No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLEVINS SUBDIVISION LOT 9 PUD PRELIMINARY - 42 91A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 11 MEETING DATE 2/ 2 4/ 9 2 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT -. ..- ..- PROJECT: Blevins Subdivision Lot 9 PUD - Preliminary, #42-91A APPLICANT: Robert K. Glover 2101 Lindenmeier Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Same as Applicant PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for preliminary PUD for a duplex 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 conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes a 1 and 1/2 story duplex 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 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; a fraternity house and a sorority house. Three neighborhood meetings have been held for this project which was originally submitted as a tri-plex. The Planning and Zoning Board denied the tri-plex design on January 27, 1992 based on density, amount of lot coverage, parking concerns, and neighborhood compatibility. The project meets the criteria of the Residential Density Chart and the All Development Chart of the LDGS. Staff is recommending conditions regarding drainage and landscaping. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Boa 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT w �• LOT 9, BLEVINS SUBDIVISION P.U.D. Statement of Planning Objectives Ca] City Land Use Policies achieved: 43 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 to 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,... Cb] Ownership: All portions of the development are currently owned by Mr. Glover. It is his intention that the development remain under single ownership. Cc] Employees: There are no business uses, no employees. Cd] Land use conflicts mitigation: The applicant intends t❑ use materials and scale of structure Cone story above grade, low roof slope) similar t❑ the adjacent single family dwellings in order to aesthetically integrate the proposed structure. into the neighborhood. Perimeter landscaping and privacy fencing are intended to protect the neighbors' privacy, and_m,inim,i.ze light conflicts (e.g. auto headlights). The applicant believes that sufficient onsite parking has been provided to alleviate any potential street parking conflicts. • /346 s Sh, 10-� 9 Pv 6 t�e Opq . ALL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY - CRITERION Is the criterion 60011cooie? . wi i the criterion oe sahsheo? If no, please explain eF�F.�' ,9a�°�0 Yes No NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY 1. Social Compatability 2. Neighborhood Character 3. Land Use Conflicts 4. Adverse Traffic Impact V . PLANS AND POLICIES 5. Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC FACILITIES & 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 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 25. Sewages & Wastes SITE DESIGN 26. Community Organization _ 27. Site Organization 28. Natural Features V 29. Energy Conservation ✓ 30.Shadows V 31. Solar Access 32. Privacy 33. Open Space Arrangement 34. Building Height ✓ 35. Vehicular Movement ✓ 77�- 36. Vehicular Design ✓ 37. Parking' ✓ V! 38. Active Recreational Areas ✓ 39. Private Outdoor Areas 40. Pedestrian Convenience 41. Pedestrian Conflicts ✓ 42. LandscapinglOpen Areas �✓ ✓ 43. Landscaping/Buildings 44. LonascapingiScreening ✓ 45. Public Access 46. Signs I I fiO S16N -12- AWL S cSJbdi� ibiay,. LoT 9 ^poL'relirvf DENSITY CHART Maximum Earned Criterion Credit If All Dwelling Units Are Within: Credit a 20% 2000 feet of an existing or approved neighborhood shopping center. b 10% 650 feet of an existing transit stop. I RI' ST L wi+iTC1omS sT, Cs Corner C 10% 4000 feet of an existing or approved regional shopping center. uNly I rAALt_ 10 d 20% C 100'J L� 3500 teat of an existing or reserved neighborhood park community park or community aciliry. ROL(.AN pyN0 oRE 40 w e 10% 1000 feetaf o school, meeting all the requirements of the compulsory education l atth far C) St. V< f 20% 3000 feetaf a major employment center. CC 11 ;2O 100 g 5% 1000 feet of a child care center. rt CSLI - LAKE' WWTC0rV% OMkiar.6 5 h 20% "Nonh'Fort Collins, —^ 20% The Central Business District. --+ A project whose boundary is contiguous to existing urban development, Credit may be earned as follows. 0%—For projects whom property boundary has to 10% contiguity; 30% 10 to 15%—For projects whose property boundary has 10 to 20%contiguity; . 