Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLEVINS SUBDIVISION LOT 9 PUD PRELIMINARY 12.16.91 P AND Z BOARD HEARING - 42-91 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS— - ITEM NO. 12 MEETING DATE 12/16/91 STAFF Kirsten Whetstone City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Blevins Subdivision Lot 9 PUD - Preliminary, #42-91 APPLICANT: Robert K. Glover 2101 Lindenmeier Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Same as Applicant PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a preliminary PUD for a tri-plex on Lot 9 of the Blevins Subdivision. The lot is 11,846 square feet in size, is currently vacant, and is located on Blevins Court, north of Prospect Road and west of Whitcomb Street. The property is zoned RL, Low Density Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with a condition EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes a 1 and 1/2 story tri-plex on a vacant lot in Blevins Subdivision, an established residential neighborhood which primarily serves college students and CSU employees because of its close proximity to the Colorado State University campus. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses of the surrounding area, which other than single family houses, include married student housing complexes; college classrooms, labs, and offices; a Baptist Student Union meeting house; duplexes; a church, school and daycare; an in -home bike shop; and a fraternity house. Two neighborhood meetings were held for this project. The applicant has addressed the major concern, that of sufficient on - site parking, by providing 9 parking spaces- 3 for each unit. The project meets the criteria of the Residential Density Chart and the All Development Chart of the LDGS. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Colfine, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221�750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL: SCHOOL PROJECTIONS BLEVINS SUBDIVISION PUD, Lot 9 DESCRIPTION: 3-family dwelling with two 2-bedroom units and one 3-bedroom unit on .27 acre DENSITY: 11.11 du/acre General Population 3 (units) x 3.30 (persons/unit) = 9.9 School Age Population Elementary - 3 (units) x .120 Junior High - 3 (units) x .055 Senior High - 3 (units) x .050 Affected Schools Bennett Elementary Blevins Junior High Rocky Mountain Senior High (pupils/unit) = .36 (pupils/unit) = .165 (pupils/unit) = .15 Design Capacity Enrollment 537 536 900 676 1250 1142 LOT 9, BLEVINS SUBDIVISION P.U.D. Statement of Planning Objectives Cal City Land Use Policies achieved: #3 The City shall promote: a. maximum utilization of land within the city; d. the location of residential development which is close to employment, recreation, and shopping facilities. #22 Preferential consideration shall be given to urban development proposals which are contiguous t❑ existing development... #26 Availability of existing services shall be used as a criteria in determining the location of higher intensity uses in the city. #75 Residential areas shall provide for a mix of housing densities. #80 Higher density residential uses should locate: a. Near..., CSU main campus,... Cb7 Ownership: All portions of the development are currently owned by Mr. Glover. It is his intention that the development remain under single ownership. Cc7 Employees: There are no business uses, no employees. Cdl Land use conflicts mitigation: The applicant intends to use materials and scale of structure (one story above grade, low roof slope) similar to the adjacent single family dwellings in order to aesthetically integrate the proposed structure into the neighborhood. Perimeter landscaping and privacy fencing are intended t❑ protect the neighbors' privacy and minimize light conflicts (e.g. auto headlights). The applicant believes that sufficient onsite parking has been provided to alleviate any potential street parking conflicts. Lo-r9 or)-PfIl-'lr►n ,, . ALL DEVELOPMENT.; NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY CRITERION Is the criterion 000liCoble? Will the criterion be sOfistieo? If no, please explain e:�'�F.�' .��0 Yes No NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY 1. Social Compatability 2, Neighborhood Character 3. Land Use Conflicts 4. Adverse Traffic Impact PLANS AND POLICIES 5. Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC FACILITIES do SAFETY 6. Street Capacity 7. Utility Capacity 8. Design Standards 9. Emergency Access 10. Security Lighting 11. Water Hazards RESOURCE PROTECTION 12. Soils & Slope Hazard V 13. Significant Vegetation ✓ 14. Wildlife Habitat 15. Historical Landmark 16. Mineral Deposit 17. Eco-Sensitive Areas 18. Agricultural Lands ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 19. Air Quality 20. Water Quality 21. Noise 22. Glare & Heat ✓ 23. Vibrations 24. Exterior Lighting V 25. Sewages & Wastes 1/ SITE DESIGN _ _26. Community Organization 27. Site Organization 28. Natural Features 29. Energy Conservation 30.Shadows 31. Solar Access 32. Privacy 33. Open Space Arrangement 34. Building Height ' 35. Vehicular Movement 36. Vehicular Design 37. Parking ctive Recreational Areas rivate Outdoor Aredestrian Convenience edestrian Conflictsandscaping/Open k Areasandscaping/Buildingsandscaping/Screening 45. Public Access 46. Signs -12- QicoJns SL)6&�stdn LarQ- ti�10 pre.tr�,r�� ACTIVITY: Residential Uses DEFINITION H All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings, townhomes, duplexes, mobile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group homes; boarding and rooming houses; fraternity and sorority houses; nursing homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit quasi -public rec- reational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places for public assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers. CRITERIA Each of the following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the develop- ment plan. Yes No. 1. On a gross acreage basis, is the - average residential density in the project at least three (3) dwelling - units per acre (calculated for residential the E6 o portion of site only)? 