shading
by the building affect their growth rate, and specifically how do think
the
following types of trees would do long-term: Crimson Spire Oak, Swedish
Columnar Aspen, European Fastigiata Hornbeam, and Corinthian Linden?
Best regards,
Tim Erickson
Key Points in Response Email
"The distance away from the building all depends on the projected
size of the tree at maturity, to illustrate this point, take a look at an
interesting link:
http://www.a rborday.org/trees/righttreeandplace/righttree.cfm"
also, in addition to growing space, you need adequate root
space. in many urban landscape situations, folks plant big trees in
little spaces (between sidewalks), they need more room than that,
giving them space will give them a better chance for
survival. following illustration should make my point:
http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/resources/New TreePlant
ing.pdf
(Will forward entire email to staff. Have a hardcopy ready now.)
13
Can a European Hornbeam survive when Planted Five
Feet from a 48 foot North Facing Wall?
City staff has provided no visual
evidence that they can. This Is a
newer office park. The trees are
fully exposed to light and not yet
fully mature. They should become
much bigger when mature In
fact...
The mature radius is up to 12.5 feet.
Sun to filtered shade needed.
Lmt.E VALLEY WHOLFcer n Nuxsr;tcv
:reenr....M�.ori.�..nw 4wminlw ll.a eiro6 naa
u Vw •mamYl� •:� .i,v
Horticu Wre Search °i"^ O°nO^' mvnL�eenn
.�G.•. nsPP � EE wiima.�,...M.u.
c.rnou. wmw. nonw.m. Eu.oP..n
w.nvro�s�s R.w,v.wu�ww W.Aan rs.. c.s.: w�
.Ym.yr:Yi laE6 [p:wc 5m to fdmtl .h F.w.r WP
EwU.
•mv iww irw.riw. w+nY. �MMwwq is a fin a o.tl slaw.a p maluw. M w.c. ribb.i Maw Wma vaMu.. fall
C.ryinu. Maluf la.tlUlau � XermE.an.%nmiWl Europ.an
Yas.9.Wu M.E RrLwY�r MWn inCM.&J
Fn.M (M.rtn�a:SPN
Nam.
tlny. }e 6U0P
n Jma. M.mMW io coMv'W m.d In. wN M'd C W . . . . . . ww
4r. io POW::. bg ww.V rwMn. Gina Nmap m n1. wn.m:
12
Can a Corinthian Linden Survive when Planted
Five Feet from a 48 foot North Facing Wall?
This wall is south facing and the
tree appears to have a radius of
10 feet. Will there be enough
space to grow if planted so close
to the wall? We have seen no
visual evidence that such a tree
can grow under the conditions
proposed by the developer?
If fact...
One of the largest tree nurseries in CO
states a mature radius of 15-17.5 feet?
LrrrLE VALLEY WHOLESALE NURSERY L'9 In
L ]h ae eaed.. sleief— Temek in II
1.11...emi In weal. a»e>e mW dLII.I M.IbL a»pn Hemmnem u:er Name FoyM PasFxom^
Nd yN a member/ i,y ,u Ne„.
Horticulture Search s.amh options iror_, "nr
sembpeme rwrpee __ ,tl ream a.,ayee a<�aaun.
Tdia corwta'Carum
Linden. cedntman
lYert Hvou: 4050 P'eerYq.neeeeu Medium
mmn1 .PALE YELLOW
b4mese.eee: 30.3s' heeem: Sun
flwer&er: Spi m
Summer
H.M. T. 600O
A ery unknn. "mMei nee elh a eplmq cWal leader end dek gmw. Men�heeed ie mi Flmee n wry tgea.
11
No Sun=Frigid Sidewalks=Instant Icing
• The District will cast a permanent shadow on our
sidewalks all winter, and our basement dwelling
will only be exposed to sunlight for a few minutes
at high noon each day.
• LUC: "Adverse impacts include, but are not
limited to ... contributing to the accumulation of
snow and ice during the winter on adjacent
property and shading of windows or gardens for
more than three (3) months of the year."
• Clear Violation on our property. Shadow even
worse on ZTA due to Bldg 3 (61-67 Feet!)
Implications of shadow study on tree growth,
compliance with tree protection plan
• Trees are continuously shaded 365 days a year.
• A newly planted 16 foot high tree, with a radius of 4
feet will receive no direct sunlight at any time of the
year, even at the summer solstice!!!