15 to 20%— For projects whose property boundary has 20 to 30%contiguity; 201 —For projects whose property boundary has 30 to 40%contgulty; 0 0% orproiectswhosproperty boundary has 40to50%contiguity; 7507 30 If it can be demonstrated that me project will reduce non-renewable energy useage either through the application of afternaflve energy k systems or mrough committed energy conservation measures beyond that normally required by City Code.a5% bonus may be earned for every 5% reduction in energy use. I Call a1% bonus for every 50 acres included in the project. m Calculate the percentage of the total acres in the project that are devoted to recreational use. enter 1/2 of that percentage as a bonus. If me applicant commits to preserving permanent oifsite open space that meets the Citys minimum requirements, calculate the percentage Inof this open space acreage to the total development acreage. enter this percentage as a bonus It pan of the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood public transit facilities which are not otherwise required by City Code, O enter 2%bonus for every$100 per dwelling unit invested. If paof the total development budget is to be spent on neighborhood faculties and services which are not otherwise required by City Code. n P enter al%bonus for every$100 per dwelling unit invested. If a commltmenf is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for low income families. enter that q percentage as a bonus, up to o maximum of 30%. a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type'A'and Type 'B"handicapped zit housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins calculate the bonus as follows Or iYPe'A"— .5 times T o�o—aFu—n Type'B'-1.Ofimes Type'B"units .. . ovum — _ In no core shollthe combined bonusbe greater than 30%. If the site or odfacent property contains an historic building or place. a bonus may be earned for the following; 3% — For preventing or mitigating outside influences(e.g.envifonmental, land use, aesthetic, economic and social factors)adverse to its If S preservation; 3% — For cmudng that new slructureswiil be in keepingwith the character of the building or place, while avoiding total units 3% — For proposing adaptive use of the building or place thotwilltead to its continuance, preservation and improvement in on appropriate manner. If a portion or all of the required porking in the multiple family project is provided underground within the building, or in an elevated parking structure as an accessory use to the primary structure, a bonus may be earned as follows; t 9% — For providing75% or more of the parking in o structure; 6% — For providing 50-74% of the parking in a structure; 3% — For providing 25-49% of the parking in a structure. u If a commitment is being made to provideapproved automatic fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, enter a bonus of 10%. TOTAL ►os�b 'ofr><s`► = �1 (Du/acre n eeCi --10- SO go -30- SUMMARY The following are QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, and RESPONSES expressed at a Neighborhood Meeting for Lot 9 at Blevins Court. The applicant proposed a three-plex with 2 bedrooms in two units and 3 bedrooms in one unit .25 acre lot 9 of the Blevins Subdivision. Each unit would be approximately 1,120 square feet. 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: January 22, 1992 MEETING TIME: 7:00 p.m. to 9:15 P.M. CITY PLANNER: Kirsten Whetstone QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS Q-1 What will the height of the building be, from the ground to the peak of the roof? The building will be approximately 18' in height. The roof height will be very close to that of the existing houses. Q-2 Will the lower level be actually a basement or will it be a half story and will there be any windows or access doors from the basement? There will be windows in the basement with exposed aggregate or redwood window wells with egress windows. It will be possible for people to exit from the basement rooms in an emergency, but there will not be any doors. The lower level is more of a typical basement than it is a "garden level". This is to keep the scale of the building in line with the neighborhood which is all one level. Q-3 What will the basement ceiling height be? The ceiling will be about 8' or 9' high in the basement. The design of the basement rooms is intended to make the basement area liveable space. The rooms will be large and should be pleasant spaces. Q-4 You say that you are involved in "high -end" home construction and are familiar with good architecture and construction, yet you plan to put bedrooms in the basements of these units. Are basement bedrooms considered "high end"? Q-5 Bedrooms in basements seems to me to be substandard housing. Is this substandard housing that you are proposing? Just because the market for these units is students, should you be proposing substandard units? That is what basement bedrooms conjures up for me. First of all, in our minds this is not substandard housing. This design is far from it. By using off -set roof lines and a foundation which as a result has many corners as opposed to four like a box, we are clearly not cutting corners on design. These units are well designed and will be of good construction. It is much cheaper to build a four cornered box with two stories. The off set units and basement bedrooms are design considerations used to fit this project onto this lot and into this neighborhood. Also, many