HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/20/2008Chairperson Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m
Roll Call: Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, Stockover, and Wetzler
Absent: Campana
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Aspen, and Sanchez -Sprague
Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the agenda. Of special note, Director Gloss reported
Member Lingle has a conflict of interest for the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan,
Project # 39-07 on the consent agenda and will abstain from voting.
Citizen participation:
None
Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience and the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the
consent agenda. There were no requests to move consent items to the discussion agenda.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the January 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing,
2. Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, # 39-07
Discussion Items:
3. Downtown Hotel and Conference Center —Modification of Standards, # 6-08
Member Stockover moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda including Minutes from the
January 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Member Smith seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 6:0.
Member Stockover moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda including Harmony
Technology Park Overall Development Plan, # 39-07. Member Wetzler seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 5:0 with Member Lingle abstaining.
Project: Downtown Hotel and Conference Center —Modification of Standards, # 6-08
Project Description: This is a request for two stand-alone building height and massing modifications
related to a future Project Development Plan for a hotel and conference center
with retail and office space, residential units and structured parking. The
project is proposed for the lots that are currently the public surface parking lot
on Remington between Oak and Olive Streets plus the Elks Lodge lots north of
Planning & Zoning Board
March 20, 2008
Page 2
Oak Street. The parcels are zoned D—Downtown, Old City Center Sub -district.
The approval of these modifications is critical to project viability; that is why this
request precedes the project development plan. If approved, a standalone
modification is valid for one year.
Upon approval of this request, the applicant intends to submit a Type II
(Planning and Zoning Board Review) Project Development Plan and provide
more detailed plans for approval.
Recommendation: Approval
Planner Aspen reported a downtown hotel and conference center has been a goal of the City's in
planning documents for over 25 years. In June of 2006 the City and DDA prepared and issued a
Request For Proposals (RFP) for "a multi -tenant project to include a significant full -service urban
hotel, parking garage, street -facing retail, and offices to be located on 1.67 acres (72,576 square feet;
dimensions are 144' x 504') of Block 122 in the City's Downtown Civic Center District (the subject
property) or on any other downtown site selected by the development team."
The following are pertinent excerpts from the RFP:
"The Downtown Strategic Plan identifies several strengths and weaknesses of the downtown in an
attempt to help the City clarify how to protect, manage, leverage and blend the economic and cultural
vitality created by the core retail and entertainment district. One of the shortages identified by the
Plan is the lack of hotel rooms in and adjacent to the Downtown core and the attendant service -
oriented businesses that a hotel brings. This shortage will become more acute as the DDA's year-
round cultural program "Beet Street" becomes active. The Downtown Development Authority has
committed $3 million toward the development of a unified cultural program that is intended to
eventually draw as many as 10,000 visitors to the central business district 24 times a year and who
will stay downtown from five to 14 days (this program is modeled on Chautauqua, New York."
"The hotel and other mixed uses are intended to accomplish a variety of goals in the downtown
setting. These include:
• Providing rooms for visitors attending the cultural programming as well as visitors to Colorado
State University, conference and convention attendees, business travelers and tourists in
general.
• Creating a 24-hour downtown.
• Providing hotel and office space within the downtown employment center, thereby reducing
traffic and air pollution.
• Returning under -developed property to a higher use, with increased public revenues
• Reinvigorating older public investments
• Bringing more disposable income to the downtown to support retail, especially stores and
restaurants that cater to frequent visitor needs and interests."
"The City's strong support for hotel development is set forth in the Downtown Civic Center Master
Plan, the Downtown Strategic Plan Update, the Downtown Plan and the Downtown Development
Authority's cultural program initiative."
Five responses were received for various sites in the downtown area. Corporex scored highest of the
teams in the written and oral evaluations of the RFP process and was awarded an exclusive
negotiating contract. Corporex subsequently held an architecture competition and chose OZ
Planning & Zoning Board
March 20, 2008
Page 3
Architecture to design the project. Local firm BHA Design was chosen for site planning, landscape
planning and engineering and local firm ELB Engineering was selected for transportation engineering
A neighborhood meeting was held on this project on February 26th 2008. Approximately 80 people
were in attendance.
