Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPETERSON PLACE (611 S. PETERSON) - PDP ..... CONTINUED PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HEARING - 35-00 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSPeterson Place (611 Peterson Street) - Project Development Plan, #42-01 February 20, 2003 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 6 4. Neighborhood Information Meeting The Peterson Place, PDP contains a proposed land use that is permitted as Type II use, subject to a Planning and Zoning Board review. The proposed use is a new residential building containing 3 attached dwelling units on the alley -side of an existing property fronting on Peterson Street. The LUC does require that a neighborhood meeting be held for a Type II development proposal. Two City -facilitated neighborhood meetings were held to discuss this proposal: They occurred on October 9, 2000 and February 13, 2001. Primary concerns expressed by neighbors and other citizens at both meetings were: * The added intensification in the neighborhood because of the proposed multi -family residential on this lot. * The added traffic in the neighborhood relating to the 3 new dwelling units. * The potential for college students as renters (with more than normal numbers of vehicles). * Inadequate parking on this site and in the neighborhood being further exacerbated with the increased residential density. * The new multi -family building being out of character and too large for the neighborhood. * The loss of open space due to the construction of a new building on the rear of a single family lot. Copies of the questions, concerns, comments, and responses expressed at the neighborhood meetings are attached to this staff report. 5. Conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, including the Structure Plan In March of 1997, the City Council took the final steps to complete a two- year long process to update the City's Comprehensive Plan, known as CITY PLAN. The Principles and Policies, being a part of the CITY PLAN, support single family detached dwellings on the subject property. Policy EXN-1.4 Infill Development and Redevelopment, under Existing Feb. 11, 2003 Steve Olt, City of Fort Collins Current Planning Re: 611 Peterson St. Dear Sir: 4 FcF/1� C46 G FQ RRFNTA� 0�O�y NN/NC" This letter shall confirm our verbal agreement of January 29th concerning the referenced property. I agreed at the meeting to remove the gas range from the basement of the house. This action will thus remove all obstacles to classifying the existing house as a single-family residence. I will contact Mike Gebo with the Building Inspection Dept. to arrange for verification. Sincerely, Bruce M. Fros h cc. Mike Gebo VIC DAY 1110 REMINGTON FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 970.493.2864 victor erinet.com January 10, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Ft. Collins, CO 80524 Re: #35-00 Dear Board Members, RFc F ✓41 VF CU�,RFN�j CqNN�NG Peterson Place The review of the above unit should carefully consider the parking consequences to the neighborhood by the building these additional units. This neighborhood will be impacted by at least the need for six (6) additional parking areas. The board would be benefited if they would drive by my neighborhood and see the impact on neighborhood parking that allowing a house to be remodeled as a four plex of a house in the three hundred block of Edwards street has had on Mathews and Edwards streets. This property is primarily student housing and when the university is in session the residents h6v' &little parking available to them at any time of day. The property at 1111 Remington was permitted to allow for a two (2) unit to be added to the back of the property and now the front yard is used for parking. Adding multiple units to a property only benefits the petitioning property owner. The surrounding property owner suffers in quality of life and in damage to property value. I enjoy waking and riding in the central Fort Collins area. I believe that Peterson Street is one of'th*e most attractive'older areas in Fort Collins. I would hope that you Would consider the effects that this unit will have on the area residents and the image of all of central Fort Collins. ui '- Thank you for allowing me to voice 'my' -concerns. Vic Day ., .+ .. 1 .. .._ . ... 27 October 2000 809 E. Elizabeth St. Fort Collins, CO 80423-3844 Troy W. Jones City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Ref: 611 Peterson Street Mr. Troy W. Jones, As the owners, of 626 Remington we wish to be on the record as opposed to the proposed replat of 611 Peterson Street. Although this area is already of mixed density we do not feel that to create smaller lots is of benefit to the neighborhood. A triplex on a lot of 7,000 square feet will be a change in the feel of the neighborhood. To have the alley as the only access to a lot is a misuse of the intent of alleys. They are not streets. The homes in this area have yards, putting a triplex on this size lot will either not allow enough parking or will not allow for any yard. While many view this area as college student housing, we all know that some tenants will have young children. Ample space needs to be left for both children and parking. The character of a neighborhood is usually eroded one building and one lot at a time. Because we are currently out of town, we have just recently received your letter dated September 21, 2000, and we were unable to attend your informational meeting. S' ce ely Reed Mitche (reed mitchell@bigfoot.com) Margaret Hopkinson (Mitchell) 611 Peterson -O.lwp Page 1 of 1 10/25/00 Steve O t - Subdivision at 91 i Petersor age From: "Jean O. Chamey" <charney@verinet.com> To: FC8.CPES(SOLT) Date: Fri, Nov 17., 2000 2:45 PM Subject: Subdivision at 611 Peterson St. Dear Mr. Olt, This e-mail is in support of the letter sent to you by Phil Hendricks and Madeline Weisz concerning the proposed subdivision at 611 Peterson St. wholeheartedly support their letter. The proposed triplex is far too large for the neighborhood. I have lived in my home here at 635 Peterson for over 30 years, and treasure the diverse character of the neighborhood. This character is, however, fragile, and a subdivision of this size would be a bad step on the road to turning this into an undesirable block for owner -occupants. Thank you for your consideration. Jean O. Charney 635 Peterson 493-4107 charney@vednet.com cc: Maddy Weisz 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 hike 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 *ade 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 setbackfor 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 i 3 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 fagade, 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? (.9 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 ofot77 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 muhi-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 eity's intent to encourage the use of both active and passive solar energy 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. 3.4.7HWork 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 #13 (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-ofJ'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/Concern: ■ 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? (M 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. 3.2.3 Solar Access, Orientation, Shading 611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000 Issues and Concerns Page 8 of,8'i 3 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 parkingspaces 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 Concerns Page 7 ofYi3 Section sets forth minimum parking requirements in terms of numbers and dimensions of parking 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 trafficflow 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? (5) 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 of yli3 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? 0 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) usual 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? 3.2.2 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 Petersen Subdivision November 14, 2000 Issues and Concerns Page 5 of S'i 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(*(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 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, f lowerbeds 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(o (Access, Circulation and Parking) shall meet the following minimum standards: 611 Peterson Subdivision November 14, 2000 ` Issues and Concerns Page 3 of.3 i'3 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 30'40'spacing 2. Coniferous Evergreens 2W-30'spacing 3. Ornamental Trees 20'-30'spacing 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 oV('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 fractional purposes such as spatial definition, visual screening, creation ofprivacy, 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 frf y (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/Concerns: ■ 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 fif y (50) feet of any building or structure as ftrther 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 13 611 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, Mkal Torgerson) John F. Fischbach, City Manager Page 4 of 4 611 South Peterson Street PDP Melissa Hughes, J.D. Paul Tripp Hughes 632 Peterson Street 632 Peterson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Nancy Christopher 640 Peterson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 ti � i fA �I James Scott Christopher 640 Peterson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 VO�Acollt��� CO -O5Zy 47,70' 61- /o�ao r2zEf2So.,� Page 3 ofX 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 ;Vy 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. Oh; 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 ofrr+ 611 S. Peterson Feb. 7, 2001 Response to Issues and Concerns 14 of 14 minimum setback shall be zero (0) feet, and for alley -accessed garages and dwellings for which the minimum seatback shall be eight (8) feet. Issues/Concerns Addressed: All setbacks meet requirements as designed. (4) 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 existing trees: Issues/Concerns Addressed: The existing trees on the site will be maintained and preserved as noted on the landscaping plan. The landscaping plan addresses all requirements and seeks to enhance the overall site and buildings, both newly proposed and existing. Other Issues and Concerns Addressed: Storm Drainage: An engineered storm drainage plan is required and will be submitted. Staff meetings have addressed issues and concerns and are noted and addressed in the submitted plans. In Summary: It is our intent as owners of the property at 611 South Peterson Street, to work with the neighbors and address as many concerns as possible. It is not our intent to create a project that will be a detriment to the neighborhood. As a family, we have discussed the option of eventually occupying our project, and indeed have done so in with past projects and felt welcome in the neighborhood. We have lived in the City of Fort Collins for 30 years, and consider it home. Over the past 25 years, as architect and builder our projects have included a considerable number in what is now called Old Town as well as the Northern Colorado Region. We are indeed proud of what we have built participating as members of design teams and individual projects. We consider it personally and professionally offensive for neighbors to write that our project is purely an economic venture on our part. This neighborhood contributes to the positive overall quality of Old Town Fort Collins. What has attracted us to this neighborhood includes it's walkable streets, mature trees, quality of the buildings and the mixed character. Infill projects, while often controversial, do not contribute to urban sprawl and provide needed and valued living units for the people of the community. We are confident that this project will positively contribute to the character and preservation of this mixed neighborhood of single-family homeowners, multi -family homeowners and tenants alike. Sinc ely, Bruce and". 'usan Kreul-F ioseth 611 S. Peterson Feb. 7, 2001 Response to Issues and Concerns 13 of 14 consideration solar access, but the overall height of the building has been lowered one-half story to minimize concerns of privacy and view to the townhomes. The setbacks have also been increased to minimize privacy issues. The landscape plan has also been revised to reflect changes in the scope of the project and to maximize concerns of screening and privacy. (9 Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment. (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. Issues/Concerns Addressed: A trash enclosure is planned for the townhome project. Trash can be stored in the garages if needed. If it is determined that no trash can be accessed from the alley it may cause concern from the other neighbors including the multi -family users due to the difficulty of trash access on Peterson and adjacent streets. There is no large heating and cooling plant planned for the two townhomes and studio planned. Standard individual residential furnaces, boilers and/or baseboard heaters will be considered at the time of HVAC planning and shall be in accordance with the current adopted City of Fort Collins Building Code. 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 then a full arterial or has on -street parking. Issues and Concerns Addressed: The townhomes have been redesigned to allow for visual connection with relation to entry porches which relate to Peterson Street as well as the alley with articulated architectural features which are three-dimensional, the covered porches have been designed to enhance the relationship of pedestrian orientation and streetialley. The project has also been downsized from 3 units to include 2 townhomes with a garage and studio above. (E)Residential Building Setbacks. (F) (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 611 S. Peterson St. Feb. 7, 2001 Response to Issues and Concerns 12 of 14 The proposed project is indeed within keeping of the intended neighborhood plan set forth in the Land Use Code. The plan was written with careful consideration and participation of citizens and professionals working together to set forth a vision for the City of Fort Collins. (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 not buildings exist thereon, then on adjoining blocks. Issues/Concerns Addressed: The building scale has been reduced in the new design to relate to the historic character of the neighborhood and the existing building/home. The mass, scale and bulk have been considerably scaled down from the initial proposed project. There are many existing multi -family residences within the neighborhood. The neighborhood consists of buildings with 2 units, 3 units, 16 units, and up to 40 units. The neighborhood is an interesting mix of urban texture and scale. (C) 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 direct pedestrian connection to the street without requiring all pedestrians to walk through parking lots or cross driveways. Issues/Concerns Addressed: All visible elevations of buildings are ideally designed by the architect as primary facades. Among the primary facades is the fagade of the main entries. A pedestrian walkway from Peterson Street connects to the three main entries. All pedestrians can walk directly from Peterson Street to the entry areas. Walkways are provided to the parking areas in keeping with traditional parking lot design. A covered patio/walk connecting entries faces the alley as shown on the elevation and plan views and is designed in keeping the intent of the section addressing the orientation of the building to the site. (D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunityfor privacy by the residents of the project and minimize in on the privacy of adjoin land uses. Additionally, the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. Issues/Concerns Addressed: Privacy considerations have been addressed in the revised scope and design of the project. Views from the windows of the townhomes have been minimized to the north which appears to be the area of main concern. Windows to the south have been maximized to take into 611 S. Peterson St. Feb. 7, 2001 Response to Issues and Concerns 11 of 14 have been remodeled to reflect the one and one-half story height in addition to full two-story additions to gain second floor space. 3) A lower roof has been added to relate to pedestrian scale, provide a sheltered walk/terrace area and to relate to existing architecture in the neighborhood. 4) Proportions and the style of windows relate to the existing house as well as historic proportions repeated on the facades of local historic buildings. 5) A higher roof slope (12:12) relates to the existing home in addition to the sloping roof covered porch with arched entry detail. 6) The dominant building material of the existing house is repeated on the proposed 2 townhomes and studio. 7) An effort has been made not to recreate historic architecture, but to compliment the existing buildings in the neighborhood emphasizing appropriate proportion, scale, unity and emphasis. The elements of line, pattern, mass, shape and color have been considered to enhance the organization of the architectural design. (E) New Construction. (5) 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 Addressed: There is a pedestrian connection between Peterson Street and public walk and the planned project entries. It provides and visual and functional link to the project. 3 S.L 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 Addressed: : The Design Review Subcommittee of the Landmark Preservation Committee felt that the current design of the project contributes to the character of the neighborhood and the existing home on the site. The zoning for the property is stated as N-C-M or Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District. Division 4.7 (A)Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District is intended to preserve the character of areas that have a predominance of developed single- family and low -to medium -density multi family housing and have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted sub area plan. 611 S. Peterson Feb. 7, 2001 Response to Issues and Concerns 10 of 14 source, level of illumination, hours of illumination and need for illumination in relation to the effects of the lighting on adjacent property owner and the neighborhood. Issues/Concerns Addressed: The project has been reduced in scope and general mass and height. The setbacks have been increased. Functional security needs of the project will be met in such a way that it will minimise any perceived negative affects on adjacent property owners. 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 properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or eligible historic structures and structures in designated historic districts, whether on an adjacent to the project site. (B) (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 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/Concerns Addressed: On January 24, 2001, a meeting was held between the Design Review Subcommittee of the Landmark Preservation Committee and Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner. The drawings for the proposed project at 611 S. Peterson were reviewed. The members of the committee felt that the proposed project was compatible with the historic character of the neighborhood and related well to the existing home. The members of the committee were very complimentary of the general design, scale, mass and details presented. They supported the proposed design and felt that it was appropriate for the neighborhood. The specific design intent indicated for new construction in the published The Building Standards has been followed based on the following considerations: 1) The height, setback and width the new project has been modeled after existing historic homes on the block. 