students live in basement apartments, some may even prefer them. Basements are cool in summer and warm in winter, they are easier to keep at a constant temperature and are energy efficient. They are also quiet. We get requests for basement bedrooms in the "high -end" homes that we build, it is not that unusual. Q-6 How many bedrooms are you proposing now? We are proposing 2 bedrooms in 2 of the units and 3 bedrooms in one unit for a total of 7 bedrooms. That is 3 bedrooms more than most of the housing in the area, on a lot that is more than twice as large. C-1 Some people prefer basement rooms. C-2 It is true, the immediate neighborhood has "gone downhill" somewhat because of the vicinity to CSU and the student rentals. I like this proposal because it will spruce up the neighborhood, it will be an improvement with the on -site parking, landscaping, and well designed building. It will be a positive addition to the immediate neighborhood. C-3 Maybe we can get some of the other property owners in the immediate area to upgrade their properties also. C-4 •Especially the property owners along Prospect Road, they should provide off-street parking. C-5 I think that we should concentrate our thoughts at this meeting on what the Planning and Zoning Board was concerned with. Isn't that why we are here? C-6 We should discuss the density and parking issues. Those seem to be the two big issues. C-7 We should also look at building coverage, that was an issue also. C-8 Density really relates to parking and human activity on the site. I think that the human density, number of people living here, is really the underlying issue. The rest is just a symptom of the density. C-9 The density drives the discussion of parking, units, and bedrooms. C-10 So, we should really ask whether the amenities that this project provides, like landscaping, off-street parking, fire hydrant, fencing, and the general design of-t}ie building, really mitigate the additional density. Q-7 How many bedrooms are you proposing now and how many did you propose to the Board? We are proposing 7 bedrooms. This is the same number of bedrooms that we proposed before. We have decreased the hard surface by putting in a grass-crete area for overflow and by reducing the driveway width. C-11 I think that your argument that this project should be approved because it is superior to the existing houses, which are old, outdated, not up to City Standards for parking or design, is maybe faulty. The project should meet today's standards, even if the surrounding ones don't. Q-8 Doesn't all new construction meet today's standards? That is generally the case. Q-9 Why are you so opposed to a duplex? Basically it comes down to the bottom line. The costs are very high, especially when you consider the costs of the landscaping, the fire hydrant, additional parking, the off -set roof design, and the multi -cornered building design. The land costs in this location are high, given the demands of the CSU market. The land costs are higher here than in other areas of town where people are building introductory housing. I feel that I am proposing a use that is the highest and best use of the property. C-12 The Planning and Zoning Board is not concerned about whether you can make money. C-13 The Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association has consistently said that they could not support a tri-plex, and that they could consider supporting a duplex. We feel that a duplex is the maximum that would fit on the site, given the parking needs and student activity on the site. Q-10 Could you redesign the project? If so you would stand a better chance of getting approval. We have looked at alternative designs, and this one seems to give the most green space, provide the greatest amount of privacy to the neighbors and the occupants, and we really feel that this design will work on this site. C-14 Maybe it would work somewhere else, but with students living there the noise, cars, activity, music, dogs, parties... would just be overwhelming. C-15 Maybe it would be rented to quiet students or married students with children. Not all students are loud. We feel that this type of housing will appeal to students who do not own cars, they could live off campus, yet be within walking distance of the library. Also, we will have lease agreements with the tenants and feel that the disruptive behavior can be kept to a minimum. I (Kint) will be managing the units, I won't be selling them off to some property management company who doesn't care or have an interest in them. Q-11 What about the specific criteria of the LDGS that the Board mentioned of the hearing? Have those concerns been addressed? The main criteria mentioned by the Board were neighborhood compatibility, site design, and site orientation. Criteria #26 and #33 were mentioned specifically. Criteria #26 asks whether the site plan is arranged so that activities are integrated with the organizational scheme of