Several changes to the Staff Report have been made since the Board's March 10 work session.
That revised report along with a letter from the public was distributed to the Board prior to the hearing
Kim Koehn, President and COO of Corporex Colorado, reported they are excited about bringing their
expertise (skills and experience) with multi -use projects to bear with this key Fort Collins project.
Since inception (at the time of the RFP (Request for Proposal)), the selection of the architects, and
working with staff on conceptual design; the Downtown Strategic Plan and the City's Comprehensive
Plan were used —aiding them in getting to this point tonight. Those goals and principles were
embraced. The context and character of the downtown area, the pedestrian appeal, and textures and
finishes were taken into account with the proposal being submitted tonight. Corporex is a 43-year old
company and has been doing business in Denver for the past nine years. They have a great team of
designers, engineers, and consultants including local firms such as Northern Engineering, ELB
Engineering, and BHA Design. He asked the Board to carefully consider and approve the
modifications requested.
Carolyne White, Corporex Colorado Land Use Counsel, noted she'd like to highlight the criteria by
which their requests can be evaluated. She stated that the modifications of the standards for Section
4.6 (DX2xa) Building Height and Section 4.16(D)(4xa) Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings
(over three stories) can be justified as is set forth Section 2.8.2 (H)(2) of the Land Use Code are:
"The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that
the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without
impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an
existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a
substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would
substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined
and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or
resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would
render the project practically infeasible. "
And that
"The plan as submitted would promote the general purpose of the standard for which
the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies
with the standard for which a modification is requested"
She believes the manners in which the massing and height of the buildings are designed are
equal to or better than a design which complies with the standard.
Kelly Davis, Managing Partner for Oz Architecture of Boulder, Colorado Springs and Denver, stated
they have a forty -year history with Corporex projects like this in communities like ours. They're
familiar with the challenges and the obstacles as well as the climate of redevelopment and continued
development of our communities. They respect and want to protect and at the same time they want to
be active participants in how our communities continue to evolve.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 20, 2008
Page 4
OZ became involved through a competitive process. They were given a site (South Remington, Oak,
Mountain & Olive) and the program (convention center with ballroom, hotel, office space, retail space.)
In addition to the hotel, the design includes 15,000 square feet of residential, 80,000 square feet of
office space, and 15,000 square feet of commercial/retail. They considered the scale, the synergy of
the hotel and convention center and identified areas for public/civic activities primarily along Oak
Street.
They propose underground parking. They have concentrated height in the hotel part of the project just
south of Oak Street in order to stack the hotel and residential functions and to minimize height and
mass elsewhere on the site. They also propose that this massing arrangement would have the fewest
negative impacts to neighbors in terms of unwanted shading. As a result of this arrangement of the
height and mass of the buildings, they are able to provide a mid -block pedestrian plaza and
connection to the existing passageway from the alley to College.
They propose that the taller hotel building, with a relatively smaller footprint, will result in less density
at the pedestrian level and will have less impact on the immediate neighborhood than would a lower,
broader building. Moving a major portion of the building up, off of the street level, allows for more
open space and public amenities. The attractive, articulated buildings utilize creative design solutions
to achieve an attractive streetscape within this downtown setting, which they believe is better than a
code -compliant project.
They will also be seeking LEED certification for the convention center, the hotel and other buildings.
They believe the City would be taking a leadership position with regard to sustainability with that plan.
Member Lingle asked for clarification of the basis of the modifications' support. He understood the
benefits were that it was not detrimental to the public good, equal to or better than the standard, and
community need, but wondered whether the top two floors as residential met a community need.
Koehn said that in City Plan, page 178, Housing Section (Dxd)(1.5), on page 178 it spoke specifically
to providing residential on the upper floors in the Civic Center Sub -District. Additionally, Corporex
said from a risk profile and economic viability perspective, it provided a synergy for the project taken
as a whole.
Chair Schmidt asked Deputy City Attorney for clarification with regard to the Board's ability to assess
a project when it came to economic viability (and not just a land use perspective). Eckman said that it
would be improper for the Board to consider financial infeasibility but it would be proper to consider
the question of "practical infeasibility" in a broad sense.