2) A 16 foot wide module has been incorporated and a one and one-half story height has been designed. This module is repeated in wood frame as well as historic brick homes built in the region and in the City of Fort Collins. Existing homes in the neighborhood 611 S. Peterson St. Feb. 7, 2001 Response to Issues and Concerns 9 of 14 Issues/Concerns Addressed: The total parking lot area meets the requirements as indicated for setbacks and number of parking spaces as well as areas required. (b) Review Criteria. 2.Minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact along the public street by placing parking lots to the rear of along the side of buildings, to the maximum extent feasible. Issues/Concerns Addressed: The parking lot proposedfor the townhomes is planned based upon the predominant orientation of existing garages and required access as indicated in the General Development Standards. Parking lot standards have been met. 3.23. Solar Access, Orientation, Shading (A)Purpose. It is the city's intent to encourage the use of both active and passive solar energy systems for heating air and water in homes and businesses, as long a 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. This, standards are set forth to evaluate the potential impact of shade caused by building, structures and trees. Issues/Concerns Addressed: The mass and overall height of the townhomes and studio has been reduced from 2 stories to 1 1/2 stories and lowered on the studio due to the slab on grade garage below. The height has been planned to be in accordance with the existing home on Peterson Street. The footprint of the townhome area steps back from the North property line to 10"-0" and again to 15"-0 The setbacks are in excess of the requirements and the major ridge line is centered within the property to minimize any impact on neighboring property. The townhomes are oriented to the south to maximize tempered/passive solar design. The mass/slab design of the first floor flooring systems will provide maximum mass to aid in tempered/passive solar assistance. The windows have been oriented to the south where possible to further maximize the orientation and exposure. Maximum privacy is not to the south of this property, but with adequate fence/screen and reduced overall height, the concern has been alleviated in the new proposed design. 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 might lighting affects a property owner or neighborhood will be examined considering the light 611 Peterson St Feb. 7, 2001 Response to Issues. and Concerns 8 of 14 Response to Issues and Concerns: The alley provides access to several multi -family and single-family residences at this time. The City has stated that the access meets safety standards for such use. The reconfiguration of the parking is designed based upon the written City of Fort Collins parking standards. Staff in Zoning was consulted in the design stage to insure meeting parking standards. (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 unity that is intended to be served. Response to Issues and Concerns: The parking areas have been redesigned to include garage parking. This has allowed for one guest space and exceeds or meets parking space requirements for the intended use as written by the City of Fort Collins. (E) Parking lot Layout. (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 Addressed: The parking lot layout has been redesigned based upon the additional garage space and meets requirements written by the City of Fort Collins, and reviewed by staff. Orientation of the 4 parking spaces is in accordance with the suggested perpendicular orientation and a parallel walkway adjacent to a guest space allows for access for a physically handicapped guest. (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 and serve children or the. elderly. Issues/Concerns Addressed: The residential nature of the project precludes and need for pedestrian drop-off areas. The parking area will be used by residents only. (./)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 table (see J. under General Development Standards as published). 611 S. Peterson St. Feb. 7, 2001 Response to Issues and Concerns 7 of 14 requirements in terms of numbers and dimensions of parking 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 crossing, visible interest and security as directed by the standards in this Section. The on -site bicycle system must connect to the city's on -street bikeway network. Response to Issues/Concerns: The city staff has recommended connection to Peterson Street and the townhomes with a pedestrian walkway of 4'-6" in width. The material and surface comply with city standards. Planned walks connect with front porch areas and covered walk/patio as shown on the site and landscape plans. (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. Response to Issues and Concerns: Eric Bracke, traffic engineer for the City of Fort Collins is not requiring any traffic information due to the size of the project. Mr. Bracke has estimated that this project will generate a maximum of 2 to 3 trips during the peak hours. This is an insignificant amount and will not have a significant impact. The alley presently serves both multi -family residential and single family residential and has been improved to meet requirements at this time. (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 safely 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. 611 S. Peterson St. Feb 7, 2001 Response to Issues and Concerns 6 of 14 considered `protected" trees within the meaning of this Section, subject tot a exceptions contained in subsection (2) below. Street, buildings and lot layouts 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 Addressed: The existing trees on the property are to remain. The site plan and building envelope, architectural design and landscape plan take into account the preservation of all existing trees. Reasonable care will be taken to protect existing trees and shrubs during the stage of construction of the project as specified in subsection G. (k) Utilities. Landscape and utilityplans shall be coordinated. The following list sets forth minimum dimension requirements for the most common tree/utility 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 Addressed: The existing street light to the west of the property line is noted and the landscape architect will advise the owner on any further effects or changes that may effect present planning and required landscaping. The location of utilities is noted on the landscape plan and proper clearances are considered. (L) Visual Clearance or Sight Distance Triangle. Except as provided in Subparagraph (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. Response to Issues/Concerns: The requirements for visual clearance have been addressed in the redesign of the landscape plan. The requirements relating to the sight triangle will be addressed as appropriate for the existing conditions. The landscape plan can be refined further if issues and concerns are indicated during the review process by staff. 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking 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 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 Section sets forth minimum parking 611 S. Peterson St. Feb. 7, 2001 Response to Issues and Concerns 5 of 14 (b) Screening. Parking lots with six (6) or more spaces shall be screened from adjacent uses and from the street. Screening form 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 form 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 to thirty (30) inches. Such screening shall extend a minimum of seventy (70) percent of the I 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 form the street is required, plans submitted for review shall include a graphic depiction of the paring 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 Addressed: The parking area has been downsized from six to four spaces to help alleviate concerns of screening from multiple cars. An enclosed garage is proposed to screen and house two cars (see elevations). An existing fence on the neighbor's property screens the proposed four space parking area of the townhomes from the 24 parking spaces for the 16- plex apartment building to the south. There is a six-foot privacy fence proposed on the north property line to provide screening to both properties. Proposed plantings for screening and in particular the new street tree can be adjusted in the event that there are concerns regarding requirements. 