2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM " PERCE-NTAGE-PO-I-NTS-AS-CAL-CUL-ATED-ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART" FOR " THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESI- DENTIAL PROJECT? THE REQUIRED EARNED CREDIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SHALL �j ❑ BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: Lr J 30-40 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 3-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 40-50 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 4-5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 50-60 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 5-6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 60-70 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 6-7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 70-80 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 7-8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 80-90 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 8-9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; 90-100 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 9-10 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE; (0 OR MORE PERCENTAGE POINTS = 10 MOR DWELLING UNITS/ACRE. —29— PARSONS & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS December 3, 1991 Ms. Kristen Whetstone Planning Department City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P O Box 580 Fort Collins Co 80522-0580 RE: Blevins Court Lot 9 P.U.D. - Off -site Drainage Our Project Number: 91.15 GLV Dear Kristen: We have reviewed the off -site drainage flows for this project as requested by yourself and Glen Schlueter of the Stormwater Utility. As we indicated in the preliminary report, drainage runoff from the west and north of this site will be collected in a drainage swale along the north property line and will be conveyed to Blevins.Court. Drainage runoff to the south and east of this site flow away from this area towards Prospect Road. We will provide additional detailed topography and design information to confirm this as part of the final design. Please feel free to contact -me should you need -additional information. Sincer Couch, P.E. for Engineer JWC/gbl cc: Robert K. Glover 432 Link Lane Plaza Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524 • [3031 221-2400 Utility, -vices Water & wastewater City of Fort Collins April 26, 1991 Robert Kent Glover 2101 Lindenmeir Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Re: Water service for 500 Blevins Court Dear Mr. Glover: As a result of our telephone conversation of a week ago, I have investigated the problem of providing water service to 500 Blevins Court. As you are aware, there is presently an existing 1-1/2 inch water service which runs east to west along the southern boundary of this property. .This service is tapped to a water main in.Whitcomb Street, and is shared by several houses in the area. The water service is constructed of galvanized metal, indicating that it was installed several decades ago (Due to problems with galvanized metal, the City stopped allowing water services made from that material in the late 1940's and early 19501s). Due to the fact that the water service is galvanized, and is shared by several houses in the neighborhood, it is doubtful that there is an adequate water supply for anything larger than a single family house. Therefore, we will not allow a water service permit to be issued for anything other than a single family house. I realized that a problem exists on Blevins Court, due to the fact that the houses along the street all share water services. (The City no longer allows developers to install shared water services because of similar problems to what those you are experiencing here.) In order to alleviate this problem the,City will install a 6-inch water main in Blevins Court either late this year or sometime next. After the new water main is installed, you will be allowed a water permit for any size building which is.allowed by the City's Planning and Zoning Departments. P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0SSO • (303) 221-6681 The new main will be connected to the existing main in Whitcomb Street and terminate at the end of Blevins Court. The City insists that all dead-end mains have a fire hydrant at the point where the main ends. I would like to place the hydrant behind the sidewalk, in front of 500 Blevins Court. Please notify me when and if you complete the purchase of this property. I will keep your name and address on file and keep you appraised of the progress of the water main's installation. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to call me at 221-6681. Sincerely, w� 4r Mark Taylor Civil Engineer II SUMMARY The following are QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, and RESPONSES expressed at a Neighborhood Meeting for Lot 9 at Blevins Court. The applicant proposed a four-plex with 3 bedrooms per unit on the .25 acre lot 9 of the Blevins Subdivision. Each unit would be approximately 1,120 square feet and would be a rental unit. The property is located north of West Prospect Road and west of South Whitcomb Road. The property is zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. MEETING PLACE: Plymouth Congregational Church MEETING DATE: June 6, 1991 MEETING TIME: 7:00 p.m. to 9:15 P.M. CITY PLANNER: Kirsten Whetstone QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS Q- 1. How tall will the building be? How high above the existing homes will it be? Will it be one or two stories? The proposed 4-plex will have a basement or garden level with a story over that. It will be 1 and 1/2 stories in height but because of the design it will be 2 to 3 feet higher than most of the existing one story homes in the immediate area. There are several very tall trees in the area and they will provide a good amount of screening. Q- 2. Will there be just one building housing all 4 units? The proposal is for a single building with 4 units with outside access for each unit. Q- 3. Will there be 3 bedrooms in each unit? Yes. C- 4. I am concerned about the number of bedrooms. With three in each unit there could be anywhere from 12 to 24 people living on that lot which is platted now for one single f amily_house._I_am-concerned-about-the-density-in-terms-of-people,- eve n-if-this-project makes the so called density point chart for units. ' C- 5. I feel that 3 bedrooms in each unit is too many. They would be pretty expensive to rent, therefore several students would share them in order to afford them, and there would be too many people living on that lot. Q- 6. What would the setbacks be from the side lot line? Setbacks would conform to the RL zoning district, they would be 5' on the side yards. Q- 7. What about fencing? Will it be 6' high stockade? We are not proposing to fence in the entire property. The proposed fencing would be sections of stockade or shadowbox fencing with sections of hedging and shrubbery to break up a continuous fence line. The concept is to make these units a part of the neighborhood, not to walf them off from the neighborhood. But we would screen the parking area and trash enclosures. The front side yards would likely not be fenced or would have low fences and shrubs. Q- 8. Will the parking lot be designed for storm water detention? Yes, and the run-off from the parking lot detention area will be at the historic rate. Q- 9. Will the driveway be oversized? The driveway will likely be a 20' drive to allow cars, to come and go simultaneously. It will not be "oversized" in the sense that it will be any wider than most driveways for two car garages. Q- 10. How will the building face? What will be visible from the street? The building is designed into the site. The view from Blevins Court would be the corner of the first unit. You would not see the front of the building square on from the street. The attached units will angle back in an off set manner so the apparent scale of the building will be sized back. Q- 11. Will these units be rentals? Who will you rent to? These units will be rentals. The applicant, Kint Glover, proposes to manage them and will likely rent them to students, married student couples, or young families. C- 12. I think the 600, 700, and 800 blocks of the south side of Prospect are trashy looking because of the student rentals who don't care about the neighborhood. I think more student rentals in this area will just contribute to the problems. Q- 13. What will the likely rents be for these units and will families be able to afford these rents? The rents will likely be in the range of,$650.00 to $700.00 per unit. C-14. I have a real concern with the number of bedrooms. I think 3 bedroom units will rent to more than three students. C-15. The number of bedrooms is a real concern, there is no way to really enforce the number of_people-living-in-each-unit,-unless-we-file-a-very-lengthy-complaint-and-keep a record of the activity going on for a month. We, as neighbors do not want that responsibility. It seems like 2 bedroom units would decrease a lot of the likelihood of overcrowding. Q-16. What about parking? Will you be able to get all the parking you need on the site? There is no street parking available in the area, because students from CSU are parked in front of our houses all day and all night. Often we can not even park in front of our own houses. Sometimes we have to carry our groceries for a block or more to our homes. Where will visitors to these units park? We are following the city requirements for parking and we propose to have all of the parking off-street. We can meet the City parking code with this design. C-17. We don't feel that the City Parking Requirements are adequate for this site. We would like to see a parking space for each bedroom as well as one additional space for each unit for visitors. That would be 16 spaces on site. Q-18. Would you, the developer or the architect, want to live next to this project as you propose it? We can understand your concerns. We understand that who lives in these units is a concern. Q-19. I have an interest