Chair Schmidt referred to page 6 of the revised staff report with regard to effectively mitigating the
height and mass of the project. Davis said their intent was to create a positive pedestrian experience
on Remington by decreasing the size of the office building (on the south side of the project) closest to
the neighborhood, to provide relief of mass with the Oak Street opening and mid block in the
passageway that leads to College. Additionally, putting the parking underground aids in mitigating the
height and mass.
Chair Schmidt asked what aspects of the plan make the nine story hotel/residential floors less
imposing. Davis responded the hotel would be narrower along Remington and broader along Oak.
The tradeoff from what some may say is abrupt along Oak Street is the cascading down toward the
buildings on the south that are closer to the neighborhood density. The benefits are the varied
heights and orientations. The wing that includes the restaurant (just south of the hotel/residential) is
pushed back from the street. There's a rhythm of varied heights and depths that would not be found
on a monolithic building.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 20, 2008
Page 5
Public Input
David Herrera, local attorney and managing partner of Peterson Street Partners, LLC (a competitor)
believes the height and massing issues have been addressed by Council at a December, 2006
meeting and by revisions to the Land Use Code. Now, after the Code revision and City Council
review, the RFP was sent and Corporex is before the P&Z Board asking for modifications for their
proposal. Herrera believes granting the request is detrimental to the public good. He believes it's
insensitive to the surrounding neighborhood and that historic buildings such as St. Peter's Fly Shop
will stand in its shadow. He asks, because this project (using public funds) is in competition with the
private sector and control of this land is not certain that the Board reject the request.
Richard Leggett is a resident of downtown Fort Collins. It appears that Remington (in the drawings)
appear to be as wide as 1-25. Are the renderings to scale? The cars appear tiny and the roads large.
He also had a question for the Deputy City Attorney. He understands the criteria of not detrimental to
the public good and one of four other justifications is needed for approval. It seems that it is in conflict
with the section that allows for residences on the upper floors.
Jim Reidhead, has been involved with the downtown since 1972 when he purchased the Cupboard.
Since then he's been involved early with the DDA and on the Construction Management Committee
for Old Town —whose role was to preserve the historic components of downtown. He'd like to make
two points —the first was it was a rude awakening when it was discovered that historic structures
(because of the technology of the time was limited to 3-4 stories) would not meet current day
guidelines. The second point is technology today allows for what's needed today. Please approve
the modifications as they do support the community and the downtown.
AI Dinton, with his wife and family, purchased a building restored by Jim Reidhead at 233-235 Linden
four and one-half years ago. He's been in the downtown area since 1972—primarily as a tenant.
He's walked the streets and alleyways and has had the chance to meet past and current day
developers. He's seen City Plan at work and appreciates how it and other land use tools help. He
asks only that it's flexible —allowing variances and modifications as needed. The need for a hotel is
paramount for the downtown area. He doesn't care how many stories it has. He asks only that the
fire department have what they need to handle the taller structures. He asks the Board to approve the
request.
Tomas Herrera, son of David Herrera, like his dad and others present, care about downtown. He's an
advocate for development that conforms to the strategic plan. He doesn't think the area, in which they
are trying to fit 250,000 square feet of programming (hotel, etc.), was meant for that much density. He
wonders if it's appropriate for that zone. Maybe because of the traffic congestion and parking issues,
it would be better suited to an area near the Lincoln Center. He believes the standards that protect
the historic buildings along College need to be preserved. He is against approving the modification
requests.
Eric Berglund, lives in southeast Fort Collins. He plays downtown and can appreciate how living,
working and playing in Fort Collins makes for a sustainable community. Where else but on Oak
(where the First National Bank Tower and Key Bank are located) would a nine -story building be
appropriate? He thinks the project creates a unique opportunity for primary employers in downtown
and creates an alternate to other conference facilities in Fort Collins. He thinks this project also
benefits economic stimulus goals for Fort Collins. He appreciates the tiered design and does not think
it is outside the scope of a vibrant downtown. He thinks when tall buildings are allowed outside the
Planning & Zoning Board
March 20, 2008
Page 6
central core area of a community that it spawns sprawl. He asked the Board to support the request
and to keep the concentration of tall buildings along Oak.