• A solar angle of 74 degrees is required. The sun is
never more than 73 degrees above the horizon in Fort
Collins, CO. Ever.
• Old growth trees are being cut down and replaced with
trees that may never thrive. We have seen no visual
evidence that the Linden or Hornbeam can survive in
such an environment. May be challenging to grow in
such a narrow, light constricted space.
10
February 8th
9 cc,
i:00
Distance to Buildings and Effective Shadow Length Seen By
Buildings
BIdgs 1/2 31-Oct 6-Nov 21-Dec 4-Feb 8-Feb Bldg 3 31-Oct 6-Nov 21-Dec 4-Feb 8-Feb
9:00 AM 77.53 85.24 139.6 94.25 87.72 9:00AM 97.31 107 175.2 118.3 110.1
12:00 68.97 74.97 99.89 74.43 71.43 12:00 86.57 94.1 125.4 93.41 89-66
3:00 96.65 108.5 156.8 94.11 88.73 3:00 121.3 136.2 196.8 118.1 111.4
Conclusion: Portions of Sunstone are shadowed continuously for more than three
months a year. ALL of ZTA House is shadowed for much more than three months a
Year,
October 31st
9 Oc
12:00
3:00
0
Raw
Shadow
Length
in Feet
9:00
142 153
246
192 182
12:00
87 94
126
94 90
3:00
179 197
254
154 147
M, wm�
.
9:00
113 122
196
153 145
12:00
69 75
100
75 72
3:00
143 157
202
123 117
Computation of Effective Shadow Length
Seen By Sunstone and ZTA House
Cos(Az)=adjacent/hypotenuse
Cos(Az)=D/L
D=L'Cos(Az)
Effective Shadow
Length Cast in
Shadow Direction of
Angle Az is length= L Sunstone = D
determined using Az
the azimuthal
angle of the sun
and corrected for
angular
orientation of
the buildings District
relative to North The
7
Shadow Height
vs.
Time of
Day
no
BMp. ta. Sh .H"btr.. rm.&Db
2W
M93: B Wm Haght v.. rm Of DW
200
—OBc 21
—Npv6
2W
—Oac21
—HBVB
IN
—FMB
31
2,40
3
—FMB
—Oc131
W
e0
—FM4
220
Z 200
—FM4
1�0
1B0
IN
}9l
1M
1�
120
e0
100
°0B
9 10 11 12 13 14 13
MiIMry 1
e0B
9 10 11 12
MOMN r
13 14 15
Football Field Sized ShadowsM
Shadow Heights vs. Azimuthal Angle
BWp 3. SMdM Haight a A6MW [AN1. Mp 1a. ShMOw H"ht v.. AdMuNO Mpk
2e0 MID
2� —D.c 2t —Dec 21
—nwe zoo —w+e
240 —FM p —FMB
—W31 te0 —Q131
210 —FM4 —FM•
s 2tBt s teo
ISO IQ
IN 20
120 01W
120
IM BW
tzo 14 IN IN 2M Off 2M 120 1A0 1S0 1B0 200 M 2M
Ac IMpk Ac.N lMow
0
Provides Sun's Azimuthal and Altitude
(Polar) Angle in table format for
anytime of the
day in Fort Collins, CO
l.cmnwte.l xGCllvllm. O.Cc.
Solar Position is Defined By Just
R1i CO132110. NNP1N
s
Two Angles
moo °a, 9 °
Azimuthal: Where the sun is
sysysmn „c ".. ,x
M. u, loss
em®s.1. ]....... �,..
relative to north along the horizon
Altitude: How high the sun is
rt.xn
above the horizon
0 . n
oc: ]0 -91ss.9
a1:00 -a.9 lll.9
1.1 111.3
Es.
Oe:00 9.] n 3
09:90 9.e 1]x.'1
09:00 ll.9 1]9..
09:]0 ll.] 1...5
:O:aO 20.3 191.0
10:30 ns sv.a
11:00 xs.• us.x
1100 u.> I
33:00 xe.0 1e0.3
u:]0 1s.e 191.9
Basic Shadow Math
Tangent (A)= opposite/adjacent
Tangent(A)=H/L SUN
L=Shadow Length=H/Tangent(A)
Shadow Length (L)
Building
Height (H)
H ranges from 48.6
to 67 feet on North
Side of complex
Lengths and Heights Derived from
developer plan
• North face of Bldgs 1 and 2 are 48.66 feet tall.
