HomeMy WebLinkAboutPETERSON PLACE (611 S. PETERSON) - PDP - 35-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (3)In Summary:
As detailed in the previous section, there are numerous and substantial reasons why the proposed
sub -division and development of 611 Peterson Street should not be permitted.
There are also the extrinsic reasons to deny the project that we would like you to keep in the
back of your minds. This is purely an economic venture on the part of the developers, as they
themselves do not live in this neighborhood. This project brings nothing of value to our
neighborhood, in fact it can be viewed as detrimental by those of us who do live here, there is no
positive upside. If you look up and down the street you will see a mixed neighborhood of single-
family homeowners and renters, where a lot of time and money has been invested in recent years
to improve the properties that already exist here. We care about the preservation of our homes
and our neighborhood. 611 Peterson is a great house, and with a little TLC by a home -owner, it
could be restored to a great property as well. Please help us keep the positive tide of beneficial
investment to maintain and restore our neighborhood.
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concerns Page 13 of 13
Issues/Concerns:
■ The trash dumpster are/is proposed to be adjacent to the existing Alley, which in this case is
apparently the public street frontage.
■ Where is the HVAC and other mechanical equipment located? How will the noise from
these units as well as the visual impacts be mitigated?
3.5.2 Residential Building Standards
(A) Purpose/Applicability. The following standards are intended to promote variety, visual interest and
pedestrian -oriented streets in residential development.
(C) Relationship of Attached and Multi -Family Buildings to Streets and Parking.
(2) Street -Facing Facades. Every building containing four (4) or more dwelling units shall have at least
one (1) building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on -
street parking.
Issues/Concerns:
■ The primary fagade and the proposed townhouse entries do not face the adjoining street; in
this case it is assumed to be the existing Alley.
(D) Residential Building Setbacks.
(3) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. The minimum side yard setback for all residential buildings and for all
detached accessory buildings that are incidental to the residential building shall be five (5) feet from the
property line. If a zero -lot line development plan is proposed, a single six foot minimum side yard is
required. Rear yard setbacks in residential areas shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the rear
property line, except for garages and storage sheds not exceeding eight (8) feet in height, where the
minimum setback shall be zero (0) feet, and for alley -accessed garages and dwellings for which the
minimum setback shall be eight (8) feet.
Issues/Concerns:
■ The setbacks do not meet these requirements.
(5) To the maximum extent feasible, existing historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved and
when additional street tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall match
that of the existing trees.
Issues/Concerns:
The proposed subdivision reduces the area available for tree planting, having a negative
impact on the neighborhoods urban tree canopy. The tree canopy of the Neighborhood is a
distinct and valuable resource, it needs to be preserved and enhanced.
Assuming the existing Alley is the street for this proposed project, no street trees are
proposed.
The trees on the site as well as adjacent property trees may be negatively impacted by this
project.
Other Issues and Concerns:
Storm Drainage:
• The building, parking lot, sidewalks and other paved "open space" areas will increase the
storm drainage runoff. This project is located in a floodplain, how will these impacts be
mitigated?
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concerns Page 12 of X 13,
■ This proposed subdivision, if allowed, will have negative property value impacts on the
adjacent historic neighborhood.
(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 on the same block, or if no buildings exist thereon, then on adjoining blocks.
Issues/Concerns:
■ The building scale does not fit into the scale of the adjacent properties. The proposed
Townhouse will be adjacent or visually accessible to the backyards of the adjacent single-
family residences.
■ The mass, scale and bulk will have negative visual and spatial impacts on the adjacent
properties.
■ The build and mass of the proposed development is incompatible with the neighborhood.
While many of the properties in the neighborhood are multi -family, group homes, and
apartment buildings a greater amount are single-family residences.
■ The transition between the proposed townhouse and the abutting neighborhood is very
abrupt.
(D) Building Orientation. To the maximum extent feasible, primaryfacades and entries shall face the
adjacent street. Except as allowed in the Industrial zone district, a main entrance shall face a connecting
walkway with a direct pedestrian connection to the street without requiring all pedestrians to walk
through parking lots or cross driveways.
Issues/Concerns:
■ The proposed townhouse primary fapade, entries and porches do not face the adjacent street
(existing Alley).
■ Pedestrians entering from the existing Alley have to walk through the parking lot to get to the
building entries.