Patty Spence is on the DDA Board. Until two weeks ago she owned property on the proposed site.
As a downtown business owner, she applauds the proposed project. She appreciates the sensitivity
in which this project was designed. Personally, she thinks this is the right place in the heart of
downtown and likes that it'll bring businesses downtown. She thinks that those involved should be
proud of the project being considered tonight.
Ty Smith, spends a lot of time downtown as that is his primary focus and where he makes his living.
He asks that the Board keep at the forefront of their decision the fact that City Council adopted the
Downtown Strategic Plan and with the Mason Street Corridor (rapid transittmobility system;) a project
of this size could be located in the land area that is currently zoned for it —allowing easy access to the
Mason Street Corridor investment. Staff member Clark Mapes has spent a great deal of time
analyzing downtown and the different sub -districts with the outcome being the Downtown Strategic
Plan. He understands that things change, that economics change, and that different opportunities
arise. With this site being a City asset —public real estate, he asks that we're careful —be conscious
of the height and mass. This site is good for its proximity to the heart of downtown. He asks the
Board, when making their decision that they also consider the issues he's raised.
Mike Jensen is a downtown resident and real estate and business owner. He cares deeply about
downtown and has spent a lot of time and money in its advancement —working on urban infill projects
and land assemblage. In fact, he's spoken to a number of hoteliers, including Corporex, about a
possible hotel site at the comer of College & Maple. It is zoned at that location for a nine -story hotel
with up to 115 feet high use by right. Downtown is finally at a point for supporting new office and new
retail. He does not support the proposal for a number of reasons. First— the value of land. He and
others have been working on the assemblage of land in that area for $40-100 a square foot. By using
the site and moving from 56-100 feet it's increased its value to $100 square foot. Since its City land,
that value should be considered at the time of sale to the developer. Secondly, he's against the
cannibalization of private projects —by this proposed arrangement it's chasing private developers out
of the arena, as they are not publicly subsidized. Finally, he's concerned about the process —
collaboration of a quasi -public agency not being open to the public. He owns land zoned for 4 stories
and 85 and 115 feet. He asks the Board to consider the precedent they are setting with this and
future projects.
Chip Steiner, is the Executive Director of the DDA, stated as the Board knows, the purpose tonight is
not about the financing, it's about the modification requests for height and bulk. Second, all
developers are welcome to come to the DDA and ask for assistance in developing downtown —we
participate in every project we think is beneficial to downtown. At the neighborhood meeting, there
was unbridled support of the project. City Plan supports infill—its intent is to preserve the cornfields
and farmland on the periphery. For that reason, and especially in downtown, you have to go up.
This project is done phenomenally well. Downtown is a primary asset of the community. People who
live in Fort Collins bring their visitors downtown and it is essential that we keep it strong economically,
culturally and socially to ensure its success. It is of community wide importance and deserves the
Board's support.
Doug Johnson, speaking as a private citizen, is looking forward (when he moves into his new office at
Oak & College) to hearing the construction noise and seeing the project go up. Without question, it'll
improve the vibrancy of the downtown. Imagine a day in the life of a downtown conference participant
at 5 p.m. going out to explore the retail and restaurant attractions in that area. It'll create healthy
competition as the crown jewel-- the first and premier project. It'll increase the density of downtown
Planning & Zoning Board
March 20, 2008
Page 7
and support other development projects. By the creation of more density in the downtown, we'll avoid
sprawl. He encourages the Board to support the project's modification requests.
Jean Lamb, is affiliated with the Beet Street Initiative. They have begun programming and recognize
they don't have adequate space to bring people downtown for a variety of arts, scientific, and cultural
events. Approval of this project is essential for Beet Street, downtown and the community. She
requests the Board's support.
David Derbis asked for a restatement of qualifications/criteria trying to be met for this modification
request. His argument against the project is if the public need can be met at a site that is
appropriately zoned then it should be.