the community and neighborhood. The amount of activity and the hard surface were brought up as negative factors. Criteria #33 asks if the design contributes to overall aesthetic quality of the site.. The amount of hard ,surface was a concern and was felt to take away from the aesthetic quality of the site. Q-12 What about the density Point Chart issues, specifically the church school and the day care center? Points were taken for the day care center in the Gifford Building. They do not have restrictions on the children that they accept, as one of the Board members originally believed. They care for children of students, staff, faculty, and anyone else in the community who desires the kind of program that they have for daycare. The Seventh Day Adventist Church school is accredited by an agency which is recognized by the state of Colorado as a legitimate accreditation agency. The State of Colorado recognizes the SDA School of Fort Collins as a school that meets the compulsory education requirements of the State of Colorado. This was verified by the State Department of Education. C-16 Traffic in the neighborhood is just awful, and it is because of CSU. It is not going to get any better in the future, it will probably get worse. It is just like a highway dividing the neighborhood. It is not a place for children to play. C-17 I am bothered by the speed of turn around and resubmittal of this project and the modesty of the changes that we have seen. I wouldn't recommend taking this back to the Planning and Zoning Board without making more substantial changes. Q-13 Why is this project back so fast without any real changes? Why didn't you go through the proper process and if you weren't happy with the Planning and Zoning Board decision, why didn't you appeal to City Council? That is the way it should be done. This resubmittal is just a way to circumvent the appeal process, which would have killed the project, right? An applicant has the right to resubmit a project as many times as they want, as long as they pay the fees. The Planning Staff suggested that the applicant could appeal if he so desired, but that he did not have to appeal. It was the applicants decision to resubmit. There were some other reasons, that the applicant chose this route, it was his decision. A failed appeal does not necessarily kill a project. An applicant has the right to resubmit the project after an appeal to City Council. Q-14 What would happen to the value of the existing property if this tri-plex is built? Would it decrease or• increase the values? I (Kint) am not an appraiser but my gut feeling is that any property in this location is going to increase in value. The value of the existing houses is increasing at a greater rate than is the value of similar houses several miles from campus. As CSU enrollment goes up, there will be a greater demand for housing like this near campus. I don't think that this tri-plex would cause the property values to go down, especially since the PUD would place restrictions on the upkeep and maintenance. This is something that the surrounding houses don't have. I don't plan to let this tri-plex get run down, even if it were not a PUD. C-18 You still need to address the requirements of the LDGS for neighborhood compatibility. I think that is the basic issue here. C-19 I think that this is a well -planned project. It appears to be well designed and I like the layout. It just seems like you need a little more land so it wouldn't seem cramped. C-20 I really believe that this design and land use is the future for this area, it's just that I'm not sure that this is .the future yet. Maybe we just aren't ready for this yet. I think a duplex would fit in better to this neighborhood. C-21 Just bulldoze the whole area and start over with nice planned, multi -family duplexes or triplexes for students. Its the perfect location and it is the inevitable land use. Then you could make sure that there is enough on -site parking. Student housing should be located near campus. This area is close enough for students to ride their bikes or walk to class, the library, the student center, sport events... It makes sense to have them live close, then they will use their cars less. C-22 Families with kids don't live here because Whitcomb Street is a busy street and it will just get busier. It is like a major highway at certain times of the day. I hope the City can encourage CSU to consider the neighborhood on any plans they come up with for removing parking, changing streets, etc. C-23 And Prospect Road is even worse, it is like an interstate highway sometimes, you can't get out of your driveway, you can't cross the street, and it is very noisy. C-24 I'm not sure that we have accomplished anything here tonight because the developer has not really altered the plans significantly. It seems really unfair to the neighborhood group to take up our time with the same old plan. We would like to see something new, we would suggest that you consider the concerns of the Planning and Zoning Board too. E N � V4. 