• North face of Bldg 3 is 61-67. 61 feet used in
our analysis. Our estimates of shadow impact
are conservative for Bldg. 3.
• The distance to our units is derived from
measurements of the devloper's blueprint. In
good agreement with distances presented by
developer on 4/6 AND my own physical
measurements.
Source of Solar Angle Data: US Naval
Observatory
Tras pape [a... In, aNwoe and amrann or on. Sdn —rd yam
Wag any day � 17M azM 21M Slnoy sD lry ntt o01� data. YUular
lmar an and playa aMJa and cll[a on as, Congap TabW odoon TM as n and
snynn raNea as, YWaw as a n adn, U MvanNN mre (dawgr, innersmf
Usdd) a me pace MQMaed on a 2"W crock
Use FOrmA Mxcow or bars M Ora US or Itt hmWones Use Form B rdr aA dne•
aaaNOR lapltalla an nmedmeM dada
plWamad M Ndu secmn brdeuus m ine oaa ano dennmons rr anmmn ann
Form A - U. S. CIBes or Towns
• 9un "Noon
l'•v M12 canal: 0.emL•� Ory: ?1
umlr Nrurnt M -- maaan )rape 1.120 Moles)
a••a>nalbrr: oaa.m.
MY or Town Nana: FM CaIYN
4
The Developer's Plan is In Violation of
Land Use Code 3.5.1G.2
The purpose of this Section is to establish a special process to
review buildings or structures that exceed forty (40) feet in height...
2. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40)
feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial
adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on
adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but
are not limited to ... contributing to the accumulation of snow and
ice during the winter on adjacent property and shading of windows
or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year.
Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may
include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the
lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or
redesigning a building or structure's shape.
Our accurate shadow study shows the
developer is in violation of the LUC.
• My background
— Bachelors in physics
— M.S in Engineering w/ emphasis in biomedical
optics
• Presented at OSA conferences, published my research
in respected optical journals
— Courses in Physical Optics, Biomedical Optics,
Astronomy, Fourier Optics, Lens Design, and Laser
Physics
• I will explain our study's methodology.
3
THIS... Figure 7
The Developer's Plan is In Violation of
Land Use Code 3.5.1D
• (D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the
development plan shall be arranged to maximize the
opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project
and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining
land uses
• How does having dozens of units overlooking a
Sorority House maximize the opportunity for privacy?
• The ZTA girls don't want a bunch of people staring
down on them as they try to tan in their own backyard
— See signed petition from ALL OF THEM
2
Powerpoint presentation given at
Administrative Hearing, April 5, 2012
Presented by Tim Erickson
Previously Requested Minor
Modifications
-Increased setback distance to 15 feet
-Viable tree plan
-Reduced building height to mitigate shadowing and
conform to the neighborhood pattern
-Offset windows on garage to mitigate noise from
squealing tires, car alarms, and reduce flying debris
-We don't want to stop development. We want minor
changes. Without them the developer is in violation
of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. In it's current form
it is not compatible with the existing neighborhood.
The Developer is In Violation of Land
Use Code 3.5.1C
Section 3.5 Relates to Project and Building Compatibility
C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale.. Buildings shall
either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be
articulated and subdivided into massing that is
proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if
any, on the same block face, opposing block face or cater-
corner block face at the nearest intersection. (See Figure
How is a Building One, a massive five story, 65 foot tall
structure, similar in size and height to existing structures in
neighborhood? It's not. Its twice as tall and volumetrically
at least —10x (2x taller, 2x longer and 3x wider) the size of
adjacent condos in the our neighborhood? Building One is
NOT subdivided. It's one massive structure.
C
9AM
3PM
Noon
Distance to Buildings and Shadow Protrusion in Direction of Opposing
Units in Feet (corrected for azi angle of sun)
Minimum Shadow Lengths for 100 day period (31-Oct. to 8-Feb.)
