HomeMy WebLinkAboutLANDMARK APARTMENTS EXPANSION - PDP - PDP120031 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGLandmark Apartments Extension
Neighborhood Meeting Comments
Meeting date: March 27th, 2012 at Plymouth Congregational Church
1. How will the slope from north to south be dealt with, how will the buildings work
with the slope? Answer: The building foundations will be stepped from north to
south, and the bottom of the hill may require fill material.
2. Will the wetlands be impacted? Answer: The wetlands will remain untouched.
3. What is the total number of units that the developer is requiring for the project?
Answer: 70 to 85 units, all two bedroom.
4. What is the anticipated rent? Answer: $1200 per unit, or $600.00 per bedroom.
5. Concerned was raised that the amount of parking spaces being proposed was not
sufficient. What is the anticipated parking ratio? Answer: This is a work in
progress; the applicant will try to achieve two spaces per unit. Staff explained that
the minimum code requirement is 1.75 spaces per two-bedroom unit.
6. A neighbor expressed concern about spillover parking in the neighborhood on
Birky Place, Balsam Lane and Juniper Lane.
7. A question was raised as to whether the existing Landmark Apartments were in
compliance with the required parking ratio.
8. A concern regarding parking spillover on adjacent streets was raised, and why one
space per bedroom was not being provided? Answer: We are investigating
whether a 1:1 ratio is feasible, and it may depend on whether 90 degree parking is
allowed instead of angled parking.
9. Are any outdoor balconies being proposed? Answer: Yes.
10. A concern was expressed with regards to Hobbit Street being used currently for
parking by the existing Landmark residents. Staff explained that this is a public
street and parking is permitted.
11. It was asked whether “tuck-under” parking or below-grade parking is possible
which would take advantage of the existing slope. Answer: This type of building
structure is very expensive.
12. Is there a “no pets” policy? Answer: There is a strict pet owner policy with an extra
deposit required of $35 to $40 per month.
Planning, Development and
Transportation Services
Current Planning
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/currentplanning
CDN #2594A-002
13. Why is the parking angled? Answer: Staff explained that this is a “Street-Like
Private Drive” which is a standard that the applicant may choose to use in place of
a public street. The standard allows either angled or parallel parking, but not
perpendicular parking.
14. A comment was made that the site design should encourage as much on-site
parking as possible in order to minimize spillover impacts.
15. What are the buffering requirements along the eastern property line? Answer:
The building minimum setback is 25 feet, and the minimum parking setback is 5
feet. The applicant indicated that they were looking at creative solutions to the
parking buffering that used a combination of elements such as fencing and
landscape material.
16. A question was asked as to whether a portion of the first floor could be
underground. Answer: This depends on the grading and entrances, but might be
possible in limited areas.
17. Is there any concern that the project would contribute to downstream flooding?
Answer: Upstream master improvements have been made by the City of Fort
Collins since the major flooding event in 1997, and this project would be required
to comply with current storm water and detention standards.
18. A resident from 1609 Sheely Drive indicated that he was expecting another yard to
abut his property, not a street, and that he was concerned about the affects of the
adjacent traffic.
19. A comment was made that the proposed site plan seems to be dominated by
parking, and a question was asked as to where the detention pond would be and
how big it would be. Answer: The design team does not know yet and would need
to analyze the volume requirement.
20. A comment was made that storm water needs to be addressed. Southeast of the
site, flooding occurs near the trail and the neighbor was very concerned. Answer:
The design team explained that they needed to finalize the building and layout and
then calculate the storm water requirements.
21. A comment was made about the high water table at the south end of the project.
22. Are two points of access required? Answer: Yes, this is a P.F.A. requirement.
23. A concern was expressed about whether the buffer was adequate along the east
between the Historic Sheely Neighborhood and the proposed parking areas.
Answer: Don’t know at this time, this will need to be evaluated.
24. A question was raised that per the Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 Dissimilar Uses,
does this mean that a transition needs to be made between the existing Landmark
Apartments and the Sheely neighborhood. Answer: The design team explained
that they were aware of this issue. Roof pitch and materials were examples of
elements that were being used make the transition.
25. Did you look at Ray Kramer’s study? Did you walk the neighborhood? Answer:
The applicant team explained that two neighborhoods were part of the transition—
CDN #2594A-002
Landmark to the west and Sheely to the east. It was also explained that the
proposed buildings were attempting to call upon details from Frank Lloyd Wright,
and with shallow-pitched roofs and articulated facades.
