HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE DISTRICT @ CAMPUS WEST - PDP - PDP120003 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (21)campus are especially prone to be at 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 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 Parkin 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 C5U
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
To Hearing Officer:
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
71h 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