(E) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the
opportunityfor privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of
adjoining land uses. Additionally, the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among
neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security.
Issues/Concerns:
■ Privacy considerations of the adjacent residences will be compromised, as the proposed
townhouses will be visually accessible from many residences. Views from windows of the
proposed townhouses will infringe on the privacy of private properties in the area. The
narrow setbacks and limited landscape will not mitigate this concern.
■ The increased density, 3 two -bedroom townhouse's will create additional noise in the
neighborhood, especially on the residences in close proximity to this project. How will this
be mitigated?
(J) Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment.
(1) No areas for outdoor storage, trash collection or compaction, loading or other such uses shall be
located within twenty (20) feet of any public street, public sidewalk or internal pedestrian way.
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concerns Page 11 ofklt;7;.
any such historic property, whether on or adjacent to the project site. New buildings must be compatible
with the historic character of any such historic buildings, whether on the project site or adjacent thereto.
Issues/Concern:
■ The East Side Neighborhood is a very unique landmark in the City of Fort Collins, with a
very unique setting and character. The neighborhood is unique in its history, architecture,
diversity and landscape, as well as its lot pattern; long lots with both street and Alley
frontage. This proposed subdivision is out of character with the neighborhood, a
neighborhood of many single-family residences.
■ As stated in the "Eastside Neighborhood Plan" (page 15): "If the East Side Neighborhood is
allowed to decline or is unduly disrupted by unwise land use conversions, substantial changes
in traffic patterns within the study area, or other external factors, all of the above concerns
will suffer along with the Neighborhood. It is clear that a plan to preserve and enhance this
Neighborhood is in the best interest of its residents, property owners, and businesses and,
indeed, all of Fort Collins". This proposed subdivision fits well into this warning, it is an
unwise land use conversion that will bring only negative impacts to the Neighborhood.
■ This project, a three -unit multi -story townhouse, will increase the density of the
neighborhood. This is a negative impact to the neighborhood.
(E) New Construction.
(4) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park,
school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible.
Issues/Concerns:
• The proposed subdivision does not meet this requirement. Pedestrian connections are not
easily made to the current system of detached walks. The daily vehicular traffic will be
required to utilize the existing alleys, greatly modifying the historical patterns of the
neighborhood.
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of
proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area.
They should be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained in this Division
3.5 and the zone district standards contained in Article 4.
Issues/Concerns:
■ The proposed subdivision does not contribute in any way to the preservation of the character
of existing residential neighborhood.
■ This proposed subdivision, if allowed, will set a precedent for future similar subdivisions,
causing a transition from a historic neighborhood to a high -density multi -family rental
district.
■ This proposed subdivision, if allowed, will create a permanent transition from an existing
single-family residence to multi -family high -density rentals.
■ This proposed subdivision, if allowed, will transition the property from potential single
family live in owner residence to a multi -family high -density rental property. This will have
a very negative impact on the downtown neighborhood, and goes against the intent of the
Neighborhood Conservation District and the East Side Neighborhood Plan.
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concerns Page 10 of W 13
(A) Purpose. It is the city's intent to encourage the use of both active and passive solar enery systems for
heating air and water in homes and businesses, as long as natural topography, soil or other subsurface
conditions or other natural conditions peculiar to the site are preserved. While the use of solar energy
systems is optional, the right to solar access is protected. Additionally, a goal of this Section is to ensure
that site plan elements do not excessively shade adjacent properties, creating a significant adverse impact
upon adjacent property owners. Thus, standards are set forth to evaluate the potential impact of shade
caused by buildings, structures and trees.
Issues/Concerns:
■ The lot orientation and the mass and height of the proposed Townhouse building combined
with its location on the lot, as well as the close proximity to the north lot line will create
excessive shading of the adjacent property. The adjacent property to the north is a single-
family residence; the proposed Townhouse building will shade the adjacent backyard.
■ The proposed two-story townhouse does not protect access to sunlight from the adjacent
backyard to the north.
3.2.4 Site Lighting
(A) Purpose. The intent of this Section is to focus on the actual physical effects of lighting, as well as the
effect that lighting may have on the surrounding neighborhood. Exterior lighting shall be evaluated in the
development review process to ensure that the functional and security needs of the project are met in a
way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties or neighborhood. The degree to which exterior
night lighting affects a property owner or neighborhood will be examined considering the light source,
level of illumination, hours of illumination and need for illumination in relation to the effects of the
lighting on adjacent property owners and the neighborhood.