6) Screening. Landscape and building elements shall be established on all sides of such elements except where and opening is required for access. If access is possible only on a side that is visible from a public 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 Addressed: Screening location for the required trash enclosure is shown on the landscape plan. The design/detail of the enclosure meets with city standards for recycling and area for a small roll off recepticle. The location of the trash enclosure is planned based upon the existing tree canopy, access to the enclosure as required by trash vehicles, occupants/ homeowners, and sight lines. The enclosure will be five feet in height and behind the six foot north fence. (F)Tree Protection and Replacement. Existing significant trees within the LOD and within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonable feasible and may help satisfy the landscaping requirements of this Section as set forth above. Such trees shall be 611 Peterson St Feb. 7, 2001 Response to Issues and Concerns 4 of 14 reduced from a full two-story proposal to one and one-half stories, yet maintaining the same roof slope as the existing home. A module of a 16'-0" roof frame span has been planned to minimize overall mass and relate to historic proportions of some the neighboring one and one-half story homes. (3) 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, maintaining 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 Addressed: The planting beds have been redesigned and reconfigured in the new landscape plan to meet requirements. Perennials, (daylilies) which have a relatively long blooming season in early and mid -summer along with red and white creeping phlox are specified near entries. Ornamental grasses are included along the two entrances to highlight and define the feeling of entry. Some of the selections of plant material are based upon personal taste and past success in the growing of these specific perennials. While personally not having much success with showy clematis vine, they are indicated on some trellis areas and we are willing to give it another try. (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: (a) Trees shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) tree per twenty-five (25) lineal feet along a public street and on (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 Addressed: Street plantings have been proposed to meet regulations as shown on the revised landscape plan. The total parking area length has been reduced to accommodate 4 cars or 34'-0" and is along the south side property line. The setback area of five (5) feet meets city standards for planting areas as has been demonstrated by both newly planted and time -tested successful installations both public and private within the City of Ft. Collins. 611 S. Peterson St. Feb. 7, 2001 Response to Issues and Concerns 3 of 14 City of Fort Collins of successful planting areas containing trees and shrubs providing pleasing visual qualities and healthy tree crowns. E) Landscape Standards. All development applications shall include landscape plans that meet the following minimum standards: (1) Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities. (2) In situations where the Director determines that the arrangement of uses or design of buildings does not adequately mitigate conflicts reasonably anticipated to exist between dissimilar uses or building designs, one 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 or 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 an 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 view, subdue sound, change the sense ofproximity and channel pedestrian movement. Issues/Concerns Addressed: Planting areas proposed have been increased in scale and area due to the downsizing of the proposed building areaJootprint, mass and parking areas. The 16-plex apartment building to the south and adjacent to the property will be screened with an upgraded fence design from the north elevation, including vine plantings to obtain a screening effect. Matching trellis structures and plantings are proposed on the building garage facades on the south and north elevations to soften and lend pedestrian/human scale to those areas. A trellis is also planned for an area of entry at the east porch area. A fence is proposed along the north property line to provide a visual screen and privacy to the properties. The owner of the property to the North was shown the proposed fence line and will be further consulted as to their preference for the fence location. Second story windows are purposely restricted or located above the standard sill height for windows in the proposed design to avoid views from the second story to the north property. Code does require some egress windows, however.. There is an existing hedgerow, which shall be maintained and serves as a visual connection between the existing house and the new townhome at the east end of the property. Privacy has been addressed not by a fence between the existing home and new townhome, but a proposed softer edge in the form of lilac and forsythia planting areas, (see landscape plan). The redesigned height of the two townhomes will be the approximate height of the existing home. The overall height has been 611 S. Peterson St. Feb. 7, 2001 Response to Issues and Concerns 2 of 14 Addressed Issues/Concerns: New trees are planned for the site, (see landscape plan). The existing trees were considered in the designing of the building footprint and building elevations. No existing trees will be removed, but will be trimmed to meet city standards and to encourage healthy growth. The drainage pan originally proposed at the north property line is shown as relocated along the south property line to avoid conflict with the existing trees and to function with the revised drainage plan. The intent has been and continues to be the preservation of all existing trees on the site, as the health and general maintenance of the trees appears to be good. (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 building or structure. Such landscape areas shall extend at least seven (7) feet from any building or structure wall and contain at leastfifty- five (55) square feet of nonpaved ground areas, except that any planting cutouts in walkways shall contain at least sixteen (16) square feet. Planting cutouts, planters or other landscape areas for tree planting shall be provided within any walkway that is twelve (12) feet,or greater in width adjoining a vehicle use area that is not covered with an overhead fixture or canopy that would prevent growth and maturity. 1) Canopy Shade Trees min. 30'40'maximum spacing 2) Coniferous Evergreen min. 20'-30' maximum spacing 3) Ornamental Trees 20'-30'spacing 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 ffy (50) percent of all tree plantings. Trees required in subparagraphs (a) or (b) above may be used to contribute to this standard. Issues/Concerns Addressed: Due to the downsizing and change in the project program from 3 full two-story townhomes to two one and one-half story townhomes and double garage with a studio space above, more area is available on the site to add additional landscaping. Areas for vine planting are added to soften the existing fence and provide screening from the 16-plex along the south property line. Street trees are proposed and existing at the west property line at the alley/street. An additional street tree is proposed at the Southwest corner of the site. There was a suggestion by Ms. Weisz at a recent neighborhood meeting to move this tree to the West planting area of the parking area. If this is acceptable and deemed appropriate by staff, this can be refined and noted in the landscape plan. The width of the proposed landscape area between the property line and the parking lot is required to be a minimum of five (5) feet to provide for a planting area. There are many examples in the 611 South Peterson Street February 7, 2001 Mr. Steve Olt, City Planner City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado, 80522-0580 RE: 611 South Peterson Street Dear Mr. Olt, This letter is in response to the letter dated November 14, 2000 sent to you, Cameron Gloss, copied to City Council, the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Manager from Phil Hendricks and Madeline Weiz residing at 605 Peterson Street. We have reviewed their concerns and feel that we have addressed many if not all of the stated issues in the redesign of the project. It is helpful to have these comments and concerns with specific reference to The General Development Standards adopted by the City of Fort Collins. The specific concerns have been reviewed and addressed. 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 and ensure significant canopy shading to reduce glare and heart 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. (I ) reinforces and extends any exiting patterns of outdoor spaces and vegetation where practicable, (2) supports functional purposes such as spacial 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 development shall establish groves and belts of trees along all city streets, in and around paring 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. N]" THBORHOOD INFor 'ATION MEETING s for Project: �. City. of Fort Collins Meeting Location:Date: d JP 3 Attendees: PIease sin this sheet. The information will be used to update the project ailing list and confirm attendance at nei;hborhood meetings. Contact the Planning Department (221-6750) if you wish to receive minutes of this meeting. Did You Receive ritten Notification of this meeting? orrect ddress. Name Address Zip. Yes No Yes No sr f{—t��_�jZ� 4-ri S1 C9Jc�� 2 ill f F7/ 1 J-- boy PT . z✓� v t l� fJl J L 0tv sra Lt LF- o) YF Ue�erSa S� ��5� �% ✓ • A neighbor estimated that the proposed plan has covered up the site with around 80% impervious area. This is a "huge" concern for this neighbor. The neighbor does not think there is enough usable area on the lot because most of the lot is building and parking lot. The rest of the space is not usable because it must function as stormwater swales. Several neighbors expressed concern that increasing the density so much will generate additional noise because of more traffic and more people. A neighbor pointed out that parking is a huge issue, especially downtown, and suggested that the required 1.75 parking spaces per unit is unrealistic, particularly this close to campus. The neighbor pointed out the example that he has had to have cars towed that were illegally parked in front of his driveway (3 times in the last year). A neighbor