Andrew Dickson, represents the Christian Science Reading Room at 212 S. College.
They support the project. They just have just a couple of quick queries. How much of the parking will
be available to the public. Will it be increased over the amount that is currently available in that area?
Also will the alley way to the west of College be impeded in any way?
Les Kaplan is a property owner downtown. He had a couple of suggestions in terms of considering
this project. Even though it's only a request to modify the height, modifying the height and changing
the intensity of this project is tantamount to rezoning the property. I encourage you when you
consider the height modification to consider it not only as this being a characteristic of the project but
to consider it in the context of this essentially changing the zoning. Look at this project —what is really
contributing to the height and massing are those elements that are not directly related to the public
good --the add-ons (or "pork'.) In fact, the elements that are not are competitive with other dynamics
that are currently going on downtown. He just wanted to bring that to the Board's attention for their
deliberation.
End of Public Input
Koehn noted this project would add (not take away) from the downtown area. It's his personal opinion
that the project will create value for other projects that follow. As to the questions that were raised
about parking —there will be two underground stories that will double the current public parking
capacity as well as add parking for the program needs. Underground parking is a very expensive
proposition but they think it's important to the scale of the project and the context of the neighborhood.
He wanted to thank those that spoke in support of the project and asks the Board to approve the
modification requests.
Davis says the drawing that looks south on Remington where the Elks currently is derived from a
photograph and is a true curb -to -curb representation. What it does not reflect are parking and drive
lane measurements. He would also like to clarify —the assertion that the height modification request
is a vehicle for additional density is misleading. Rather its arranged differently for other benefits: less
negatives/more positive attributes, identity, focal points, pedestrian scale, daylight, and solar access.
The project is approximately 230,000 square feet; including 45,000 square feet convention
center/public space, 80,000 square feet office & retail, and 15,000 square feet residential.
Chair Schmidt asked for a response to Mr. Leggett's question relative to the various code sections
seeming to be in conflict with each other. Deputy City Attorney Eckman referred to Section 2.8 of the
Land Use Code where the standards for which modifications are granted. White clarified further the
community need standard, which the Board is considering is one that is "expressly defined or
described in the City's Comprehensive Plan, or in an adopted policy (such as the Downtown Strategic
Plan) ordinance or resolution of City Council." DD-1 on Housing comes from the adopted Old City
Planning & Zoning Board
March 20, 2008
Page 8
Center Sub -district. Six goals are listed there that define what this sub -district should be guided by --
five of which are applicable to and me( by this project. That is where they're coming from in quoting
the standards.
Chair Schmidt asked for a response to the question relative to alley access and could the applicant
also please speak to where the parking access points might be. She understands these questions
might be more appropriate later but if they have some ideas now, they like to hear them. Davis said
he'd like to answer the questions in reverse order. Further analyses of how cars will move and where
to locate them will need to take place before a more definitive plan can be shared. Potentially, there
could be access from the north, valet parking along Oak, and potentially an entrance and egress
along Olive. Davis said they recognized the importance of alley access in the downtown area —that
message was underscored at the community meetings. The particular alley in question (runs parallel
with Remington) will be a service alley for the complex. They recognize and appreciate it'll also
continue to be one used by pedestrians —they've be tasked to keep the alley clear and functional —
minimize service and trash so its still a nice place for pedestrians.
At a citizen's request, Eckman read Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code which spoke to the granting of
the modifications (height and mass) should not be detrimental to the public good and the general
purpose will promote the standard equally well or better than a proposal, which complies with the
standard. And the granting of the modification would, without impairing the intent and purpose of the
Land Use Code substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of City-wide
concern (i.e. parking) OR would result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the
proposed project would substantially address an important community need "expressly defined or
described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy (such as the Downtown Strategic
Plan) ordinance or resolution of City Council. Finally, the strict application of the standard would
render the project practically (not economically) infeasible.
Member Smith asked Eckman to elaborate on "without impairing the intent and purpose of the Land
Use Code" (more general than specific.) Would he please describe what he meant by that? Eckman
referred him to Land Use Code Section 1.2.2 where purposes a through n are listed. He read into the
record the purposes listed there.