Issues/Concerns:
How are the effects of lighting going to be mitigated? A major concern is the effects of
lighting from a proposed two-story three -unit townhouse on the adjacent properties. A lot of
glare, diffusion and intrusion of light from the interior of the proposed two—story townhouse
will negatively impact the surrounding properties. The narrow side lot setbacks will not
provide enough space for screening the light intrusion with landscape materials.
3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources
(A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved
and incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the
characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the
historic resource; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and
any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or
eligible historic structures and structures in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the
project site.
(B) General Standard. If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be
eligible for local landmark designation or for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; (2) is
officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places;
or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then the development plan and
building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic resource. The
development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concerns Page 9 of -f3
(3) Orientation. Parking bays shall be perpendicular to the land uses they serve to the maximum extent
feasible. Large parking lots shall include walkways that are located in places that are logical and
convenient for pedestrians.
Issues/Concerns:
■ The proposed layout does not meet this criterion.
(F) User Needs. Layout and design shall anticipate the needs of users and provide continuity between
vehicular circulation, parking, pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Pedestrian drop-off areas shall be
provided where needed, especially for land uses that serve children or the elderly.
Issues/Concerns:
■ There is no drop off space proposed. How is this going to be handled on the narrow Alley,
there is not enough space for a parked car to be passed by another vehicle.
(J) Setbacks. Any vehicular use area containing six (6) or more parking spaces or one thousand eight
hundred (1800) or more square feet shall be set back from the street right-of-way and the side and rear
yard lot line (except a lot line between buildings or uses with collective parking) consistent with the
provisions of this Section, according to the following table:
Minimum average of entire
landscaped setback area(feet)
Minimum width if setback at any
point(feet)
Along an arterial street
15
5
Along a nonarterial street
10
5
Along a lot line
5
5
Issues/Concem:
The existing Alley serves as the street for the proposed townhouses; the parking lot setback
does not meet these criteria The current setback scaled from the plans is approximately 5
feet.
(b) Review Criteria.
2. Minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact along the public street by placing parking lots to the rear or
along the side of buildings, to the maximum extent feasible.
Issues/Concern:
The parking lot proposed for the Townhouses is located in the front of the building. Does
this meet the intent of the review criteria?
(Al) Landscaping. The following minimum standards shall apply to all parking lot landscaping plans:
Issues/Concerns:
There is no interior landscaping in the proposed lot.
The proposed setbacks from property to the parking lot are shown on the plans as 5 feet
width. With vehicle overhangs, the landscape does not provide the screening and shading of
the parking lot as this code intends.
I Z 3 Solar Access, Orientation, Shading
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concerns Page 8 ofYi;.?
Issues/Concerns:
■ If a Traffic Impact Study is required, has it been submitted?
■ The proposed subdivision will have negative traffic impacts on the neighborhood.
■ The Alley does not meet City street design guidelines. The existing Alley will have to
handle daily traffic, emergency vehicle access, service access, etc. How will this concern be
mitigated?
■ There is concern with headlight glare into neighborhood residences from traffic exiting the
Alley. How will this be mitigated, especially with the increased traffic from this proposed
project?
■ Will the Traffic Impact Study take into account them proposed increase of traffic through
the school property on the south side of the alley?
(D) Access and Parking Lot Requirements. All vehicular use areas in any proposed development shall be
designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation
that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles and emergency
vehicles).
(2) Access. Unobstructed vehicular access to and from a public street shall be provided for all off-street
parking spaces. Vehicular access shall be provided in such manner as to protect the safety of persons
using such access or traveling in the public street from which such access is obtained and in such manner
as to protect the traffic -carrying capacity of the public street from which such access is obtained.
Issues/Concerns:
■ The existing Alley shall become the "street" that serves the proposed Townhouses that are a
part of this subdivision. The concern is the utilization of the existing Alley as a street. The
Alley does not meet the City's street design standards and probably does not meet traffic
engineering standards for safety, emergency vehicle access and traffic carrying capacity.
■ The parking lot layout, being in close proximity to the Alley, will create hard to access
parking spaces, especially for north bound alley traffic entering the proposed lot.
■ The parking lot layout is very constrained, with minimum space and aisle sizes. Back out
space is very limited, and will be hard to maneuver.