9 " �, PROJECT:; ?S SrJ�C/�/✓i5/O/L ,�J c 1 TYPE OF MEETING: Ii�'/C/IlCigl^ho%C(lyr �/;ti�c:/7C DATE: Zl yZ NAME ADDRESS WRITTEN NOTIFICATION YES/NO 0V.'NE:i RENT l D O D cjj' eo U !/ *la,/?/.3 ;, u C I I I � e- c b Dr /yn v ee 0 N L 4el No L✓ i .o� Al, Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9, PUD - Preliminary - #42-91,A February 24, 1992 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 and sorority houses. 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. Since this lot is existing, the solar orientation requirement does not apply. 2. Land Use• The proposed use consists of a one and a half story duplex building on an 11,846 square foot lot. The two units would each have three bedrooms. Six 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 7.38 DU/acre and therefore the project needs to earn 74% 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- day care center in the Gifford Building on West Lake (see attached letter), and j) 100% contiguous boundary to existing development. The project is also in close proximity to the educational and recreational facilities at CSU. 40 Feb. 5, 1992 Chris Lembcke 854.1 NCR #11 Wellington, Colo. 9054.9 City of Ft. Collins Planning Department 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, Colo. 80521 RE: Lot 9 Blevins Subdivision P.U.D. Ft. Collins, Colo. Gentlemen: The Board of Directors of the Colorado FarmHouse A.ssoc- ia.tion, 633 W. La.ke St., Ft. Collins, Colo. has met and can find no reason why Kint Glover cannot continue with his plans for a. triplex in lot 9 of the Blevins Subdivision. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to a.sk. Chris Lembcke Pres. Colo. FarmHouse Association T24,; oe[�Chris Ray AN_^? 1504 S. Whitcomb Fort Collins, CO 80521 January 20, 1992 City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Attn: Kirsten Whetstone RE: Lot 9 Blevins Subdivision P.U.D. Fort Collins, CO Kirsten: I own a home at 1504 S. Whitcomb in the Blevins Subdivision. The .proposed tri-plex for Lot 9 Blevins Subdivision is a project that I support in its entirety. The project will be an improvement to the neighborhood and I appreciate the design efforts that have been made with regard to landscaping, on -site parking, screening and curb appeal. Sincerely, Chris Ray Owner I�D .AM12 1 Kirsten Whetstone Planning Department City of Ft. Collins 281 N. College Avenue Ft. Collins, Colorado Dear Kirsten: January 18,1991 Recently I received a letter from you concerning a proposed three plex to be built on a vacant lot on Blevins Court. I am the owner of a house approximately 3 block from the site of the proposed development. As I am unsure if I will be able to attend the meeting on the 22nd of January, I thought I should write you concerning my suggestion. After looking at drawings of the proposed units and the site and landscaping plans, I wholeheartedly support the development as presented. This is a good use of the vacant ground and is a reason- able use of land located so close to the CSU campus. Please contact me with any questions concerning my support. Sincerely, Fred Swinson January 16, 1992 Kirsten A. Whetstone Project Planner City of Fort Collins a Development Services D Planning Department P. O. Box 580 ^ JAN 17 inn` Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 II 7 Dear Ms. Whetstone: Thank you for your comments on the phone about the upcoming neighborho'c meeting January 22, 1992, at 7:00 pm., at the Plymouth Congregational Church, 916 W. Prospect Road, regarding the revised proposal for Lot 9, Blevins Subdivision. I want to again voice my opposition to the proposal. The applicant has disregarded the wishes of the Planning Commission voiced at the last hearing I attended. He continues,to push nine parking spaces, which was specifically objected to by a Commission member and the neighborhood speakers; he pushes for a tri-plex instead of the du-plex, recommended by all sides as a compromise; and, he tries to push the idea that it is okay to further increase the overcrowding and density of the student population in the area as being of no consequence because no one cares; i.e., his slide presentation and comments at the last hearing. We only have his word that the surrounding neighbors are in favor of increasing the student density population. I own the Blevins house at 620 W. Prospect, which is currently in the process of being sold to a nice doctor's family who has two college -age girls attending CSU. They care! They care about two to three boys in each unit of a tri-plex, with their loud radios, loud dogs, loud parties, and beer cans thrown around --to list just a few problems. We all care! Why magnify the density problem of the area by doing this? The developer won't live there. He doesn't care who he rents to, just as long as it is rented. I go along with a du-plex compromise, with off-street parking for four or five at the maximum. That way, the property will not look sterile and cold, but rather will have more green areas which does create -a -more restful, homey impression of the building and grounds. It will also help with the already serious density problem in the area. (Who is to say the city shouldn't step into, this area now and limit the number of students who can occupy a single residence.) Why add to the mess? Please read this letter to the group who are meeting on January 22. I've discovered since we spoke today that I have a 7:30 p.m. meeting elsewhere and, therefore, cannot attend this meeting. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Diane Coulter 620 W. Prospect I -z- -Z 1 — z ) cc: Emily Smith Cith of Fort Collins Planninf and Zoning Dept. ATTN: Kristen Whetstone RE: Kent Glover P.U.D. Januare 12, 1992 ri+.T , _09 1 I am a property owner next to the proposed P.U.D. by Mr. Glover. I believe the proposed P.U.D. would be of great benefit to that particular area. His plan provides much needed close —in C.S.U. housing and adequate Off street parking. His Multi —family building would help reduce traffic and in turn eliminate some air pollution. I also believe the Blevins subdivision should be rezoned and part of the area alonS the south side of Prospect Street be included to require off street parking (other than parking on the lawn) and approved landscaping and maintenance. ROBERT SWANSTROM u Colo co D a b University _� Human Development i 0 innL and Family Studies Fort Collins, Colorado 50523 January 8, 1992 Kirsten Whetstone Planning Department 281 N. College P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Ms. Whetstone: This letter is to verify the information given you by telephone today. Because the Early Childhood Center does not receive any subsidies from the University, it is open equally to non-C.S.U. related clients. However, because we are open only when classes are in session (15 weeks, Aug. -Dec. and 15 weeks, Jan. -May) those who need day care throughout the year need to make alternate plans when we are closed. I hope this information will be helpful to you. Sincerely, Barbara McCornack Director, Early Childhood Center BMc/ j 1 nclosure TELEPHONE (303) 733-3771 4::::Rock2j, evountat'n Con f :zEnCE Of <=SEUEnffi-day �dvEnti:it;i 2520 SOUTH DOWNING • DENVER, COLORADO 802t0 September 16, 1991 Mr. Kent Glover 2101 Lindenmeir Place Ft. Collins, CO 80524 Dear Kirt: In response to your inquiry, I am writing to inform you that the Fort Collins SDA School, located at 821 West Lake Street is owned and operated by the Rocky Mountain Conference of Seventh -day Adventist. Be assured that the school does meet the compulsory laws and policies of the State of Colorado If you have further questions pertaining to the program, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Garry - Sudds-- Educa ional Superintendent GJS/jls COLORADO, WYOMING AND SAN JUAN COUNTY NEW MEXICO To: Planning and Zoning Board IK City of Fort Collins I Ll�) LIEB 2 0 .--2 ' 300 La Porte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 From: Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association 1000 W Prospect Road Ft Collins, CO 80526-1926 re: Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9 PUD - Preliminary Plan, #42-91A Site Landscape Plan - 3 February 1992 19 February 1992 The present preliminary plan is a new submittal of a previous Preliminary Plan (#42-91). That plan was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) on 16 December 1991. That plan requested approval for a triplex with 7 bedrooms and 9 parking spaces. Since the first neighborhood meeting concerning the original plans for this development (6 June 1991), the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association (PSNA) conveyed to the developer the neighborhood compatibility concerns on intensity of use, parking, buffering, and precedence (of high -density infill). Prior to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of 16 December 1991, the PSNA submitted a memo to P&Z to articulate its Position and to specify that, where students were the principal occupants of rentals, 1 parking space/unit and 1 parking space/bedroom unit are required. The preliminary plan before you is for a duplex, with 6 bedrooms and 5 parking spaces. The number of parking spaces proposed is inadequate. However, the PSNA would support this preliminary plan; -conditional upon the developer providing at least 6 parking spaces on -site. The parking space guidelines -- used by the Planning Department are not appropriate for student - occupied rental units. The PSNA respects the efforts of the Planning Department, the developer, and the Planning and Zoning Board to resolve/reconcile/approve an infill project in a highly impacted neighborhood. Emily M Smith, Vice -President Prospect -Shields Neighborhood Association Bernhard Strom;" Chairman Fort Collins Planning and Zoning c/o City of Fort Collins Planning 