Member Rollins asked staff if another design was submitted that met all the standards, would it look
like one monolithic cube. Aspen responded that any project would have to meet all the building
standards in Section 3.5 and in addition it would also need to meet all the qualifications that Eckman
just read and are elsewhere in the Old City Center sub -district. The project would need to be in
keeping with and sensitive to the character of the sub-districUneighborhood area.
Rollins asked if Project A met all standards, had some architectural enhancements, and was still
relatively monolithic in design; would staff think that Project B (the project being evaluated tonight) is
significantly a better design? Aspen replied that Project B blends well into the downtown because it
breaks the large square footage of the project into three separate buildings with pedestrian plazas
between. Along the public streets, most of building facades will be perceived by pedestrians as
between 2-4 stories tall, the proposal provides high -quality streetscape amenities and pedestrian
plazas which promote the urban character of the downtown area. She believes this project is quite a
bit better than one that was more monolithic in design.
Member Wetzler believes the project being proposed tonight has a lot more character than one that
meets code and is not so well designed.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 20, 2008
Page 9
Member Smith asked if the revised staff report was available to the public. Aspen said the staff report
is a part of the public record and as such could be requested. He also asked about transition with
regard to old town square. Aspen referred to the three sub -districts (Old City Center, Canyon Avenue,
and Civic Center) in the downtown -zoning district. There are historically significant buildings in old
town as well as along Remington (such as St. Peter's Fly Shop.) The transitional area is between
College and the proposed project.
Chair Schmidt asked for references as to where First National Bank and Key Bank are. She also
noted the changes in building heights from the first to the revised staff reports. Aspen said the correct
heights could be found in the revised report. Per staff member Clark Mapes, the buildings are 154
and 157 feet high.
Member Stockover provided a historic perspective of what has transpired downtown from his
experiencing of growing up in Fort Collins. He believes this project makes the top ten list for what will
affect downtown including the shift from being the central commercial area (to Foothills Mall), old town
square development, the centralization of government, the downtown transit center and more. He
thinks as proposed it will be seen from a long way off. At first he thought it was too much in light of
the top two floors of residential being for a lucky 4 to 8 families. He knows the project still needs to
go through the normal review process with impact to the neighborhood and, while he had initial
reservations, he generally supports the project as proposed.
Member Smith asked staff for examples of how the citywide need justification has been applied
before. Aspen replied that examples of projects that have used that justification have centered
around affordable housing projects and the Southeast Branch Library at Front Range Village. Director
Gloss added a number of modifications approved for the Front Range Village centered around two
big -box stores (Target & Lowes), the east and west entrances, the parking distribution, and the
inclusion of the Southeast Branch Library. Community wide benefit arguments were made holistically
(including arguments for needing to meet City Plan needs of underserved Southeast Fort Collins
library patrons.)
Member Smith noted when the downtown sub -district height standards were reviewed, what was the
significance of the three sub -district height standards and was there some anticipation that a building
of a height such as this be coming to the Old City Center. Gloss responded the expectation had been
that bulk of the buildings with heights such as what is being proposed tonight would be in the Canyon
Avenue sub -district. There had been some discussion about a building with significant height at a
particular north downtown intersection. In summary, consider an L-shape with the height distributed
in the Canyon and Civic Center sub -districts and this Old City Center having lower heights. Member
Smith said that earlier discussion, like all land use changes discussions, consider the character of the
neighborhood as integral to those discussions... is that not correct? Gloss responded yes.
Chair Schmidt stated she realizes the while Board is not reviewing an actual design plan, her
understanding however, is that if the Board agrees to the modification requests; the project will be
similar to what is presented tonight. Her areas of concerns are in mitigating height (Land Use Code
Section 4.1.6, page 105.) Davis replied his observation is to look at where they are in the process.
With approval of the modification requests, he can say they are prepared to move forward with the
building blocks you see tonight. What he cannot say is what the final design decisions related to the
use of glass and the outdoor area for the upper residential floors will be. He will take concerns
expressed as feedback into consideration for the next phase of design.