in property on the north property line of this project. What do you propose as far as fencing or screening of the project from the house to the north, there is a bedroom in this house that looks out onto this property. We don't have all of the details worked out at this time, but we will be adhering to the 75% opacity requirements for screening between different uses. C-20. I have a concern with the increase in density. Density should be based on the number of humans, in this case 3 people times 4 units is 12 people per this quarter acre. This is definitely an increase over the number that would be in a typical single family house. This means more cars, more activity, more noise, more of everything. Q-21. How will you guarantee that there will be only 3 unrelated people per unit? That would be our management principle, but it is difficult tgenforce the number of visitors someone might have. We like to believe that our management practices would control the number of people and cars as well as the amount of noise and activity generated by the property. We have an interest in keeping the area looking nice and in being a good neighbor. Q-22. How will a four plex like this affect our property values? If the place is kept up nicely and is a positive contribution to the neighborhood, we like to believe that it can only cause an increase in your property values. It will certainly be an improvement over some of the properties in the neighborhood which I am sure are not contributing positively to your property values. C-23. I bought a house in this neighborhood to be a part of a neighborhood. This proposed project will destroy my neighborhood, it is out of character. Why can't you build a single family house and allow another family to join our neighborhood, instead of allowing these four units to intrude? I-don't-want-to-lose-the-"qualityof-life"-that we have in -this neighborhood. We have a good neighborhood. Owners and renters in this neighborhood have worked hard to keep this a neighborhood, in spite of the problems created by CSU, with parking and traffic. Q-25. How can the planning department even consider a four-plex in a single family zone? The City of Fort Collins has a flexible zoning system which theoretically might allow any use in any zone, with each project being reviewed by its own merits. All negative impacts of a project have to be mitigated before the planning department can recommend approval of the project to the Planning and Zoning Board. The underlying zoning acts as a guide, and a developer may propose a four-plex in the RL zone if the project is a Planned Unit Development reviewed under the more stringent requirements of the Land Development Guidance System or LDGS. Some of the requirements include a traffic impact study, a storm drainage report, a landscape plan, a neighborhood meeting to address compatibility issues, scoring the appropriate number of points on the Density Chart, and meeting all of the criteria of the All Development Point Chart, including parking, design, landscaping, buffering, lighting,. circulation, and compatibility concerns. Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9, PUD - Preliminary - #42-91 December 16, 1991 P&Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background• The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-L; CSU and single family homes (Blevins Sub) S: R-L; single family homes (Blevins Sub), duplexes, in -home bike shop E: R-L; single family homes (Blevins Sub) and CSU married student apartments W: R-L; single family homes (unplatted), church meeting hall, student fraternity house. This property is Lot 9 of the 22 lot Blevins Subdivision which was subdivided in the County in March of 1955 and annexed into the City in December of 1956. The property was zoned RL-Low Density Residential, at the time it was annexed into the City. Lot 9 is the last vacant lot in this subdivision. 2. Land Use• The proposed use consists of a one and a half story tri-plex building on an 11,800 square foot lot. Two of the units would have two bedrooms and one unit would have three bedrooms. Nine parking spaces are proposed, along with bike racks and motorcycle parking. The property is currently zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. The current owner/applicant would maintain ownership of the units and would act as the property manager. He would be responsible for all lease agreements and maintenance of the building and grounds. The density of the proposal is 11.11 DU/acre and therefore the project needs to earn 100 or more percentage points on the Residential Density point chart of the Land Development Guidance System. The project achieves 105% points based on the following criteria: b) proximity to an existing transit stop, c) proximity to an existing regional shopping center- University Mall, d) proximity to a park- Rolland Moore Park, the park by Fort Collins High School, and Creekside Park which connects via the bike path to Spring Creek neighborhood park, e) proximity to a school - Fort Collins SDA School at 821 W. Lake (see attached letter) f) proximity to a major employment center-CSU, g) proximity to a daycare center- CSU day care on West Lake, and j) 100% contiguous boundary to existing development. The project is also in close proximity to the educational and recreational facilities at CSU. Q-26. How does this project score on the Density Chart? How many