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 R. Kint Glover 2161 Lindenmeier Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80524 February 18, 1992 Board Department RE: Lot 9 Blevins Subdivision P.U.D. Proposed Duplex Mr. Strom: Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to Planning and Zoning member Lloyd Walker. At this point in time, with the knowledge at hand, I am indifferent to Mr. Walker's participation in the hearing scheduled for February 24th. I felt, though, as chairman you may want a copy of this correspondence. Early indications are that the Prospect Shields Neighborhood Group may go on public record as supporting the above -mentioned project. Our concern, as stated in the letter to Mr. Walker, is that there be no problems with regard to any personal interest, whether they be in a supporting or non -supporting position. Sincerely, i� GR. Kint Glover RKG/neb Enclosure cc: Kirsten Whetstone Lucia A.. Liley, P.C. R. Kint Glover 2101 Lindenmeier Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80524 February 18, 1992 . Lloyd Walker Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board c/o City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Lot 9 Blevins Subdivision P.U.D. Proposed Duplex Mr. Walker: The Lot 9 Blevins Subdivision P.U.D. is scheduled for the February 24th Planning and Zoning Hearing. It has come to our attention that there is the possibility that there may be a personal conflict of interest with regard to the above -mentioned project and yourself as a member of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board. The following items have come to our attention as possible areas of concern: (1) Your previous residence on West Lake Street is the same immediate area as the proposed project. There may or may not be relation- ships that have been established and maintained with friends and neighbors in this area. (2) Public records indicate that you were President of the Prospect/ Shields Neighborhood. Group (P/S. NA) as recently as 1987. The Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Group has submitted several letters with regard to this project and may participate in the hearing with public input. As a past president of P/S NA, there 'may or may not be some residual interest on their behalf. (3) At the time of your presidency of the P/S NA, the current vice- president (Emily Smith) was listed as Secretary of the P/S NA. The depth and breadth of this relationship as officers of P/S NA may or may not form some residual interest on the P/S NA's behalf. (4) Public -records indicate substantial involvement, -on your part, representing the P/S NA on P. U. D.'s proposed in this area dating back to 1981. To our knowledge, this was in a non -supporting position. Given the duration and nature of your work for P/S NA, there may or may not be relationships with other parties that may impact the decision making process on your part. Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9, PUD - Preliminary - #42-91,A February 24, 1992 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. Desian• The proposed duplex 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 directly faces the street. The building is proposed to face east. The orientation of the building on the lot provides for a maximum backyard area. The units will have backdoors to access the back yard. 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 duplex will meet the setback requirements of the RL zone. 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 4 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 north sides. Staff is recommending a condition that a final, detailed landscape plan be submitted prior to final approval. The final landscape plan should show foundation plantings, details about which trees would be relocated or replaced, additional plantings to act as a buffer between the parking area and the privacy fence, and the location and description of the additional trees. Approximately 62% 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, buffering, and privacy 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. The P/S N.A. may, at this time, actually support the revised duplex proposed for Lot 9 Blevins Subdivision. However, our interest is that the above -mentioned areas of concern do not pose a problem to the hearing process. If you feel it necessary, please address these concern areas to the proper governing channels. If possible, I would appreciate it if you could respond to me in writing by Friday, February 21, with regard to this matter. Sincerely, R. Kint Glover RKG /neb cc: Kirsten Whetstone Bernhard Strom Lucia A. Liley, P.C. Color R Fellows Serving University of Northern Colorado Since 1980 Campus Minister: George Dosher 924 20th Street Greeley, CO 80631 (303)351-0024 (303) 356-2356 Christian Student Fellowship Serving CO 10 Since 1984 Campus Ministers: Janice Schlieker John Schlieker 2112 Ryeland Lane Ft. Collins, CO 80526 (303)221-0024 ristian Campus