Member Wetzler wondered, from questions raised at public input, with regarding to this virtually being
a zoning change —would approval by the Board establish precedent when approving other projects?
Planning & Zoning Board
March 20, 2008
Page 10
Chair Schmidt said general guidelines are the Board cannot be arbitrary and capricious in their
decisions. All things being equal, they should come to the same basic decision. The reality, however,
is that not all projects are exactly the same. All should be considered on a case -by -case basis.
Chair Schmidt asked if the current proposal meets community need with regard to convention center;
would documents such as City Plan and the Downtown Strategic Plan be updated. Eckman
responded that yes, if a community need is met; it would be appropriate for the Planning Department
to bring a recommendation for an update to the Planning & Zoning Board for their consideration.
Member Wetzler said he was particularly drawn to this project. He believes it fills what is an empty
hole in that part of downtown. He likes the increased parking being offered by the project and
supports the project 100%.
Member Rollins said she had no doubt that the project is meeting a community need. Her
reservations, however, come with regard to whether the additional 1-6 stories are critical to meeting
that need. She thinks we need to look at this very carefully with regard to upcoming projects also
meeting community need. She could support an equal to or better than justification but would give
pause to a community need justification.
Member Lingle noted his earlier line of questions relate to not wanting to make any technical mistakes
with regard to consideration/justifications for approval. He does have reservations with regard to
Page 14, paragraph C of the staff report with regard to both modifications would substantially address
an important community need. He agrees with what Davis (OZ) proposes for using the allowable
area to build within Code —he thinks it makes perfect sense and meets the equal to or better than
point of view. He is not a proponent of arbitrary height requirements. Where he has problems,
however, in saying that two extra floors for housing is meeting a community need. If we can
separate that or if advised by legal counsel that he's making more out of that than needs to be met,
he'd be fine.
Eckman advised that four motions could be considered (one for height modification with equal to or
better, one for height modification with substantial community wide need, one for mass modification
with equal to or better than, and one for mass modification with substantial community wide need)
with members discussing their support, or lack thereof, for each.
Member Stockover asked what would happen if both modifications were approved with only the equal
to or better than criteria. Eckman said then the project could move forward —only one is needed
(albeit not as strong as if approved under both criteria.) Stockover asked if the modification
approvals could be conditioned. Eckman said the Land Use Code allows for conditioned modification
approvals. Stockover mentioned he might not want to go there because he doesn't want to design the
project. The top two stories is that part of the project he struggles with the most.
Chair Schmidt doesn't think they should design the project but they could define their comfort level
with the modification. A modification as defined by Webster is a minor change —it's not doubling
height. This is a zone that permits 4 stories and we're going up more than 4 stories. I see the public
need for the whole project —it's a wonderful idea and she supports the whole concept. She doesn't
believe the modification itself substantially addresses a community wide need. The project itself does
but can we do the project with six or seven floors? It doesn't totally fit into the character of the
neighborhood —it doesn't provide staggering levels. While she would be willing to go with a height
modification, she has reservations with a height modification that doubles the height. She would want
to weigh that carefully —what if later on there's a project that wants to go up 24 stories in al story
zone.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 20, 2008
Page 11
Member Smith in reviewing the modification requests and the rationale by which the Board can grant
approval believes that modification requests do impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code
with regard to the downtown sub -district height limits. He thinks those limits were set taking into
account the impact on the neighborhood. He's conflicted in that the project as proposed is one of the
best urban design proposals he's seen for Northern Colorado. He believes that modifications should
be minor in nature and he cannot support the project as proposed. At the end of the day, he was not
able to justify the height modification given the Code language the Board is limited to.
Member Stockover agreed with Member Smith. He thinks the Board is here, however, to make the
difficult decisions. The upper stories are a very small portion of the whole. It will draw your eye as
you come down College Avenue and they are putting it on Oak Street Plaza creating a visual
continuity looking west toward the First National Bank building and the Key Bank tower. It is good
planning and not detrimental to the public good. Also, the project would be more successful in the
core and not on the fringes of downtown. Something of this importance should be more in the center
He did not see a lot of opposition —if one resident had noted negative impact, he would have looked
at it differently.