points does it have to have? This project is proposing a density of greater than 10 units per acre and therefore would have to receive 10096 on the. chart. The applicants say they can meet this. The planning department has done a rough calculation and it looks like it might be close, but the project likely can meet the 100%. Q-27. Is this sort of density (greater than 10 units per acre) unusual for such a small area all being single story homes? In a typical single family neighborhood the density ranges from 3 to 6 or 7 dwelling units per acre. This is an unusually high density for a single family neighborhood. Q-28. Do you have to have four units to make it financially? Why can't you build a single family home or a duplex? Could you break even with those? Could you decrease the number of bedrooms? We felt that the four plea could be designed to fit well onto this lot and still be compatible with the neighborhood. We also feel that this area near CSU is going to be a higher density area and that there is a demand for this kind of housing near CSU so that students are within walking distance and do not have to drive their cars onto campus. C-29. Please do not make the assumption that it is inevitable that this neighborhood will become a high density area. We are a single family neighborhood and plan to keep it this way. We have seen some of the rentals turn into owner occupied houses by young families and even by students who used to rent in this area. We are working with the landlords to get their cooperation to keep the area looking nice and to care about the appearance of the neighborhood. Just because we are near CSU and have to deal with all of the traffic on our street and all of the parking and parties, doesn't mean we are doomed to become a high density rental area. C-30. Renters and owners can be compatible and, are in some cases in our neighborhood. Sometimes the difference is in the pride a person takes in where they live, whether they are a renter or an owner. nt-a-neighbor-on-lot-9,—not-a-business.-- C-32. What about utilities and fire access? Light and Power will be undergrounding the electrical power in the area, we will coordinate our power needs with their schedule. They may underground the entire neighborhood with this project. Fire is required to have a minimum of 150' for access to fight a fire from the truck. Our design will meet all fire code and access requirements. C-33. I want to make a comment that the building not be two story. This would not be compatible with the neighboring homes. I like the design and think it would probably look nice and would be an improvement to the vacant lot and would probably be an improvement over another single family home that is run down by a bunch of students. I would like to suggest that the units be 2 bedroom units. There would be more of a chance of getting married students, or young couples if there were only 2 bedrooms. C-34. From my experience in this neighborhood, the more bedrooms, the more students. With students you have no control over dogs, cars, parties, stereos, noise, boyfriends, girlfriends, and the number of people living in each unit. I encourage you to look at both the number of bedrooms and the number of units and to consider the impact on the neighborhood, because we are a neighborhood. We are used to students and are trying to get some control and help from CSU on the parking and traffic problems. I am not saying that something other than a single family home won't work here, I am just saying consider the impacts, not the dollars. To: Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 300 La Porte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 From: Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association 1000 W Prospect Road Ft Collins CO 80526-1926 re: Preliminary # 42-91/Blevins Subdivision - Lot 9 PUD 13 December 1991 Since June 6, 1991, our Association has participated in meetings and discussions with the applicant of this proposal. Our primary goal is to secure a high -quality development on this unique site which has compatibility with and has the least impact on the existing fragile neighborhood. BACKGROUND: Blevins Court is located on a cul-de-sac which extends west off South Whitcomb Road, between West Lake Street and West Prospect Road. In the 1950's, 6 single family homes were built on this cul-de-sac and 9 were built on South Whitcomb Road. Since then, change and growth has occurred both on the CSU campus and in the City of Fort Collins. Unfortunately, these changes have not had a positive impact on this portion of South Whitcomb Road and Blevins Court. West Prospect became a major east -west arterial as early as the late 60's and West Lake Street, South Whitcomb Road, and Blevins Court became off -campus parking for CSU students. A migration of many of the original homeowners soon followed as it became unacceptable to cope with the ever-increasing parking dilemma. The home -owners who chose to stay have had no relief, and indeed the problem has worsened. Remaining properties have become rental units to students, all of which have cars. Since the single-family_ properties have_single-car driveways-, the renters must park on the street, and if street parking is un- available, cars are parked on lawns or across driveways. South Whitcomb Road is one of the major ingress/egress routes for access to the CSU campus. We realize that the