26. A neighbor pointed out that the Land Use Code requires compatibility with the
historic district.
27. A concern was expressed about site lighting with regards to car headlights and
pole-mounted light fixtures; it was noted by the neighbors that the Sheely
neighborhood was intentionally under-illuminated.
28. A neighbor expressed concern about transition and compatibility and that the
driveway and parking was too close.
29. A neighbor expressed concern that the West Central Neighborhood Plan is
intended as a policy document for our neighborhood policies, and that it called for
not impacting the neighbors with parking; that it called for buffering and appropriate
storm water measures. The neighbor expressed concern that it looked like there
were too many units proposed and that the number of students would have too
much of an impact.
30. A neighbor commented that the plans seemed speculative and did not answer
enough questions; another neighborhood meeting was requested to get answers.
31. Are all of the buildings three-story and which ones? Answer: Yes, but some
buildings are a combination of 2 and 3 stories.
32. What is the city’s parking ratio? Answer: The ratio was explained by staff as a
required minimum and that exceeding the minimum is permitted.
33. A neighbor expressed concern that more detail was needed with regards to
buffering—more details and specifications. Is the proposed fence 4 feet or 6 feet
in height? Concern was raised about headlights shining into large windows of the
neighbor’s houses. Answer: We need to look at the fencing and landscaping in
more detail. It is not finalized yet. The parking locations will be looked at.
34. A neighbor expressed concern that parking was too close to the back property
lines and backyards.
35. Is the proposed fence planned to be on the property line? Answer: This has not
yet been determined.
36. Who owns the channel? Is it counted in the acreage for the proposed project?
Answer: The City of Fort Collins owns the channel. No, it is not counted in the
acreage.
37. A neighbor stated that our trail is under water. Answer: It was suggested that the
City of Fort Collins storm water staff be contacted.
38. Why are “student” apartments being proposed? Answer: This is the best return,
the most viable use, and a good return will allow us to improve the building design;
the buildings will be higher-end than the existing Landmark Apartments.
CDN #2594A-002
39. What is the required minimum density for the site? Answer: Staff answered that
the minimum required density was 7 units per acre with no maximum limit required.
40. A neighbor expressed concern that the transition standards be met and asked how
tall the buildings were to the ridgeline. Answer: +/- 30 feet.
41. What are the building materials being proposed? Answer: shingled roofs, wood
trim, stone, horizontal and vertical siding such as hardy-board.
42. A neighbor expressed concern that the windows did not relate the Historic District.
Answer: We can’t do large plate glass windows.
43. A neighbor expressed concern that the proposed architecture looked “craftsman”
and not “mid-century modern.”
44. A neighbor expressed concern that transition is important and that buffering and
“breathing room” is desired.
45. A neighbor pointed out that the historic homes had large windows on the back of
the houses.
46. A neighbor requested the elimination of balconies to reduce noise and allow
privacy. The Land Use Code Section 3.5.1(G) regarding privacy was mentioned.
47. A neighbor expressed concern that three-story buildings could set a precedent for
other projects such Spring Creek Village (20 acres), and expressed a desire for 2-
story buildings for the Landmark project, which would require less parking, and
therefore more enable more buffering resulting in more compatibility. Answer: The
plans are not yet a finished product.
48. A neighbor expressed concern that Shields Street would be impacted, and would a
traffic signal be required at Hobbit Street? Concern was also expressed that cars
and bicycles would impact the surrounding neighborhoods. Concern was
expressed that cyclists would need to gain access to the Spring Creek Trail by
crossing the adjacent neighborhood association property.
49. A neighbor requested that the applicant agree that the five historic homes adjacent
to the east are all one-story with a walk-out basement, not two-story.
50. A question was asked about the lighting standards, and staff explained that lower
poles were permitted and that offsite illumination was not permitted.
51. A neighbor expressed concern that the wetlands needed to be buffered. Staff
explained that this buffering is required, and that an Ecological Characterization
Study(ECS) is required and will be reviewed by the City.
52. A neighbor expressed concern that the wetland setback and buffer needed to be
shown on the site plan.
53. A neighbor asked if the ECS encompasses wildlife; staff explained that it does.
54. A neighbor pointed out that the Senior Center was expanding, and that perhaps
senior housing might also be a “highest and best use” for the project instead of
student housing.
CDN #2594A-002