expressed concern that what is and was an owner -occupied neighborhood is being transformed into a rental neighborhood. This is seen as a real problem to the neighbors. One unit on a lot to 4 units on the lot is a big difference. The neighbor wondered if this is perhaps the start of a domino affect for the neighborhood. The neighbors speculated that this type of development could have negative impacts to property values throughout downtown. It was pointed out that the neighborhood already has a fairly balanced mix of rentals and owners, and the neighbors explain that they don't want it to be tipped any further in the rental direction. A neighbor commented that this is a "terrible" project because is devalues the neighborhood in the name of an investment opportunity for someone who doesn't even live in the neighborhood. The neighbor pointed out that it is only a financial endeavor for the applicants and expressed a wish for the applicants to reconsider. A neighbor asked the applicants if they would do this sort of thing in the neighborhood where they live. The applicants stated that the zoning would not allow it in their neighborhood. A neighbor explained that the proposed green spaces on the rear lot are totally unusable spaces with very little landscape, and that utility conflicts may increase the problem. Several of the neighbors expressed a concern that they are very much opposed to the subdivision of single-family lots in Old Town to make multi -family lots. 3 A neighbor asked the applicants to clarify their role with the property after it is built. The applicants indicated that the property is an investment for them, and that they intend to manage it themselves. A neighbor asked what the rental price ranges would be. The applicant said that the new 2-bedroom units will be in the $800 range and the house will also be rented. The new units will have 9-foot high ceilings and design details. The applicants don't anticipate that the rentals will go exclusively to student renters. A neighbor expressed a concern that there will be nothing to ensure that down the road that students may be "packed in" to each of the units. A neighbor expressed concern that by splitting the lot, the 2 lots could each be sold individually to separate owners. The applicants stated that they do not intend to sell either of the lots. There will be a pedestrian easement across the front lot so that residents of the rear building have access to and from Peterson Street. Sewer will need to be coordinated and each lot needs a separate water tap. Sewers are available in both Peterson Street and in the alley. Water is accessed from Peterson Street. The next door neighbor stated that he believes that the existing house's sewer merges with his before the line(s) reach the sewer main in the alley. A neighbor commented that the existing house should perhaps be designated as a local historic landmark. The neighbor expressed a great concern that the proposed building is not sensitive to the historic nature of the street. It was pointed out that the historic character of the street is one of small houses that front the street. It was suggested that the massing and the lack of street frontage make the proposed building entirely inappropriate from a historic view. A neighbor suggested that rather than having just historic detailing, the proposed building should rather have a consistent mass and density to the neighborhood. Several neighbors expressed concerns about parking. They pointed out that rentals that are geared toward students (as these units most likely will be) typically have a much higher demand for parking per unit than other non -student rentals. If this site cannot accommodate all of its parking on -site, it will contribute to the parking problem that already exists in the neighborhood. A neighbor commented that using the alley as the primary vehicular access to the proposed building is overloading the alley with extra traffic beyond what is a workable amount of traffic for the alley, and that the alley was never intended to be used as a street. Additional vehicle headlights in the alley, particularly late at night, concerns the neighbor. K City of Fort Collins Comm ity Planning and Environmenta mvices Current Planning NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING for 611 Peterson Street conducted October 9, 2000, by Troy Jones A neighbor asked where the yard and grass areas are for the project. The applicant responded that yard and grass area is provided on the north and east sides of the project. The neighbor suggested that, compared to the size of the proposed building, the provided grass and yard area was insufficient in size. A neighbor asked what the condition of the existing fence is. The applicants said that they are open to improving the fence, if necessary. To clarify neighbor questions, the applicant explained that there are porches on the south side of the proposed building, and also that existing trees in the yard will remain. A neighbor asked why the floor is raised so high. The applicants responded that they are required to raise the floor 18" above the flood level. A neighbor commented that the existing house is a single story and the proposed building is 2 stories and the ground floor is raised 3 feet. The neighbor expressed the concern that the scale does not match the existing house. The applicants pointed out that the proposed building matches the architectural elements of the existing house, and estimated that the proposed building is only 3 feet taller than the existing house at the peak lines. The 3-plex is 28 feet from the ground to the peak (29.5 in spots). The applicants indicated that they anticipate that the parking for the existing house will continue to use the existing driveway off of Peterson Street. A neighbor commented that 4 people have been living in the existing house and doesn't think the parking for the existing house will be adequate. A neighbor asked why the applicants are splitting the existing lot into 2 lots. The applicants responded that it is dictated by the standards. A second building would be limited to one extra dwelling unit and limited to 800 square feet if it is in the rear yard of the existing lot. But, if the lot is split, the new lot is allowed to have a multi -family building on it (up to a 4-plex). 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 � s . NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING � S L fnr a Meeting City of Fort Collins d+ Attendees: PIease sign this sheet. The information will be used to update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood meetings. Contact the Planning Department (221-6-750) if you wish to receive minutes of this meeting. Did You Receive Written NotificationAddress? of this meeting? Correct Name Zip Yes No Yes No Mzli5sa �Uj II fAddress heS 6�2 t��✓Sovi �i��IL -( X Y/Sk n , Z� e St 2305zSE so ✓ Z 60 7— f" 5 JIIJ(�I,(%� Z 41C 0,4 �.. sLX �(�'h ►�l s� �1c1� trb �G��^ S� g bs 2 `� J os GbtK7ToP46n- (440 fi✓-7t5-�Q s-T b s-�,, 4 X Atov.- 3 d' C 15. Comment: This is still a very big project. It is too big for the neighborhood. Response: No response recorded. 16. Question: Why can this project not be scaled down to just a mother-in- law unit and a garage? Answer: No answer recorded. 17.. Comment: The proposed project is just too big for, and is not in scale with, the neighborhood. Response: No response recorded. 18. Comment: Please don't put the domino effect in play here. If this project occurs then other properties in the neighborhood will want to do the same thing. It appears that you are doing this in spite of reason. Response: No response recorded. 19. Question: Are you planning on re -submitting to the City this plan before us tonight? Answer: Yes, we are and hopefully within 2 weeks. 20. Comment: This project is too big. Response: No response recorded. 21. Comment: The lighting on this project will be horrible and adversely affect the neighborhood. Response: No response recorded. 4 W 10. Comment: We are still concerned about the nature/amount of proposed landscaping and buffering. Response: No response recorded. 11. Comment: We have concerns about the number of people that may live in each dwelling unit on this property. Response: No response recorded. 12. Comment: The turning radius into the driveway from the alley for this new building is inadequate. Response: No response recorded. 13. Question: Will the existing chain link fence on the north property line remain? Answer: Probably not. We want to put a 6' high privacy fence in that location. 14. Comment: Just because you can do something like this on the property does not mean that you should. Some concerns and comments are as follows: • You are here with this proposal just to make money. You will not personally be involved in our neighborhood. The other property looks like a little slum. You are not addressing our concerns. • Please reconsider your proposal and keep this property a single family lot. Response: No response recorded. 3 3. Question: Does this project have to meet the City's historic preservation requirements? What about the intent to tear down the existing garage structure? Answer: A historic preservation planner from the City is reviewing our proposal. 4. Question: How does the fire access to this project occur? Answer: Emergency access will be from the existing alley and the entire new 3-plex building is within the maximum distance of 150' for Poudre Fire Authority to access the building. 5. Question: How many square feet will be in each dwelling unit? Answer: The 2 standard units will be about 900 square feet in size and the studio unit above the garage will be about 400 square feet in size. 6. Question: How much rent will you be charging for these units? Answer: They could rent for about $800 to $900 per dwelling unit. 7. Comment: At those rental rates the project willundoubtedly be student housing for Colorado State University. 