prob- lems that exist in this neighborhood will continue. Indeed they will worsen. FUTURE: In 1992 a traffic signal will be installed at the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection. In addition, a day-care center for CSU faculty, staff, and students is to be built in 1992 on the northeast corner of the Lake Street/Whitcomb Road intersec- tion. With certainty, the intensity of traffic on Whitcomb between Prospect and Lake will increase. South Whitcomb will definitely be over -loaded with the concurrent increase with auto, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic and parking. With this over- load, we foresee that parking may eventually be prohibited on South Whitcomb, between Lake and Prospect. The University is in the planning stages of the "Circulation System and Access Plan" for CSU. This plan, when implemented, will not only eliminate automobiles from the core of the campus _ but will eventually phase out approximately 1300 campus parking places. While our Association supports alternative transporta- tion means, we know that if CSU eliminates 1300 on -campus parking spaces, students will continue to drive cars and park on the streets of adjoining neighborhoods. Our Association encourages University planners, the City, and surrounding neighborhoods to coordinate their planning so CSU's "solution" to their headache does not become a throbbing "migraine" for adjoining neighborhoods. (See attached letter) NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS 1) Density: How much intensity of use (that accompanies increased lot density) can the neighborhood accomodate? 2) Parking: Is adequate on -site parking for that density provided? 3) Buffering: Are acceptable noise and light buffer- ing for adjacent properties provided? 4) Precedence: Will approval of the proposed density (bedrooms) for this PUD establish a precedence which would encourage other rental property owners to request zoning changes which would allow basement apartments? ADDRESSING NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS 1) Density: Only a duplex with 2 bedrooms in each unit can be accommodated on Lot 9/Blevins Court. Any higher density would be inappropriate and can not be made compatible with the single family residences of the neighborhood. The the proposed triplex would further erode the remaining quality of life of the neighborhood. 2) Parking: 1 parking space for each bedroom plus 1 parking space for each unit must be provided. The Planning and Zoning Department "standard" parking space ratio per unit is simply not appropriate for PUD'S on adjoining CSU streets. Campus neighborhoods face very different parking realities. Students living near campus will have cars and will have visitors that have cars. On -street parking spaces are simply not available on Blevins Court and South Whitcomb Road. 3) Buffering: 6-foot solid fencing and 4-inch caliper evergreen trees at 5-foot spacing on the east, south, and west perimeter of the property are required. Inside and outside lighting must be sensitive to neighbors. In addressing noise and lighting buffering, attention must also be given to the placement of the windows on the west side of the building. Since students do not have the same hours as adjacent neighbors, the window place ment must be so that lights in the upper -level of the units will not disturb the residents in adjacent homes. Outside lighting must be adequate for the safety of the residents of Lot 9 but not of overly or bright garish nature. Appropriate landscaping and sensitive lighting will help to mask the nighttime noises and lighting from the proposed triplex. 4) Precedence: Approval of the applicant's proposal provides a precedence that would make it be easier for other properties to be approved for basement apartments (increased bedroom density). Approval of the density (bedrooms) for this project is a legitimate concern to residents of the neighborhood. (Already existing properties in this neighborhood have basements that can be set up as separate apartments.) The Zoning Depart ment has disallowed the owners of these properties to offer basement apartments for rental. In summary, we appreciate the commitment which the Appli- cant, Mr. Glover, and the Project Planner, Kirsten Whetstone, have given to modify this PUD to be compatible with the neighbor- hood. We thank them and appreciate their efforts. However, we cannot support this proposal. This property has unique problems that affect not only long-term residents but short-term ones as well. We can support a duplex with on -site parking spaces for each bedroom and each unit, with appropriate buffering. Our objective is to maintain the quality of life for this part of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Emily Smith, Vice -President PROSPECT/SHIELDS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 1000 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80526-1926 Thomas M. Grip Vice President for Administrative Services 309 Administration Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80521 December 6, 1991 Dear Vice President Grip, Our neighborhood is actively concerned with the University's proposed Circulation System and Access Master Plan. Our Board and membership participated in both the November 7th and 8th meetings when the Plan was presented to the campus community and Fort Collins residents by CSU Police Chief Donn Hopkins