HomeMy WebLinkAboutREMINGTON ROW (ANNEX) - PDP - PDP110017 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)permanently transform the block's character. Many adverse affects to your neighbors
will result from that greatly increased density, including increased traffic (car and foot),
more litter, more noise, more chaos and problems during college move -in and move -out
weeks, greater trespassing (cutting corners through others' properties), etc... I'm sure
there are places in the city where this sort of high -density housing would have far fewer
negative consequences for neighbors.
3) materials: The great majority of properties in that area of Remington are sided in
traditional materials -- wood, stone, and/or brick -- which helps give the street and
neighborhood its character. It appears from your drawings that your building will be a
much more modern mishmash of materials, with only relatively small touches of
traditional elements of brick and wood. I believe stucco and/or other modern siding
materials in such a large building will permanently alter the aesthetic character of the
neighborhood into something much more modern and urban and consequently adversely
affect the impression of the historic neighboring buildings and the overall feel of the
neighborhood.
I wish you the best on your project as you work to improve it. Hopefully when your
project gets through the city, it will be something its neighbors can be happy about, and
our block and street can maintain most of its comfortable scale, historic character, and
high quality of life.
Best wishes,
Brian Beeghly
Beeghly Historic Properties Ile
Brian Beeghly
2221 Bluff Street
Boulder, CO 80304
Oct. 21, 2011
Justin Larsen, Taylor Meyer
Vaught Frye Larsen Architects
401 West Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Mr. Larsen, Mr. Meyer, city of Fort Collins, and all other concerned parties,
Through my LLC, I am the owner of the four-plex residential property at 701 Remington,
the adjacent and very close neighbor of the proposed project at 705-711 Remington.
Because I won't be able to attend the public meeting on November 7th, I'm writing you
with my thoughts now.
First, I want to call your attention to a mistake in the Oct. 3/2011 drawings to which I am
responding. You label 701 Remington there as "existing 3-story residential building."
This is in error. 701 Remington is a 2-story building with a non -habitable basement and
small non -habitable attic space. Please correct this mistake before presenting any future
drawings to the city or public. (I believe the scaling in your current drawings of your
project next to 701 Remington is similarly misleading; 701 Remington isn't as big as
represented there. I think it would be helpful to all concerned if the scale were made
more accurate prior to showing the public and city as well.)
As for your plans as I understand them, here are my current major concerns:
1) size: I think 3-stories is too tall for those three lots on Remington. Contrary to your
drawings, your enormous building would actually dwarf 701 Remington, casting the
habitable space on its south side in shadow much of the day. (I also believe your
building will tower over and have adverse effects on the triplex immediately to your
south side.) Not only will the quality of life of adjacent residents be adversely affected
-- both loss of privacy and severe reduction of natural light -- but the curb appeal of the
entire block would be diminished. A 3-lot, 3-story building wedged to the limit between
considerably smaller, traditionally -sized multi -family properties is simply out of scale.
2) density: It's not clear from Oct. 3/2011 drawing how many dwelling units you plan to
have there, but it seems from the enormity of the footprint and the 3 stories that it will be
a large number. I believe only so many residents can inhabit that block before it loses its
character and becomes something else entirely: much more urban. Whether that
comfortable number is 4 units per lot or as high as 8 one can reasonably debate. I don't
think there's any question that greater than 8 units per lot on Remington would