8. Question: Will pets be allowed in these dwelling units? Answer: No answer recorded. 9. Comment: The setback to the rear of the new building on Lot 2 is only 14' and the Land. Use Code requires a 15' setback. Response: No response recorded. `a Community Planning and Environmental services Current Planning City of Fort Collins NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: 611 Peterson Street - Project Development Plan DATE: February 13, 2001 APPLICANTS: Susan Kreul Froseth & Bruce Froseth CITY PLANNER: Steve Olt The developers are proposing to subdivide the existing lot at 611 Peterson Street into 2 lots and construct a new residential building containing 3 dwelling units on the rear lot next to the existing alley. The property is located on the west side of Peterson Street between East Laurel Street (to the south) and East Myrtle Street (to the north). It is. in the NCM - Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zoning District. ................. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS, RESPONSES ................. 1. Question: Why is a re -submittal necessary? Does this request not meet the Land Use Code requirements? Answer: Mostly, yes it does. However, there is almost always "tweaking" of details that are needed. That is what the development review process in the City of Fort Collins is about. Question: Does this project meet the required setbacks, such as the rear yard? Answer: Yes, it does. 1 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 380 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 Color Selection 61 1 5. Peterson: existing house and townhomes Body: Elephant Herd SA05A Trim: Off White Front Doors: Shameful Ked I �,Hj De 14T I dN HOT �W- U I' hptNf��l W- Oil rF-c'14 r-rAF- wr,,�vT Fr -or. �'��� r � . � fed - r W Jf , i i CC: Vicinity Maps (fljfijLy) .... ..... Wil I x LN- Lindenmeier G7 ; Lak U Q CpvF -p EEPLRI,STE +k 00 'f414 we S-&A % .......... 0 MA E PANCRIST( ST O"To ST 8059 i I erl ta Ge LOGcr AN V•DUFF D.9 ijrvCOLN Pau 4"', PKS pink-N-Greens FA 7Z G.C. COUP x LIMA C•.. •.... VACM011A "NEC ST 10 Nine G. . -E' EMUZOERR,� ST E Ft. CollinsZE C S z 'R 2.4 -Z A L 1� 9 J, 4 aALE iz� P. OLS � _ Riverside z7 'R PlazaS. `COLORADQ c PENNC 8052 1— i 12 cU Ot E, A IWMIN� ,. Z: -I ST 0 2L STATE - X-, . 4c 6t - ILW 80523 � UNIVERSITY Uj z S - AK; t PL j RD E ­-PARUN - -- !� 06 4 S7 Z Planning Objectives (i) A statement of planning objectives Appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies: taken from City Structure Plan (Fort Collins' Comprehensive Plan) Advance Planning and Environmental Services Web Site Information A) Compact Development Pattern: 611 S. Peterson is a large city lot with higher density development surrounding it. Presently the rear of the lot is vacant with the exception of a small storage garage (see site plan). The surrounding area and proposed infill project fits the city key principle of promotion of growth within a compact development pattern. B) Neighborhoods: South Peterson Street is an established Eastside neighborhood with the infrastructure in place. The property was originally included as a contributing element of the Laurel School Historic District (5LR463). The proposed development site is within 1,300 feet of the Colorado State University Campus. It within walking distance to downtown shopping areas, the City of Fort Collins Library and park is located within 2,600 feet and the Peterson Street fire station is within 300 feet of the project. Elementary schools within walking distance are Laurel Elementary and Harris Elementary. Centennial High School is within 200 feet of the site. Employment centers, medical and recreational facilities are all conveniently nearby. Description of proposed open space, buffering, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, wetlands and natural areas on site and in the general vicinity of the project Applicable information under (ii): The site borders on an existing alley with access along the rear lot line. An existing drive connects Peterson Street with the rear of the lot. The drive will be maintained for pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to the property. An existing fence provides visual buffering to the south of the property. See landscape plan for circulation, visual buffering and design concept (iii) Ownership and maintenance of private areas, intent of ownership The townhomes and site will be owned by Bruce M. Froseth and Susan Kreul-Froseth. Maintenance will be performed by the owner. (ix) Name of the Project: 611 S. Peterson (i) The development schedule will be determined at the time of approval �,6� mAe, A r<t�� �•�,�y i yF d1�•oil ` T{f�`f._r ��. ..n'c.. .�.s.4__ '•^aw+,eew..:�r.::: ..-. - 'mu©c+:.`. - vrr _wit It f, M1t - n jl t r _ ij d * . , Ala aw- s. •- ., t �`•,*� : pifri :. - .:�. :�+!' � ■may _ J . mmlWnlmQAm , i 664tA e,140� &� Cf Cc�� . IV, e o{",,. • .. , i AT f 4 - $f� * •. — t r MCI "p,,,. t - f lr r I� • l4 �'.wa f No Text I 3�� glop 4. J 1 't•9 ' AW ra L►' _ : A � k f gy 1 *r ". .xl j-I Y �^YJ e � 5 ^�+.• � ;• w ~.~.v4�'�'e 4 � � M^ fx 't i% .�.�� �T ','E5` West E L G v a t L 0 W E a s t E L e v a t L O W D u t N E L L v a t L O W [ e [ l [ yr - 1- o• N D Y t h E L L v a t L O W [ a [ � e yr - r -. o• r -T ' M ��Ilj �4 •. N.IIiN - w».•roc r�r� b L Mn FRM r[ua iauoa t [wa • mwe 1 PLANT SCHEDULE Ol!] ] YWWYNMM1V]'4pMMV' V'�I�w 1'M PM•iMY 11OM !�V•W� �111•+I� C�WY YW Iw ] IYW W4•' I.W'M P10!'IE EXIBTNG GRNYIJEB ITO b FT. ApOVE GROUND EXIBTNG TREE TO REMAIN -Kill •-i : •' VAr I EXIBTMG HOUBE I I EXIBT BNRUBB TO ft-t" L - MOBS R0.'lF CGJLDERH (�'TPJ _v J I I P.YF°CmXs LO] (l.HED miso c' J (I.T1R (l.GOC (!]rf flJHlO, .'� (3)CBK (! , 1 1. ° li EXMTI1 IIDJBE I - JGTIN ' ',yi`." ry� (7l'iR -- & ExNG Maros IBT �I ! To RETIAN ; v, IO.PMID (iO.PNBA IA'1B1'L (lJB�6F -. '.•. •_• •-TM6 :• •: L LI I '- -?4o-OO.__, DWNPAN PRDPOBED SIDEWALK 81DEWA K—(70.R -..... Ifirt 6TNG J IENOE -Sg3D ,.I TE TIaANGLE ITTPJ I I• J ' •I I EXMTm APAJrn•m.I b I - I I JI lip J II. Al It `I C-I r IV1'd''M v 19 cIl Kura.. GI»MrG/ '�FI/LIY6'rL'� M — tiY.INroP�v find . i - -}'} ite�su edu.oalR�G _^AVPICp JO lM►X.E. N -$�Y'fit �GF C/V15 ISO .��ir� r�n+I r-Io1.oI f LAID IIY DATA IrW1Yaq�T�.wYr.//WIrMr VY MO •wqr MaubM rr.«rw...n r....p tiV rMq.��Man►q�. ars.r � rw�rww. rwY.r�r W y.anorua..o-r► IYyw./�s�YY�wil�gxa. fi1�I.w Mw Ila►r M x.Yr arwx. a.q►Yr Tr r1.1►4 at OlIM 1LMIwwVW wYxWO► x alrr.�Y WS111aMY. W 1r.i�r.wY W xI+MM Y�Y�11 x f/arl W� 1 . �. �.Ta f.M..T. Trwwt 1 T�i.Mx IS• I.MII w q.s• sur O.r YYwl WSMrIxYr/q rr w.wsd♦.w�.i� s hai�r�rwW wwt ilri14 wdl rr4 mile rMM ►wlrgt�gYr roux aT rwgY+.rlly�aaa.YrYrr: r rwa. Ta rra..es a.a�raYt ra x.Wsw.p=Y>wtwr s q� Yr rw err r.... Yr. d rk s nraaq w wft IeL —i ►xta lgc.1 Naaar t>asnk, Iv IIAIr rrrY rFtiaM bulAvi 1r.wY'ww orb Mauer r•1 w aY w r W rq .r TMYowI.�Mlrr r.rwrr�/►/MIr sr A wq. r w W r. r. ►► � YY IY /w lei !r/fixY 0�►Ilwr ►er.ar r rr►rarr�I1�—asl. Y IM11w�MIMIiO�Yrl l\N .slausn.... M r4`Yrb�ArlylOT►OYW 0 0 ¢ ib of OEII IlOSE11 II IIIIIII r1Yr► r arum tTnw rmr #35-00 611 Peterson 1/3/03 N Aerial View not to scale No Text 11 Steve Olt -_ 611 Peterson From: Mike Gebo To: Steve Olt Date: 1 /30/03 9:11 AM Subject: 611 Peterson Steve My inspection yesterday at 611 Peterson, identified an illegal basement apartment. I have determined that this use is illegal because of only 1 forced air furnace for both the upstairs and downstairs areas, basement windows that are not large enough for emergency escape or rescue, wall and trim construction that is inconsistent with the upstairs, and no record of permits or approvals in the City's files. Speaking with the owner, Bruce Froseth, on site I explained that he will be required to remove the basement cooking appliance and return the building to a single family dwelling. With this he agreed. Let the record show that this address is a single family dwelling. Mike Gebo Building Code Administrator City of Fort Collins/Building & Zoning Dept. 970-416-2618 Direct 970-224-6134 (FAX) Once the structure at 611 Peterson Street is converted back to a single family residence the one existing off-street parking space is sufficient and in compliance with the City's Parking Code. This information is considered to be part of the City Staff Report and Recommendation for the aforementioned item that is on the agenda for the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing on February 20, 2003. 2 Community Planning and Environmental ervices Current Planning City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM Date: February 6, 2003 To: Planning and Zoning Board Members From: Stephen Olt, City Planner Re: Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street), Project Development Plan - #35-00 The Planning and Zoning Board, at their public hearing on January 16, 2003, continued the aforementioned development proposal to February 20, 2003, to enable City staff to resolve an issue about on -site parking for the existing structure on the front of the lot at 611 Peterson Street. At the January 16th public hearing the Board was made aware of the fact that the downstairs portion of the structure was being rented separate from the upstairs as a second dwelling unit, thereby making the structure a duplex residential building. A duplex (two-family dwelling) is permitted in the NCM - Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zoning District; however, there are additional parking requirements for the duplex use. Since the existing residence has only one off-street parking space, the Project Development Plan as submitted by the applicant does not provide for sufficient parking for the existing building in its present use. Because of this, the Board continued the item to February 20th, with the following direction: City staff and the applicant must address the parking requirements associated with the two dwelling units in the existing "single family" residence. Also, staff must determine the legality of the second unit in the downstairs portion of the structure. On January 29, 2003, Mike Gebo, the City's Building Code Administrator, Steve Olt, the City's project planner, and Bruce Froseth, the property owner/developer, met on the property to inspect the structure. According to Mr. Gebo, the inspection identified an illegal basement apartment (see attachment). Based on the City's information in the Building Department, the structure was originally built as a single family residence and there are no records to show that a second "dwelling unit" was approved. Mr. Gebo explained to Mr. Froseth that he will be required to remove the basement cooking appliance and return the building to a single family dwelling. At this on -site meeting on January 29th Mr. Froseth did verbally agree to comply with the determination. 