and Tom Moss, architect. We believe that only by close and continuing cooperation among the adjoining neighborhoods, the University, and the City will the mounting problems of auto, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic to, from, and on -campus be solved. We will continue our efforts to support such cooperation. Since our Association borders CSU on West Lake Street and South Shields Street, an area which envelopes approximately the SW quadrant of the campus, we are all too aware of the impact of CSU traffic. A major concern to us about the plan as we now understand it is the effect of reducing the number of parking places on campus. Insofar as this reduction can be compensated by effective use of alternative modes of transportaton (public transit, bicycle, pedestrian) we would consider the Plan to be positive. However, it is not acceptable to us if reducing the number of campus parking spaces only displaces the parking problem to adjoining overburdened neighborhood streets. We urge the University to meet with representatives of the City and surrounding neighborhoods to explore more comprehensive _alternatives-which-would-not-have-theadverse neighborhood impact inherent in the proposal we have seen. Our association enjoys a record of positive contributions to the civic planning processes, and we believe we can make similar contributions to the proposed Circulation System and Access Master Plan. Again, we stress the importance of close and continuing cooperation with the neighbor- hoods and the City. Sincerely, Rex Rehnberg, President Emily Smith, Vice President 1185 Westward Drive 1000 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80521 Fort Collins, CO 80526 224-2173 482-4577 cc:Donn Hopkins, Tom Moss, Eric Bracke, Tom Peterson Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9, PUD - Preliminary - #42-91 December 16, 1991 P&Z Meeting Page 3 The project meets the applicable criteria of the All Development Criteria chart of the LDGS and meets the policies of the Land Use Policies Plan. 3. Design: The proposed tri-plex building is set at an angle on a pie shaped lot. From the street, the corner of the side and back wall will be visible, but the angle will be such that neither wall faces the street full on. The building is proposed to face south for solar access for the entrances, porches, and front windows. The parking area, building, and fence will be set back from the street 35' to 40' to maintain continuity of front yards on Blevins Ct. The tri- plex and parking area will be set back a minimum of 20' from the adjacent houses, with the exception of the handicapped space which is setback 151. The site will be well landscaped. The existing trees will remain or will be relocated to another location on the lot. If they can not be relocated, they will be replaced with additional trees of sufficient size to be determined on the final landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to plant an additional 10 deciduous trees, in varying sizes, and 3 evergreen trees throughout the lot. Additional shrubbery and upright coniferous landscaped beds will soften the privacy fence and provide additional noise buffering for the parking area. Building foundation plantings are proposed to soften the building elevation on the east and south sides. Approximately 47% of the site is landscaped with lawn, trees, or shrubs. A concrete sidewalk along the driveway to the street was eliminated to increase the front lawn area. Staff felt that pedestrians could use the driveway to access the site and that the tradeoff was less hard surface on the site. The building is proposed to be 1-1/2 stories high with a low sloped roof, materials, colors, and relative scale to lot size, similar to existing houses on Blevins Ct., in order to aesthetically blend the proposed structure into the neighborhood. The privacy fence will not stockade the entire lot, but will be solid where necessary for screening and buffering and open in places to allow the building and use to be integrated into the neighborhood. The trash receptacle will be fully enclosed and landscaped. Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9, PUD - Preliminary - #42-91 December 16, 1991 P&Z Meeting Page 4 4. Neiahborhood ComDatibilit A neighborhood meeting was held at the Plymouth Congregational Church on June 6, 1991. Of the eighteen people in attendance, five were owners or represented owners of property north of Prospect in the Blevins Subdivision neighborhood. Three of these owners lived in the neighborhood and the other two rented their property to CSU students. The remaining 13 people were property owners in the Sheely neighborhood, south of Prospect Road. Minutes of the meeting are attached to this report. At the time of this first meeting, the applicant was proposing a four-plex with 3 bedrooms per unit, 12 bedrooms total. The major issues and concerns raised by the neighbors were parking problems due to the student rentals and CSU students, traffic due to CSU traffic and the proposed signal at Prospect, the impacts of student rentals in the neighborhood, and the number of bedrooms/people being proposed. The density was viewed as too great with the possibility of 12 students on the one lot. Some felt there could be as many as 24 (with 2 per bedroom). Other concerns raised by neighbors were: what the building would look like and how it would be oriented on the