Member Lingle noted, in his opinion, to take pieces of the program and place them in the void they've
created —making it a more compliant plan would be far worse. To pull the height down and pull into a
"massy", "blocky" thing is not a better solution. Member Rollins asked if, for example other hotels had
been built and the community need already been met, would he still support it solely from a design
perspective? Lingle responded yes. It could be any mixed used project approved on an equal to or
better than scenario.
Chair Schmidt has faith in architects to come up with endless possibilities for making a good project
short of just bringing the height down and spreading it out. A revised plan might not need a large
height modification to the standard.
Member Rollins said she would be supporting specific motions —equal to or better than from a simply
design perspective. Her fear, however, is that we're "opening it up" to more tall buildings in the
downtown area —she thinks they need to take the community wide argument out of the equation.
Member Lingle asked if there was anything the Land Use Code that defines a modification relative to
what percentage change would be allowed ... 20%, 40%, and 100%? Director Glass said there is no
metric that's been applied to calculate the extent of a modification. Lingle did not think that each
member drawing a line in the sand as to what an appropriate modification should be is a slippery
slope. Chair Schmidt thought that the specifics of a modification speak to the compatibility of the
project.
Eckman recommended the Board start with whether they agree the modification requests meet the
equal to or better than criteria. If the majority approve, they could then stop making motions.
Chair Schmidt suggests they start and see what the Board's prerogative goes from there.
Member Lingle moved to approve both modification requests for the Downtown Hotel and
Conference Center, # 06-08 for the following reasons: it is not detrimental to the public good
and the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modifications are requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with
the standard for which the modification is requested because he believe the design as
proposed is more sensitive and appropriate urban design fulfilling the Land Use Code
Planning & Zoning Board
March 20, 2008
Page 12
guidelines and goals for urban infill and redevelopment in a better way than a compliant
design as demonstrated by the applicant. And because of what is shown in the Staff Report
Findings of Fact beginning on page 13 including paragraphs A, B, E, F, H, and I. Member
Wetzler seconded the motion.
Member Stockover asked if language should be added that asks for opportunity to view additional
architectural options. His concern is the excess height and the long-term affect on the community.
Should they ask for additional public outreach on the design? Eckman noted that with the approval of
the modifications the next opportunity for the board's review would be the review of the Planned Unit
Development (PDP). Gloss agreed. Architectural standards would be reviewed under the PDP with
neighborhood outreach and Board review.
Chair Schmidt asked for confirmation that with the height modification being approved, what's to say
that if obstacles are discovered later (such as a physical limitation to the construction of two stories of
underground parking) would the Board have input. Eckman said the condition she described is not a
part of this motion —this is an equal to or better than motion not a community need motion (where the
proposed underground parking part of the project could be linked.)
Member Lingle said these modification requests are based on this specific proposal. Gloss agreed.
Essentially what you see is what you get except for additional architectural and site design review.
Lingle said the staff report renderings provide enough information as to why the height and mass
modifications are needed and alludes to the residential floors need for balconies resulting in the
impression of setbacks on the upper levels (the concern that Chair Schmidt had previously raised.)
Code provisions would still apply.
Member Smith said that he'd not be supporting the motion because he does not believe the height
modification supports the standard equally well or better than in the Old City Center district.
Eckman recommended the motion be revised to refer to the staff reports findings of fact —eliminating
those that refer to community need. Lingle agreed to amend the motion to include "as shown in the
Staff Report Findings of Fact beginning on page 13 include paragraphs A, B, E, F, H, and I." Wetzler
agreed to the changes in his second. The motion shown above is the revised version.
Motion was approved 4:2 with Chair Schmidt and Member Smith dissenting.
Eckman noted the motion just approved granted the modifications on the equal to or better than basis.
Did the Board want to make any further motions (including one that spoke to substantial community
need?) Member Stockover said no he believes the Board does not want to overthrow what they just
did and any further action would just be muddying the water.
Other Business:
None
Meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m.
/Cameron Gloss, OWe or
•
WINE
FA
�1
��