HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - PDP - PDP120035 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (30)noise from deposits, and noise from a trash truck on the back/bedroom side of the adjacent homes.
Put it between buildings 3 and 4 or 4 and 5.
Finally, the parking is inadequate. While the TOD "has no specific parking requirements", that
does not mean that no parking is necessary in the TOD. The TOD is a plan for future developmental
processes and is dependent on distant future public transportation plans. Right now, necessary
services like grocery stores are more than a mile away from the development site with only limited
bus routes for public transportation. It is unrealistic to believe that any less than 80% of the tenants
will have cars on site. The result of inadequate parking will be permanently parked -in streets. This is
already a problem on Springfield during the day, and the outcome for Bennett School will be to
displace parking for parents dropping off and picking up children every day. Right now the hole
street fills with cars two times a day to accommodate the arrival and departure of the grade -school
children. When they arrive in the morning and find the street parked in, parents will be forced to
double-park to get their kids in to school, creating an absolutely unacceptable.hazard to the children.
1. Limit height to two stories to be compatible with all adjacent properties to the north, south, east,
and west.
2. Provide 24-hour, in-house management.
3. Move the driveway to the center of the property.
4. Provide Additional landscape buffer, sound barrier, and fence to the south and west.
5. Move the trash away from the neighbors.
6. Provide sufficient on -site parking to at least meet the current code provisions applicable to similar
developments outside of the TOD.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Erica Suchman, PhD
Professor
University Distinguished Teaching Scholar
Department of Microbiology, Pathology and Immunology
Colorado State University
Fort Colllins, CO 80523-1682
Fax 970-491-1815
Phone: 970-491-6521
Edca.Suchman@colostate.edu
2
Courtney Levingston
-rom:
Suchman,Edca <Erica.Suchman@ColoState.EDU>
Sent:
Monday, December 31, 2012 12:59 PM
To:
Courtney Levingston
Cc:
Rovnak,Joel
Subject:
Carriage House Apartments- Erica S.
Dear Ms. Levingston,
I would like to present my concerns regarding the conceptual plans for the Carriage House
Apartments.
The most important point for our neighborhood is a maximum height of two stories. The land
use code calls for transitions from single-family homes, and this conceptual plan places 3-story
buildings right next door to one story and two story single-family homes. It is not just the height that is
incompatible, it is the number of people; a successful transition does not place 150 people next door
to a retired couple or a family of three. A limit of two stories will limit a huge increase in the
population of our neighborhood. There are no three-story buildings nearby. There are no high -
density complexes nearby. The nearest are the western most dorms on campus, which cannot be
seen from the site. All the neighbors on Shields and Springfield and Bennett, north and south and
east and west, are one and two story homes and businesses.
When we met with Mr. Bailey last year, he assured us that the building would be
professionally managed. At the neighborhood meeting I was surprised to learn that he intends to
have no on -site management. A 24-hour on -site management plan is by no means unheard of in
student rental complexes in Fort Collins. To do otherwise is to invite noise and disturbance
complaints and to obligate the neighbors to be the complainants for all incidents at the facility. This
will generate an adversarial relationship between the residents of the buildings and the neighbors.
Many neighbors fear such a position, especially,our elderly neighbors. I actually believed that Mr.
Bailey would provide professional management and argued against changes in the Land Use Code,
brought by City Staff to Council, to require such plans. Now I see that the code does need to be
changed to require management plans for such developments, and certainly Mr. Bailey should
provide such a plan.
In the conceptual plan, the main entryway will the put headlights of every entering vehicle into
the backyards and rear windows of the first two houses on Bennett Road, especially when they turn
upward coming through the curb cut and gutter. Further, it puts all of the traffic for the facility, moving
cars and traffic noise, immediately adjacent to three neighbor's homes. The entryway also lies
between two curves on Springfield, making site lines for emerging traffic difficult and hazardous. The
entryway should be moved to the center, between buildings 2 and 3. This would send headlights out
across the open space and limit traffic near the homes to a dead end in the parking area.
Similarly, the conceptual plan shows very little landscape buffer between the facility and the
neighbors to the west and south. The proposed parking should be moved closer to the buildings in,
order to provide a wider green space between the parking and the neighbors back yards. In addition
the plans should provide for an enhanced light and sound barrier.
The position of the trash receptacle is unacceptable. It should be placed within the confines
of the complex, close to the residents of the facility, not close to the neighbors. Specific issues: smell,