■ Vehicle overhangs will limit the ability to create a healthy landscape buffer/screen.
(c) Guest Parking. Off-street guest parking spaces in multi family developments shall be distributed
proportionally to the dwelling unit locations that they are intended to serve. Such parking shall not be
located more than two hundred (200) feet from any dwelling unit that is intended to be served.
Issues/Concerns:
■ There is no guest or overflow parking of any type. The parking numbers may meet the
minimum requirement for this subdivision, but they do no meet reality. Rental units seem to
generate a lot of traffic and vehicles, overflow parking should be required on the property, or
it will become a burden on adjacent properties.
■ Where are visitors, maintenance and/or service vehicles, deliveries, and additional vehicles
going to be parked? The narrow existing Alley (16'paving width) is not wide enough to
handle overflow parking, vehicle and pedestrian circulation. If this is left unaddressed,
vehicle flow in the alley would be greatly hindered by any overflow parking in the alley.
(E) Parking Lot Layout.
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concems Page 7 of Z/3
Section sets forth minimum parking requirements in terms of numbers and dimensions ofparking stalls,
landscaping and shared parking. It also addresses the placement of drive-in facilities and loading zones.
(B) General Standard. The parking and circulation system within each development shall accommodate
the movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed development and to
and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently, and shall contribute to the attractiveness of the
development. The on -site pedestrian system must provide adequate directness, continuity, street
crossings, visible interest and security as defined by the standards in this Section. The on -site bicycle
system must connect to the city's on -street bikeway network.
Issues/Concerns:
Assuming the subdivision is fronting on the existing alley, how is pedestrian and bicyclist
safety being handled? There are no sidewalks of bicycle circulation systems in the alley.
The current alley paving is 16 feet wide, a very narrow space for vehicles, pedestrians and
bicycles to share.
(4) Bicycle Facilities. Commercial, industrial, civic, employment and multi family residential uses shall
provide bicycle facilities to meet the following standards:
(b) Location. For convenience and security, bicycle parking facilities shall be located near building
entrances, shall be visible from the land uses they serve, and shall not be in remote automobile parking
areas. Such facilities shall not, however, be located so as to impede pedestrian or automobile traft flow
nor so as to cause damage to plant material from bicycle traffic.
Issues/Concerns:
■ The Bicycle Rack is shown in a landscape area on the plan. Does this conflict with the intent
of the above?
(S) Walkways.
(a) Directness and continuity. Walkways within the site shall be located and aligned to directly and
continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian origin and destination, and shall not be located and
aligned solely based on the outline of a parking lot configuration that does not provide such direct
pedestrian access. Walkways shall link street sidewalks with building entries through parking lots. Such
walkways shall be grade separated from the parking lot, with a paved surface not less than six (6) feet in
width. Drive aisles leading to main entrances shall have walkways on both sides of the drive aisle.
Issues/Concerns:
■ There is no sidewalk connection from the existing Alley (street frontage) to the building
entries. Walking through the parking lot seems to be in conflict with this code.
■ "Access to Peterson Street" is noted on the plan. Is this vehicle access? Pedestrian access?
How is this access going to be handled? It is through a proposed subdivided lot (the existing
house fronting on Peterson St.) that is private property. How can this access be guaranteed to
remain open, as it passes through a new subdivided lot.
(8) Transportation Impact Study. In order to identify those facilities that may be required in order to
comply with these standards, all development plans must submit a Transportation Impact Study approved
by the Traffic Engineer, which study shall be prepared in accordance with the Transportation Impact
Study guidelines maintained by the city.
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concerns Page 6 off'13
street, a removable or operable screen shall be required. The screen shall be designed and established so
that the area or element being screened is no more than twenty (20) percent visible through the screen.
Issues/Concerns:
■ How will the proposed trash area be screened?
(F) Tree Protection and Replacement. Existing significant trees within the LOD and within natural area
buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible and may help satisfy the landscaping
requirements of this Section as set forth above. Such trees shall be considered 'protected" trees within the
meaning of this Section, subject to the exceptions contained in subsection (2) below. Streets, buildings
and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees. All required
landscape plans shall accurately identify the locations, species, size and condition of all significant trees,
each labeled showing the applicant's intent to either remove, transplant or protect.
Issues/Concerns:
• Construction of this project may harm the existing trees on the subdivided property as well as
adjacent properties. How will this potential issue be mitigated?
(K) Utilities. Landscape and utilityplans shall be coordinated. The following list sets forth minimum
dimension requirements for the most common treelutility separations. Exceptions to these requirements
may occur where utilities are not located in their standard designated locations, as approved by the
Director. Tree/utility separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required street
trees.
Issues/Concerns:
■ There is an existing street light along the alley adjacent to the property. How will this affect
the required landscaping?
The small remaining areas of open space left on this lot after subdividing will have to be
shared with buried utilities and the required landscaping. How will this coordination be
accomplished? How will the landscape requirements be met?
There are buried utilities in the alley, how will these be effected.
(L) Visual Clearance or Sight Distance Triangle. Except as provided in Subparagraphs (1) and (2) below,
a visual clearance triangle, free of any structures or landscape elements over twenty-four (24) inches in
height, shall be maintained at street intersections and driveways in conformance with the standards
contained in the City of Fort Collins Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for
Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways.
Issues/Concerns:
The narrow setback between the parking lot and the alley, the required landscape to screen
the parking and the trash dumpster seem to be in conflict with the site triangle. How will
these conflicts be mitigated?
3.22 Access, Circulation and Parking
(A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that the parking and circulation aspects of all
developments are well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas. Sidewalk or
bikeway extensions off site may be required based on needs created by the proposed development. This
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concerns Page 5 of,8't 3
(a) Trees shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet along a public street
and one (1) tree per forty (40) lineal feet along a side lot line parking setback area. Trees may be spaced
irregularly in informal groupings or be uniformly spaced, as consistent with larger overall planting
patterns and organization. Perimeter landscaping along a street may be located in and should be
integrated with the streetscape in the street right-of-way.
Issues/Concerns:
■ Assuming the alley is defined as the street that serves the proposed townhouse, there are no
street tree plantings proposed.
■ The setback area between the alley paving and the proposed parking lot is probably too
narrow for tree plantings, the proposed width scales 5'.
(b) Screening. Parking lots with six (6) or more spaces shall be screened from adjacent uses and from the
street. Screening from residential uses shall consist of a fence or wall six (6) feet in height in combination
with plant material and of sufficient opacity to block at least seventy-five (75) percent of light from
vehicle headlights. Screening from the street and all nonresidential uses shall consist of a wall, fence,
planter, earthen berm, plant material or a combination of such elements, each of which shall have a
minimum height of thirty (30) inches. Such screening shall extend a minimum of seventy (70) percent of
the length of the street frontage of the parking lot and also seventy (70) percent of the length of any
boundary of the parking lot that abuts any nonresidential use. Openings in the required screening shall
be permitted for such features as access ways or drainage ways. Where screening from the street is
required, plans submitted for review shall include a graphic depiction of the parking lot screening as seen
from the street. Plant material used for the required screening shall achieve required opacity in its winter
seasonal condition within three (3) years of construction of the vehicular use area to be screened.
Issues/Concerns:
The proposed parking lot is not sufficiently screened from the alley and the adjacent
properties. There are no proposed fences or screen walls and the very narrow width of the
landscape areas will not provide sufficient screening.
(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. As required in Section 3.2.2(M) (1) Access, Circulation and
Parking, six (6) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than one hundred (100) spaces,
and ten (10) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with one hundred (100) spaces or more shall
be landscape areas. (See Figure 1). All parking lot islands, connecting walkways through parking lots
and driveways through or to parking lots shall be landscaped according to the following standards:
(a) Visibility. To avoid landscape material blocking driver sight distance at driveway -street intersections,
no plant material greater than twenty-four (24) inches in height shall be located within fifteen (15)
feet of a curbcut.
Issues/Concerns:
No landscaping is proposed in the interior of the parking lot.
The landscape areas may provide sight triangle conflicts upon leaving the parking lot.
Landscape screening and street trees are required, how will this potential conflict be
resolved?
(6) Screening. Landscape and building elements shall be used to screen areas of low visual interest or
visually intrusive site elements (such as trash collection, open storage, service areas, loading docks and
blank walls) from off -site site view. Such screening shall be established on all sides of such elements except
where an opening is required for access. If access is possible only on a side that is visible from a public
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concerns Page 4 ofXi3
anticipated to exist between dissimilar uses or building designs, one (1) or more of the following
landscape buffering techniques shall be used to mitigate the conflicts.
(a) Separation and screening with plant material: planting dense stands of evergreen trees, canopy shade
trees, ornamental trees or shrubs;
(b) Integration with plantings: incorporating trees, vines, planters or other plantings into the
architectural theme of buildings and their outdoor spaces to subdue differences in architecture and bulk
and avoid harsh edges;
(c) Establishing privacy. establishing vertical landscape elements to screen views into or between
windows and defined outdoor spaces where privacy is important, such as where larger buildings are
proposed next to side or rear yards of smaller buildings;
(d) visual integration offences or walls: providing plant material in conjunction with a screen panel,
arbor, garden wall, privacy fence or securityfence to avoid the visual effect created by unattractive
screening or securityfences;
(e) Landform shaping: utilizing berming or other grade changes to alter views, subdue sound, change the
sense of proximity and channel pedestrian movement.
Issues/Concerns:
■ With the very narrow planting areas and the shear bulk of proposed townhouse building
screening and/or buffering will be extremely hard to achieve.
■ The adjacent use to the north is a backyard of an existing single-family residence. Screening
views from the second story windows, maintaining backyard privacy of adjacent single-
family residences, will be extremely hard to achieve.
■ There is no landscape buffer along the east property line of the proposed subdivision. The
adjacent use is a backyard of the existing house that is a part of the subdivision. Privacy
considerations have not been taken into account between these two uses.
• The limited small and narrow landscape areas will not provide the screening and/or buffering
of the proposed two-story townhouse. The architectural bulk of the proposed building will
create a very high visual and spacial impact to the surrounding land uses; landscaping will
not be able to mitigate this issue.
(2) Landscape Area Treatment. Landscape areas shall include all areas on the site that are not covered
by buildings, structures, paving or impervious surface. Landscape areas shall consist only of
landscaping. The selection and location of turf, ground cover (including shrubs, grasses, perennials,
flowerbeds and slope retention), and pedestrian paving and other landscaping elements shall be used to
prevent erosion and meet the functional and visual purposes such as defining spaces, accommodating and
directing circulation patterns, managing visibility, attracting attention to building entrances and other
focal points, and visually integrating buildings with the landscape area and with each other.
(d) Foundation Plantings. Exposed sections of building walls that are in high -use or high -visibility areas
of the building exterior shall have planting beds at least five (5) feet wide placed directly along at least
fifty (50) percent of such walls.
Issues/Concerns:
■ The planting beds do not appear to meet this requirement. If they do, their width probably
does not meet the intent of this code. The narrow width of the planting beds are out of scale
to the over 20' height building walls.
(4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. Parking lot perimeter landscaping (in the minimum setback
areas required by Section 3.2.2(J) (Access, Circulation and Parking) shall meet the following minimum
standards:
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concerns Page 3 oU 14
building or structure. Such landscape areas shall extend at least seven (7) feet from any building or
structure wall and contain at least fifty-five (55) square feet of nonpaved ground area, except that any
planting cutouts in walkways shall contain at least sixteen (16) square feet. Full tree stocking shall mean
formal or informal groupings of trees planted according to the following spacing dimensions:
Minimum/Maximum
1. Canopy Shade Trees 3W-40'spacing
2. Coniferous Evergreens 20'-30'spaeing
3. Ornamental Trees 20'-30'spaeing
Exact locations and spacings may be adjusted at the option of the applicant to support patterns of use,
views and circulation as long as the minimum tree planting requirement is met. Canopy shade trees shall
constitute at least fifty (50) percent of all tree plantings. Trees required in subparagraphs (a) or (b) above
may be used to contribute to this standard.
Issues/Concerns:
■ The planting areas along the south side of the building range in width from 3' to 6, with two
small pockets in the architecture that scale 10' in width, scaled perpendicular from the
building wall. The requirement is not met.
■ The planting area between the south property line and the edge of walk are 2' wide.
■ There is no planting shown along the majority of the west wall adjacent to the parking lot.
The requirement is not met.
■ The majority of the planting area along the north building wall scale 3' to 6', scaled
perpendicular from the building wall. The requirement is not met.
■ The planting area between the north property line and the proposed drainage pan are 2' wide.
The requirement is not met.
■ The landscape area along the east side of the building is 5' wide, scale perpendicular from
building wall to the proposed subdivided lot line. The requirement is not met.
(2) Street Trees. Planting of street trees shall occur in the adjoining street right-of-way in connection with
the development by one (1) or more of the methods described in subparagraphs (a) through (c) below:
(b) Wherever the sidewalk is attached to the street in a manner that fails to comply with the Design and
Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets, Streetscapes, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other
Public Ways, canopy shade trees shall be established in an area ranging from three (3) to seven (7) feet
behind the sidewalk at the spacing intervals as required in subsection (a) above. Wherever the sidewalk is
attached to the street and is ten (10) feet or more in width, or extends from the curb to the property line,
canopy shade trees shall be established in planting cutout areas of at least sixteen (16) square feet at
thirty-foot to fortyfoot spacing.
Issues/Concerns:
■ Assuming the existing Alley is defined as the street, there are no street tree plantings
proposed.
■ The width of the proposed landscape area between the property line and the parking lot scale
5' wide, not wide enough to plant a tree and to provide space for a healthy tree crown.
(E) Landscape Standards. All development applications shall include landscape plans that meet the
following minimum standards:
(1) Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities. In situations where the Director determines that
the arrangement of uses or design of buildings does not adequately mitigate conflicts reasonably
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concerns Page 2 off'/3
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Some of our issues and concerns relating to the proposed subdivision at 611 Peterson Street are
outlined below. Sections from the Current Fort Collins Land Use are shown in Italics. These
sections have been included for reference, non -applicable sections of the code have been
removed from this letter to save space.
Division 3.2 Site Planning and Design Standards
3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection
(B) Purpose. The intent of this Section is to require preparation of landscape and tree protection plans
that ensure significant canopy shading to reduce glare and heat build-up, contribute to visual quality and
continuity within and between developments, provide screening and mitigation of potential conflicts
between activity areas and site elements, enhance outdoor spaces, reduce erosion and stormwater runoff,
and mitigate air pollution.
(C) General Standard. All developments shall submit a landscape and tree protection plan that: (1)
reinforces and extends any existing patterns of outdoor spaces and vegetation where practicable, (2)
supports functional purposes such as spatial definition, visual screening, creation of privacy,
management of microclimate or drainage, (3) enhances the appearance of the development and
neighborhood, (4) protects significant trees, natural systems and habitat, (5) enhances the pedestrian
environment, (6) identifies all landscape areas, (7) identifies all landscaping elements within each
landscape area, and (8) meets or exceeds the standards of this Section.
(D) Tree Planting Standards. All developments shall establish groves and belts of trees along all city
streets, in and around parking lots, and in all landscape areas that are located within fifty (50) feet of any
building or structure in order to establish at least a partial urban tree canopy. The groves and belts may
also be combined or interspersed with other landscape areas in remaining portions of the development to
accommodate views and functions such as active recreation and storm drainage.
Issues/Concems:
■ The current plan does not address the intent of this standard. Two new trees are proposed on
the site, doing little to establish an urban canopy. The size and scale of landscape areas will
not support healthy growth of shade trees.
■ The drainage pan along the north property line, running from the proposed parking lot to
Peterson Street appears to be in conflict with three existing trees. The three existing trees in
and/or along the alignment of the proposed drainage pan are: the tree labeled as Existing.
Honeylocust; a spruce at the northeast comer of the existing house; and a maple street tree
along Peterson Street. The concern is with the potential removal of these trees to construct
the drainage pan.
(1) Minimum Plantings/Description. These tree standards require at least a minimum tree canopy but are
not intended to limit additional tree plantings in any remaining portions of the development. Groves and
belts of trees shall be required as follows:
(c) 'full tree stocking" shall be required in all landscape areas within fifty (50) feet of any building or
structure as further described below. Landscape areas shall be provided in adequate numbers, locations
and dimensions to allow full tree stocking to occur along all high use or high visibility sides of any
611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000
Issues and Concerns Page 1 of 1'3,
611 South Peterson Street PDP
Enclosures: Issues and Concerns (12 pages)
CC: City Council (Chuck Wanner, Bill Bertschy, Karen Weitkunat, Scott Mason,
Kurt Kastein, Mike Byrne)
Planning and Zoning Board (Jerry Gavaldon, Daniel Bernth, Jennifer Carpenter,
Sally Craig, Judy Meyer, Glen Colton, Mikal Torgerson)
John F. Fischbach, City Manager
Page 4 of 4
611 South Peterson Street PDP
Melissa Hughes, J.D.
632 Peterson Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Nancy Christopher
640 Peterson Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
' /,�
WN
v'
/I
Paul Tripp Hughes
632 Peterson Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
James Scott Christopher
640 Peterson Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
T'O �A co 11 UjI" co -IOSZy
m �iLJ �mr,011 MOM
j
Page 3 o9l,
611 South Peterson Street PDP
This proposed subdivision, will create a permanent transition from an existing single
family to a multi -family rental area, impacting the character of existing residential
neighborhood.
This proposed subdivision, if allowed, will transition the property from potential
single-family, live-in, owner residence to a multi -family, high -density, rental
property. This will have a very negative impact on the downtown neighborhood, and
goes against the intent of the Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (N-C-M)
District and the East Side Neighborhood Plan.
This proposed subdivision, if allowed, will have negative property value impacts on
the adjacent historic neighborhood.
We live in downtown for many reasons including the overused and often misunderstood
term "Quality of Life". In recent years the term "new urbanism" has been coined and is
being discussed throughout the country as the new way to plan communities. Downtown
currently offers exactly what the new urbanism vision creates, a healthy and viable,
diverse, architecturally interesting, multi -use neighborhood that enables its residents to
work, shop, be educated, and recreate within walking distance of home. Downtown
properties have become a very valuable commodity over the past years, due to the
environment, architectural interest and diversity. We can only hope that our society will
become more aware of their surroundings and more disenchanted with suburbanism. As
this happens, downtown residential areas will become extremely precious assets for our
community. We must do everything that we can to protect the downtown and help it
grow in a more positive way.
As stated in the Eastside Neighborhood Plan (page 15): "If the East Side Neighborhood is
allowed to decline or is unduly disrupted by unwise land use conversions, substantial
changes in traffic patterns within the study area, or other external factors, all of the above
concerns will suffer along with the Neighborhood. It is clear that a plan to preserve and
enhance this Neighborhood is in the best interest of its residents, property owners, and
businesses and, indeed, all of Fort Collins".
This project is an unwise land use conversion that will have a negative and
detrimental impact on the East Side Neighborhood, so please deny the development
as well as denying the subdivision of the lot.
We are awaiting your response.
Signed
Phil Hendricks, Jr., ASLA
605 Peterson Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Madeline Weisz
605 Peterson Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Page 2 of 71,
611 South Peterson Street PDP
November 14, 2000
Mr. Steve Olt, City Planner
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Re: 611 South Peterson Street PDP
Dear Mr. Olt;
This letter is to state and record our issues, concerns and opposition to the Project
Development Plan (PDP) and Subdivision submittal for 611 South Peterson Street. The
applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 12,000 S.F. lot into a 5,000 S.F. lot for
the existing house, fronting on Peterson Street, and a 7,000 S.F. lot to the rear of the
existing house, fronting on the existing Alley. The applicant proposes to build a new
two-story triplex townhouse on the 7,000 S.F. lot. The zoning is Neighborhood
Conservation Medium Density (NCM) and permits multi -family units up to four per
building, subject to review.
We are greatly opposed to this proposed project. We are opposed to both the
construction of the proposed multi -family rental units and the subdivision of the
existing single family lot. Many quantitative reasons for denying this project are found
in the Land Use Codes and the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Of equal importance are
the more ethereal and less understood and measurable reasons, simply defined as the
"Quality of Life".
Enclosed with this letter is a list of issues and concerns relating to The City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code. In summary the issues and concerns relating to this project
include:
■ The PDP does not conform to many criteria of the Land Use Code, including;
landscaping; Access Circulation and Parking; Solar Shading; Historic and Cultural
Resources; Project and Building Compatibility and Residential Building Standards.
(See attached, Issues and Concerns, 12 pages).
■ The proposed subdivision does not conform to the East Side Neighborhood Plan.
■ The proposed subdivision does not contribute in any way to the preservation of the
character of existing residential neighborhood.
■ Conversion of the existing Alley into a Street, serving the proposed Townhouses.
Utilizing the existing Alley as a street, brings many concerns relating to design,
safety, emergency vehicle access and traffic carrying capacity.
■ This proposed subdivision, if allowed, will set a precedent for future similar
subdivisions, causing a transition from a historic neighborhood to a high -density
multi family rental district.
■ The proposed subdivision if allowed will set a precedent for the construction of Alley
houses in the East Side Neighborhood.
Page 1 ofx+