1 I Sorority house
r
- r
91 763
r� 72 69. ..m • i
63
0
I r
1.i2�
_ .m.rv. n�s.w<anrnaw inr. m .orr _•••
A
W PLUM 57
Bldgs 112
31-Oct
6-Nov
21-Dec
4-Feb 8-Feb
Bldg 3 31-Oct
6-Nov
21-Dec
4-Feb
8-Feb
9:00 AM
77.53
85.24
139.6
94.25 87.72
9:00 AM 97.31
107
175.2
118.3
110.1
12:00
68.97
74.97
99.89
74.43 71.43
12:00 86.57
94.1
125.4
93.41
89.66
3:00
96.65
108.5
156.8
94.11 88.73
3:00 121.3
136.2
196.8
118.1
111.4
The sorority
house
and Sunstone
Bldg's A &D are continually shaded
for this 100 day period!
r� d �3 t'teX
Distance to Buildings and Shadow Protrusion in Direction of Opposing
Units in Feet (corrected for azi angle of sun)
Minimum Shadow Lengths for 100 day period (31-Oct. to 8-Feb.)
9AM
1 I Sorority house
3PM
w
Noon -^--- -- �-- _?� J IF
F J _
.. i ■IIO MWgMO j I �
..nur ti aq v i 1/j
1
.nM. 1
I . ....:r.a.,..,.......,. L
d .1
.. W PLUM ST
Bldgs 1/2
31-Oct
6-Nov
21-Dec
4-Feb
8-Feb
9:00 AM
77.53
85.24
139.6
94.25
87.72
12:00
68.97
74.97
99.89
74.43
71.43
3:00
96.65
108.5
156.8
94.11
88.73
Bldg 3
31-Oct
6-Nov
21-Dec
4-Feb
8-Feb
9:00 AM
97.31
107
175.2
118.3
110.1
12:00
86.57
94.1
125.4
93.41
89.66
3:00
121.3
136.2
196.8
118.1
111.4
The sorority house and Sunstone Bldg's A &D are continually shaded
for this 100 day period!
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 and the
numbers of persons that will locate there.
3. We question why an accommodation allowing 4 persons to occupy an apartment is being
allowed with this project. Such accommodation will likely encourage other property owners in
the nearby area to increase their occupancy limits also without obtaining prior permission since
they may challenge Ft. Collins' 3-unrelated person maximum rule as being discriminatory and
unfairly applied or enforced.
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.
3
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 more convenient to their
apartments, especially if they are being charged for parking in their own facility, 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 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. Our HOA will not appreciate being placed in such a position.
Concern #3. Our third concern centers around what we 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 every
day is un-imaginative and character -less. A few trees planted outside likely will do little to mitigate such
effects either from a visually -friendly or property value impact perspective. We hope that the final
decision makers will understand that we cannot accept this as currently proposed. _
We also are concerned about the effects of lighting and noise coming from the parking structure that
will be so close to our property. 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. The 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 residential facilities in the
immediate area. 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? We
are of the opinion they are not.
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
2
Comments Regarding Proposed Development, The District at Campus West
Presented at Public Hearing, April 5, 2012; 5PM
From: Sunstone Condominium Home Owners Association (Buildings C&D)
Presented by: Bob Meyer, President
Date: April 5, 2012 jt�
To Hearing Officer: Ow
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our position and relay the concerns of our Home Owners
Association (HOA) related to the proposed development at this public hearing. During the recent March
7`h neighborhood hearing, we provided more detailed written comments to the City Planning
Department which I hope have been provided to you for your review. Today, I would again like to
summarize 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 and in studies conducted by those representing our interests,
significant shadowing is predicted to occur directly on the Sunstone buildings themselves beginning in
mid -November thru February. This building shadowing encompasses over one-half our building's
existing structure depending on the time of day and likely will occur for the 4 month period of
November— February. And, our studies show.the shadowing effect to be substantially greater than that
presented by the developer — casting shadows as far as 131 feet north of the proposed parking
structure. Negative economic impacts of 25% or more on our property values have been estimated by
realtors related to this shadowing effect. Our HOA requests that the impacts of our modeling results
also are considered in the decision -making process.
Of equal concern is the shadowing effect on our main parking lot. The studies show that at NO time
during the months of November 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 impacted by the increased costs of snow removal from the parking area.
Concern #2. This concern centers about the traffic impacts and available parking for our residents and
tenants. 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,
179 cars would be seeking parking in other places in the nearby neighborhood likely on the surrounding
1
ATTACHMENT 7
Materials submitted by
Citizens at the Administrative
Hearing
April 5, 2012, continued to
April 23, 2012