Ministries, Inc. i Whitcomb Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521-4544 (303) 482-0024 Z, 0 P«� - P�w.Q•� �r"2 - 9//� c� wo.:d �P�-.v 7�ea7` �/ Bu. Th4-7'C.oCn-4.c Gvoc�cC. �a a<2 /�isP�i-VCN 6�W RAF r7ti2 -d �Z, i (.LX4-P—/cP�ta-i�t+� o-u- �u.a �u�zi=+,c.u-��a—v�ow�oaa�Y"iy �/r�� / "Seeking life in the Son" Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9, PUD - Preliminary - #42-911A February 24, 1992 P&Z Meeting Page 4 4. Neighborhood Compatibility: The first neighborhood meeting was held at the Plymouth Congregational Church on June 6, 1991. Approximately eighteen people attended. Many were property owners in the Sheely neighborhood, south of Prospect Road. At the time of this first meeting, the applicant was proposing a four-plex with 3 bedrooms per unit, 12 bedrooms total. The major concerns were density, parking, and site design. A second neighborhood meeting was held on November 21, 1991 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 Organization. The applicant reduced the number of units from 4 to 3 and the number of bedrooms from 12 to 7. At this meeting, the major issue was parking. The Prospect Shields Neighborhood Organization was still concerned about the number of units. A third neighborhood meeting was held on January 22, 1992. At the time of this meeting the applicant was still proposing a tri-plex and had proposed reducing the amount of paved surface by constructing a grass-crete overflow parking area. The Prospect Shields Neighborhood Organization was well represented at this meeting. They were concerned that the plan had not significantly changed, that the density had not been reduced, and that the amount of coverage on the lots had been reduced only minimally (see attached minutes). There were several homeowners from the immediate Blevins Subdivision neighborhood in attendance. Some of them spoke in support of the project, others felt that a duplex would be more appropriate. Staff feels that the duplex is compatible in bulk, scale, and density to the surrounding neighborhood. Parking concerns can now be adequately addressed with 5 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. The amount of coverage on the lot has been significantly reduced. Open space and landscaping coverage on the previous plan was 47% compared to 62.4% on the new plan. Building coverage on the previous plan was 16.5% compared to 12.8%. The units have a large back yard area which Staff feels will make these units desirable for families as well as college students. Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9, PUD - Preliminary - #42-91,A February 24, 1992 P&Z Meeting Page 5 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 2 additional units at this location will be insignificant compared to the existing volumes. City Parking Guidelines recommend 4 parking spaces for the proposed use. The applicant proposes 5 spaces which allows for two spaces per unit with an additional space for guest parking. Staff feels that this will provide adequate on -site parking. The applicant has shown an optional sixth compact space on the plans. He has indicated that he would construct 6 spaces if the Board felt that an additional space was necessary. He felt that the Board was concerned with lot coverage at the previous meeting and was therefore reluctant to show 6 spaces. Staff would support 6 parking spaces. 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- #42-91A with the following conditions: Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9, PUD - Preliminary - #42-91,A February 24, 1992 P&Z Meeting Page 6 1. A final, detailed landscape plan be submitted prior to final approval. The final landscape plan should show foundation plantings, details about which trees would be relocated or replaced, additional plantings to act as a buffer between the parking area and the privacy fence, and the location and description of the additional trees. 2. The final drainage report and drainage and grading plans, including an erosion control plan, be approved by the Stormwater Utility prior to final approval. M©[v�1111 ' NOUN I MoslemMilan s ITEM: NUMBER `--SU T ip 9 4rJJ7��"AY 5�r BLEVINS SUBDIVISION LOT 9 - Preliminary : 42-91 A i 1 t v �. r.n ..wa M•w•a b.b n.ba /' 4 VICIn ITT' MAP — -�= rwu wn, vra "" _ •ab. urG au .�.. ,...Y T� N. Qo 6T ., 6rtM. WYY I • f •LILT 4M�LY f Vcu .r.u. +•/Yra F-I rAl S I TF / LAN D SG MPE rL/.N °a2Prdl •0.0u CGT pAT.0. "- - nnnnnn U M.c61. .il2r l,yliaA� _ � vwsnv T,t u4yA, �}� .. /VT eN„ I/,.,e uvcvq! dl�i�44% irSl/rn i2 A! NnW�YAa• I W a.. A! sw ,.snl wn cZ.Y neLe e/M s o t/TKr I �/4M IN,Ip' Meplel GAIN - STYNPYC�,YI� , `��\ inaa ,arts 9 (�Nrwa. c.r.raET "— dcvcu (3rma uulh G Nat C4L4. wei4+,� 11� ZALM4r ZL T IhVC Iplr gB:+PViVI -IT IS L7-`4V. �GC4TIM5 i . Y F1YINiG NbNt ay n S !u4N144 zeulMc even olUT/N o 3 d ` L,,— OWNERS GEltl aieAYl/N �V EMWOP�JIWA e/r•LY XTT/WNt CllYi.iUTeJ tNre ie ♦p c[anK *Mai C am.ST� S„ � LK ea 4 L I :as E A, S T NI � 644,(-& -