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 Community Planning and Environmental ervices Current Planning City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM Date: January 13, 2003 To: Planning and Zoning Board Members From: Stephen Olt, City Planner Re: Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street), Project Development Plan - #35-00 The following is the response from Karen McWilliams, a Historic Preservation Planner in the Advance Planning Department, regarding the status of the proposed new residential structure with 3 dwelling units on the property at 611 Peterson Street: Historic Preservation staff has reviewed the request to subdivide the lot at 611 Peterson Street, and construct a new, 3-unit residential building. The existing single family dwelling at this location is designated on the National and State Registers of Historic Places, as a contributing element of the Laurel School National Register District. Historic Preservation staff has evaluated the proposed new construction for its effect upon the existing historic dwelling, and for its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. It is staffs opinion that the new construction, as proposed, would meet the standards of Land Use Code Sections 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, and 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility. The proposed construction is compatible with the existing dwelling and surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the historic building would still retain its eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. This information is considered to be part of the City Staff Report and Recommendation for the aforementioned item that is on the agenda for the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing on January 16, 2003. 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) - Project Development Plan, #42-01 February 20, 2003 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 10 FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Peterson Place - Project Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The proposal is in conformance with the City's adopted East Side Neighborhood Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal is in conformance with and supported by the Structure Plan, being part of the City of Fort Collins CITY PLAN. 3. The proposal is in conformance with and supported by the Principals and Policies, being a part of the City of Fort Collins CITY PLAN. 4. The proposed land use is permitted in the NCM — Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zone District of the Land Use Code. 5. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. 6. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable Land Use and Development Standards contained in Article 4, Division 4.7 of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street), Project Development Plan - #35-00. Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) - Project Development Plan, #42-01 February 20, 2003 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 9 times the total floor area of the building, but not less than 4,500 square feet for a One -family or two-family dwelling and 6,000 square feet for all other uses. * In Chapter 2 - Policy Plan, Section 2 Preservation Areas, Section 2.2 - Use Conversions (pages 22 & 23) it states that "Changes of use are to be generally discouraged, except as follows: Conversions which can be demonstrated to further specific goals of the East Side Neighborhood Plan." Such use conversions include four -family dwelling subject to site plan review and conversions to low density multiple -family dwellings (up to 4 units per building) in the NP zoning district. * In Chapter 3 - Implementation Guide, Section 3.1.1 - Land Use (page 46) it states that changes should be made to the Zoning Ordinance, including the adoption of a new NP - Neighborhood Preservation District and initiate the rezoning of the East side Neighborhood as recommended in Figure 4 of the ENP (page 22- C). The property at 611 Peterson Street is shown to be in the NP - Neighborhood Preservation Area in Figure 4 of the ENP - Proposed Land Use Areas * In Appendix A - Recommended New Zoning Districts, Section A.1 NP Neighborhood Preservation District (page 54) it states that "This district is for areas of existing residential neighborhoods that contain predominant single family and low density multiple -family uses". The uses permitted include two-family dwellings and multiple -family dwellings up to 4 units per building. The proposal for Peterson Place (the property at 611 Peterson Street), being a new residential building containing 3 dwelling units on a newly created lot on the existing alley running north to south between Peterson Street and Mathews Street, is considered to be in conformance with the City's adopted East Side Neighborhood Plan. Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) - Project Development Plan, #42-01 February 20, 2003 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 8 Neighborhood Plan (adopted in 1986 as an element of the Comprehensive Plan). Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) is a property that is identified as being in the NP - Neighborhood Preservation area in the East Side Neighborhood Plan. " In the East Side Neighborhood Plan Summary, Section 0.2.1 - Land Use, under Zoning (page 8), it states that "The NP - Neighborhood Preservation District generally would allow single family and low density multiple -family (up to four unit) dwellings, require at least administrative review by both the City and neighborhoods, and provide lot size and minimum yard requirements more in character with older residential areas". In Chapter 2 - Policy Plan, Section 2.1.2 - Land Use Policies (page 20), in the general land use area of "Preservation" it states that "It is critical to the continued viability of the East Side Neighborhood that the existing land use mix of these Preservation areas be maintained, that housing opportunities for all income groups be allowed, and valuable existing structures be preserved and renovated. Any new construction or renovation should respect the character and architectural style of its immediate surroundings." In Chapter 2 - Policy Plan, Section 2 Preservation Areas, Section 2.1 - Zoning (page 22) it states that "The portions of the ESN currently within the RL - Low Density Residential Zoning District should generally not be considered for rezoning. The remaining portions of the Neighborhood Preservation Areas should be rezoned to better reflect the existing mix of predominantly single family and low density multiple -family uses. A new "Neighborhood Preservation" Zoning District (described in Appendix A) is recommended." Appendix A, Section A.1 NP, Neighborhood Preservation District (page 54) states that "This district designation is for areas of existing residential neighborhoods that contain predominant single family and low density multiple -family uses." Uses permitted would include two-family dwellings and multiple -family dwellings up to and including 4 family units. The minimum lot area shall be the equivalent of two Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) - Project Development Plan, #42-01 February 20, 2003 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 7 Neighborhoods, states that "For parcels under twenty (20) acres, such infill and redevelopment activity will be supported if designed to complement and extend the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern, and any identifiable style, proportions, shapes, relationship to the street, pattern of buildings and yards, and patterns created by doors, windows, projections and recesses. Compatibility with these existing elements does not mean uniformity". Forms of potential infill development may include small, detached dwellings added to lots of sufficient size with existing houses (e.g., "alley houses" or "granny flats"). In the NCM District in the LUC this ultimately translated into two-family and multi -family dwellings up to 4 units per building when the new dwellings are constructed on a lot or parcel which contained a structure as of October, 1991. The existing house at 611 Peterson Street is over 50 years old and the proposed new residential building containing 3 dwelling units will be of a size and height that will be compatible with the existing house and surrounding single family and multi -family residential neighborhood. The City's Structure Plan Map shows this property to be in a Low Density Mixed -Use Residential Neighborhood area. The Structure Plan, being a part of the CITY PLAN, supports small multi -family dwellings on the subject property. The plan states that Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods, under Neighborhoods, will develop at approximately five dwelling units per acre overall. These neighborhoods will consist of a mix of detached homes on small and average size lots, townhomes, duplex units, and manufactured housing. The proposed Peterson Place project will provide 3 new dwelling units in a relatively small structure that would be architecturally consistent with the surrounding single family and multi- family residential neighborhood. This property is in the NCM - Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District. The purpose of this district is to preserve the character of areas that have a predominance of developed single-family and low- to medium -density multi -family housing. 