lot, how many stories the building would be, what the setbacks would be, whether the property would be completely fenced in and what sort of fence would be used, and whether the driveway would be any wider than a normal single family driveway. They also were concerned about the existing landscaping and whether additional landscaping would be provided. In general, the neighbors were favorable towards the physical aspects of the proposed plan, in particular, the architectural design which put the building back into the lot and away from the street. When the project was formally submitted to the Planning Department for review, the applicant had reduced the number of units to 3, each with 3 bedrooms. Staff was concerned that the amount of parking being proposed (12 spaces for the 9 bedrooms) was in excess of the City Parking Guidelines, created too much hard surface on the site, and interfered with the site design and landscaping. Staff suggested that the applicant reduce the number of bedrooms to 7, reduce the number of parking spaces to 8 (2 more than the Guidelines require), and increase the landscaping and buffering on the lot lines and in the front yard area. Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9, PUD - Preliminary - #42-91 December 16, 1991 P&Z Meeting Page 5 On November 21, 1991 a second meeting was held in the Planning Department Conference room involving the Planning Staff, the applicant, two of the three homeowners who live in Blevins Subdivision, and three representatives from the Prospect Shields Neighborhood Group. At this meeting, the major issue was parking. The neighbors expressed concern that 9 or 10 spaces would be more desirable, even at the expense of some front yard landscaping. The neighbors felt that the site design would work well on the lot and were hopeful that the parking would be adequate. Some of them expressed a desire for the number of bedrooms to be reduced further if only 9 parking spaces would be provided. Staff feels that parking concerns are adequately addressed with 9 spaces, in addition to bicycle and motorcycle parking. Given the proximity to campus, the possibility exists that students without cars, seeking off -campus housing, will find that this project meets their needs. 5. Transportation: The property is located on a short cul-de-sac off of South Whitcomb Street, mid -block between Prospect Road and Lake Street. Whitcomb Street is a major connection to the CSU campus from Prospect Road, particularly now that the connection between Pitkin and Lake Streets exists. It was constructed several years ago by extension of Whitcomb to the north. The officials at CSU have coordinated with the City Transportation Department for a signalized intersection at Prospect and Whitcomb. The signal is scheduled to be installed in 1992. Traffic volumes are high on Whitcomb Street between Prospect and Lake, considering that Whitcomb is a local street. The City Transportation Department has reviewed the plans. They do not have any concerns from a traffic standpoint, since the trips generated by 3 additional units at this location will be insignificant compared to the existing volumes. The Transportation Staff was concerned that enough on -site parking be provided to accommodate the vehicles associated with this use. The City Parking Guidelines recommend 6 parking spaces for the proposed use. The applicant proposes 9 spaces which allows for one space per bedroom with 2 additional spaces for guests. Staff feels that this will provide adequate on -site parking. Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9, PUD - Preliminary - #42-91 December 16, 1991 P&Z Meeting Page 6 6. Storm Drainage The applicant has submitted a storm drainage report which has been approved as a preliminary report. The Stormwater Utility staff has concerns about drainage on this site, since it is very flat and historically accepts drainage from the surrounding lots. The Stormwater Utility has requested that a condition be placed on approval of this project that the final drainage report and drainage and grading plans, including an erosion control plan, be approved by the Stormwater Utility prior to final approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the proposal meets the criteria of the Residential Density Chart and the All Development Chart of the LDGS, and is compatible with the surrounding area. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of Blevins Subdivision Lot 9 PUD Preliminary- #42-91 with a condition that the final drainage report and drainage and grading plans, including an erosion control plan, be approved by the Stormwater Utility prior to final approval. No Text <+..nr..wWw Wrrr 6 L. t VI N9 —, ue pI\/I<SIOIhI, / T'w4 YI. WMf }'IM4 rrl�NmN �/ MueJ Iw.u. <Ny r LAL l4 Iti 24p&d o ,"Ielr VATf nnn �_ LLl 111tY IloewM.�rlYv Mewr.r y r�Ci 91nfrIV. q.lr uul*.I/A, rl.uR ,uw; pTTeu. ' s1.M4/uT eFTil I/G.I, Uvel..ya C4W44� 1,1TLu IG.eI rvnlg eAw e o vT rP FPRWNq: rµ,olGrClzltl� i 8ryy[Wm (1'tll) 1 Gnwrcr �.,gn Iw+wcYars Nx� I 9LYCLe �};MJ41T� ', M{W qpl, u6lgrrR; 12r 2✓Nlµa+ R� ; i Waoµµul[. -IT 11 y� �p c�wIRIP�+Wn�l M.VPMV+ N:N 2 ie�d'T�l{ � � I.twl. wrcu.rllw< Me � ° v rwluluq �. zalrwa a[nflunlN I �+rY OWJICPS c[eTIfIGYIIN xrriwluniN TNrr If SCitTY T �.y��r.�OI�{Y� I� rFI �ro �».ww HeIs1»I Ie rr eiP � a, 1� _..— Ieefns LNiAN.TIM Fl,. � C. ♦ L fa� s i Ll T F+ C C /, s T G L E V A. T I �-4 1/4-ILC-1