6. Conformance with the City's East Side Neighborhood Plan The CITY PLAN is the result of a two-year long process to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. While the CITY PLAN deals with city-wide policies, neighborhood plans are needed to help implement CITY PLAN by applying general, city-wide policies to a specific neighborhood (or subarea). Several CITY PLAN principles and policies place in context the connection between the overall Comprehensive Plan and the East Side Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) - Project Development Plan, #42-01 February 20, 2003 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 5 B. Division 3.3, Engineering Standards 1. Section 3.3.1, Plat Standards The proposal complies with the general plat requirements as set forth in this section. The 611 Peterson subdivision plat contains two lots, with Lot 1 (for the existing single family residence) being 5,006 square feet in size and Lot 2 (for the proposed new residential building containing 3 dwelling units) being 7,008 square feet in size. Both lots comply with the minimum lot size required for the existing and proposed residential land uses as set forth in Section 4.7(D)(1) of the LUC. 2. Section 3.3.5, Engineering Design Standards The proposal complies with the design standards, requirements, and specifications for the services as set forth in this section. C. Division 3.5, Building Standards 1. Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility The proposed new residential building containing 3 attached dwelling units is to be 2 stories (up to 25') in height. The lots will be 5,000 and 7,000 square feet in size. The sizes of the lots are in compliance with the NCM District and the size, massing, and height of the building is consistent with building heights in the neighborhood. The property at 611 Peterson Street is bordered by existing single family residential to the north and east and existing multi -family residential to the south and west. The roof pitch will be 12:12, with dark grey asphalt shingle material. The building siding material will be a 6" wide horizontal hardwood lap siding, "Elephant Herd" grey in color. Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) - Project Development Plan, #42-01 February 20, 2003 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 4 3. Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards, more specifically as follows: A. Division 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards 1. Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection a. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(D)(4) Tree Species and Minimum Sizes in that the new canopy shade trees are to be 2" caliper balled & burlapped (meeting the minimum size required by the LUC) and the new ornamental trees are to be 1- 3/4" caliper ball & burlapped (exceeding the minimum sized required by the LUC). b. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.1(E)(2) Landscape Area Treatment in that the Landscape Plan provides for landscaping in all areas that are not covered by the building, paving, or other impervious services. The landscaping around the building, parking lot, driveway, along the 6' high privacy fences, and in the "rear" yard of Lot 2 (being the new construction) will consist of deciduous and ornamental trees, a variety of deciduous and evergreen shrubs, and perennial flowers, grasses, ground covers, and vines. 2. Section 3.2.2, Access, Circulation and Parking a. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(4) Bicycle Facilities in that it provides an adequate amount of secure and conveniently located bicycle parking on the new multi -family lot for the 3 dwelling units. b. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(K)(1) Residential Parking Requirements in that it provides 6 new on -site parking spaces for the 3 new dwelling units, which is one more than the required 5 spaces for the 1 studio and 2 two -bedroom units. There will continue to be one off-street parking space for the existing single family residence fronting on Peterson Street. Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) - Project Development Plan, #42-01 February 20, 2003 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 3 COMMENTS: 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: NCM; existing single family residential S: NCM; existing multi -family residential (Chateau Apartments) and single family residential E: NCM; existing single family residential W: NCM; existing multi -family residential (Princeton Apartments, Cottonwood Apartments, 614 Mathews Street) This property was included in the Original City of Fort Collins; therefore, annexation of the property has never been necessary. The property was the south 1/2 of Lot 5 of Block 146 of the Original Town Site Plat of the City of Fort Collins, dated January, 1873. The lot has not subsequently been "re -subdivided'; however, at some point in time the lot was split by metes & bounds descriptions to enable single family residences to be built at 609 and 611 Peterson Street. As defined in The New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, metes & bounds is a method of describing the boundaries of land by directions (bounds) and distances (metes) from a known point of reference... without replatting the properties. 2. Division 4.7 of the Land Use Code Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zone District The proposed new residential building containing 3 attached dwelling units on a newly created lot is permitted in the NCM — Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District, subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. This is set forth in Section 4.7(B)(3)(a) of the LUC. The proposal complies with the purpose of the NCM District as it is an infill project with multi -family attached dwellings in an existing single family and multi -family residential neighborhood. The proposal complies with the standards set forth in Sections 4.7(D) Land Use Standards, 4.7(E) Dimensional Standards, and 4.7(F) Development Standards of the LUC. Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) - Project Development Plan, #42-01 February 20, 2003 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 2 This PDP complies with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION; standards located in Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 — Engineering Standards, and Division 3.5 - Building Standards of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; and • the proposed use of multi -family dwellings up to 4 units per building is permitted in Division 4.7 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density District (NCM) of ARTICLE 4 — DISTRICTS, subject to a Planning and Zoning Board review. Multi -family dwellings up to four (4) units per building when structural additions or exterior alterations are made to the existing building, or when the dwellings are constructed on a lot or parcel which contained a structure on October 25, 1991, are permitted in the NCM — Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zoning District, subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. The purpose of the NCM District is: Intended to preserve the character of areas that have a predominance of developed single-family and low- to medium -density multi -family housing and have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan. This proposal complies with the purpose of the NCM District as it is an infill project with multi -family attached dwellings designed to complement existing single family and multi -family residences in the neighborhood. The property at 611 Peterson Street is in the area designated as NP - Neighborhood Preservation in the City's adopted East Side Neighborhood Plan. Further discussion of the proposal's conformance with the adopted neighborhood plan is provided in Section 6, page 7of this staff report. ITEM NO. 10 MEETING DATE 2120/03 STAFF Steve Olt Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street), Project Development Plan — #35-00 APPLICANT: Kreul Froseth Architects c/o Susan Kreul Froseth 1630 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80525 OWNER: Bruce & Susan Froseth 524 Spring Canyon Court Fort Collins, CO. 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to subdivide the existing lot at 611 Peterson Street into 2 lots and construct a new residential building containing 3 dwelling units on the rear lot adjacent to an existing alley. The existing single family residence on the front of the property (facing Peterson Street) is to remain. The property is located on the west side of Peterson Street, between East Laurel Street (to the south) and East Myrtle Street (to the north). The property is in the NCM — Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposal is in conformance with the City's adopted East Side Neighborhood Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is in conformance with and supported by the Structure Plan, being part of the City of Fort Collins CITY PLAN. The proposal is in conformance with and supported by the Principals and Policies, being a part of the City of fort Collins CITY PLAN. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT