Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/14/2015 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular Meeting
Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair Meg Dunn Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Alexandra Wallace Belinda Zink Tom Leeson Staff Liaison, CDNS Director City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Karen McWilliams Maren Bzdek Gino Campana Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting October 14, 2015 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 28, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. 903 STOVER STREET - CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Conceptual/Final Design Review for the Charles A. Lory House and Outbuildings at 903 Stover Street, Fort Collins, Colorado APPLICANT: Kurt Reschenburg and Tia Molander, Property Owners Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 October 14, 2015 3. 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Conceptual/Final Design Review for the Garcia Property at 321 North Whitcomb Street, Fort Collins, Colorado APPLICANT: Kate A. Polk, Property Owner 4. DISCUSSION ON TROLLEY BARN USES The purpose of this item is to gather feedback from the landmark Preservation Commission regarding proposed uses for the Trolley Barn on North Howes Street, with consideration of how each use might affect both the building and the site. 5. DISCUSSION OF USES FOR THE CREAMERY BUTTERFLY BUILDING The purpose of this item is to gather feedback from the Commission on future uses for the Butterfly Building at 220 Laporte Avenue, with consideration for how each use could affect the building and the site. 6. UNCOMMON - 310 S. COLLEGE -REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Review and request for recommendation to Decision Maker of a proposed 6-story mixed use building at 310 South College Avenue. The project is adjacent to several buildings that are designated on the National Register of Historic Places and as Fort Collins Landmarks. This Project Development Plan (PDP) is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The proposed building has a total floor area of 150,000 square feet, and a footprint of 30,600 square feet. The ground floor consists of retail commercial spaces totaling 8,900 square feet. The upper levels contain 120 apartment units, with a total of 248 bedrooms. Parking is below grade and on the ground level, underneath upper floor building space, with access from the alley. APPLICANT: Cathy Mathis, Birdsall Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT City of Fort Collin Page 2 Agenda Item 1 STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 28, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft LPC Minutes September 28, 2015 (DOC) 2. Findings of Fact for the Downtown Hotel (DOCX) Item # 1 Page 1 Packet Pg. 3 1.a Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair Meg Dunn Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Alexandra Wallace Belinda Zink Tom Leeson Staff Liaison, PDT Director City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Karen McWilliams Maren Bzdek Gino Campana Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting September 28, 2015 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Hogestad, Ernest, Sladek, Wallace ABSENT: Zink, Gensmer and Lingle (all excused) STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Schiager • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. FORT COLLINS HOTEL PARKING GARAGE - RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Located at 363 Jefferson Street, this project proposes a 323 stall parking garage consisting of 83,847 square foot (3,200 mixed use and 80,647 square City of Fort Collins Page 1 September 28, 2015 LO 0 N ao N L m E m CL a> co 4. 0 m c C) �O M v Ln 0 N 00 N L a) E CO N 0 c U a J ca L a� E ca El Packet Pg. 4 1.a foot parking area). The project will require a Type II (Planning & Zoning Board) hearing. The associated Downtown Hotel project was reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission at a work session held on June 10, 20157 during which time the Commission discussed the conceptual proposal of a garage structure. At tonight's meeting, the applicants are requesting a final review of the project, and a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Board. APPLICANT: Stu MacMillan, Bohemian Companies Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Lou Bieker with 4240 Architecture in Denver gave the Applicant presentation, noting that it had been `O TM modified since the publication of the agenda packet, and a copy of the current presentation was N submitted into the record. He explained that Bohemian Companies is one of the Applicants, but the 0 City of Fort Collins and the DDA are really his clients for the parking structure. `m L Photos of the current street views were displayed. Applicable sections of the River District Design Guidelines were noted. The Applicant spoke about the parking garage providing a bridge between m Old Town and the River District, and the importance of relating to both in its design. City guidelines m for street trees have been followed. Retail space is planned along the alley, and may be also N incorporated into the Jefferson Street side in the future. The ramping system is located in the interior o of the structure, so as not to be visible from the street. He discussed the similarities of the materials to those used in the hotel, specifically the brick and metal screening elements. Public Input None M Commission Questions and Discussion LO Hard copies of the Commission's findings with regard to the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel from the o September 9, 2015 meeting were distributed to the Members by Staff for reference. N 0 Chair Sladek directed that the Commission first discuss adjacencies to the project. A Member N inquired about the "Quonset hut" buildings on Jefferson. Staff said they were surveyed about 10 years ago, and that some were determined to be potentially eligible at that time, and others were not. E However, there has not been a more recent review conducted. W CL m Members asked about the buildings across Jefferson, and since there were no photos of that area co included in the packet, Staff displayed imagery from Google Maps Street View for the Commission. A Member expressed interested in having information about the dates those structures were built, but that information was unavailable. The Member said the process did not need to be delayed for that reason, but that it would be nice to have that kind of information in the future. v a Chair Sladek complimented the design, saying he appreciated the Applicant's thoughtful analysis, which went beyond the standards and requirements, resulting in a well -conceived project. He also stated that it would be helpful to have additional drawings showing the garages in relation to some of p these buildings, but that was not necessary to their decision. a� The Commission discussed how to craft the wording for the motion, findings of fact and adjacencies, E drawing heavily from the handout of the findings from the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel. Members discussed the bridge formed by the project between the River District and the Walnut Street area. After some clarification from Mr. Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney, the Commission added the River Q District to the description of the project's adjacencies. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, approval of the Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage project located at 363 Jefferson Street, with the following findings of fact: 1. The adjacencies defined for the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel project at the September 9, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission also apply to this project, with the addition of the River District. City of Fort Collins Page 2 September 28, 2015 Packet Pg. 5 1.a 2. The project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic context for the following reasons: a. The building uses historically sensitive materials and colors of materials that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. b. The project uses compatible solid to void pattern, typical of the adjacent historic context. c. The pedestrian scale of the proposed project is compatible with the historic context. Ms. Wallace seconded. Ms. Dunn stated that she didn't see the project as compatible to the neighboring district, based on Land Use Code 3.4.7, specifically with regard to the cornice line and metal materials. Motion passed 4=1, with Dunn dissenting. [Timestamp: 6:51 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS None • ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 6:51 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Attachment: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel Project City of Fort Collins Page 3 September 28, 2015 LO TOM N a0 N L d E N CL a) co N a� (U a J L i E t ZI Packet Pg. 6 1.b Planning, Development & Transportation City of Community Development & Neighborhood Services art Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 �. 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov. com MEMORANDUM DATE: September 10, 2015 TO: Planning and Zoning Board TH: Tom Leeson, Interim Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services Seth Lorson, City Planner FIR: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel Project. As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the Commission's Findings of Facts and its motion for this project. 1) The development project known as the Downtown Hotel is located adjacent to the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District, which is a designated Fort Collins Landmark District as well as a National Register of Historic Places District; and to the Armory Building, which is individually designated on the National, State, and Fort Collins historic registers; additionally, it is adjacent to properties that have been officially determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. 2) At its September 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the development project known as the Downtown Hotel, and as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6), made the following findings of facts: That the project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic context for the following reasons: a. The project design uses traditional proportion and historic modules typical of like adjacent historic buildings. b. The project uses massing location and appropriate step -backs to mitigate height, relative to the historic context, as well as to the Mitchell Block. c. The building uses historically scaled materials, and colors of materials, that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. d. The project uses compatible solid to void window pattern, typical of the adjacent historic context. e. The pedestrian scale of the main floor of the proposed project is compatible with the historic context. 3) The Commission specifically discussed in its deliberations the applicants' request for modifications to two Standards, relative to the building's height and setback, specifically: Section 4.16(D)(2)(a), which permits a maximum height of four stories or 56 feet; and Section 4.16(D)(4)(a), which requires a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth floor and the property line. LO TOM N 0 N L N E a W Cn 0 v, TOM m M �O M d 0 x _ 3 0 _ 3 0 0 m L w U M u_ w 0 a� _ ii 11 E �a il Packet Pg. 7 1.b 4) At its September 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 8-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, the approval of the development proposal for the Fort Collins Hotel located at the corner of Chestnut and Walnut Streets, finding that it complies with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. d O 2 3 O c 3 O 0 a� L O U M LL 4. O y C C E C d E L U M a� El -2- Packet Pg. 8 Agenda Item 2 PROJECT NAME 903 STOVER STREET - CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Kaitlin Dorn, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Conceptual/Final Design Review for the Charles A. Lory House and Outbuildings at 903 Stover Street, Fort Collins, Colorado APPLICANT: Kurt Reschenburg and Tia Molander, Property Owners OWNER: Kurt Reschenburg and Tia Molander, Property Owners RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the rear addition to the Charles A. Lory House and Outbuildings located at 903 Stover Street, finding that such work would meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The property owners, Kurt Reschenburg and Tia Molander, are seeking a conceptual/final design review of a proposed rear addition to the residence that is designated as a Fort Collins Landmark (Ordinance No. 039, 1996). DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The owners would like to build a rear addition onto a modified (2011) rear four -season sunroom. At its widest, cover approximately two-thirds of the west elevation. The second floor addition will not add additional square feet to the foot print, but will increase the square footage under the rear portion of the gable roof by 168 square feet. The second floor will have a side gable roof and the peak will be slightly higher than the original building, but not visible from the street. This will allow an 8'-0" ceiling height on the second floor. The west (rear) elevation of the second floor addition includes (from left to right) a trio of 4-pane windows, one larger 6-pane window, one 4-pane window, and a trio of 4-pane windows. The four -season sunroom will be removed and 266 square feet will be added to the building footprint. The first floor will have a rear facing gable roof. The west (rear) elevation of the first floor addition includes a trio of 12-pane openings, a door on the left with two windows of the same dimensions to the right. Above, there are two symmetrical trapezoidal windows. The south (left) elevation of the first floor addition includes a trio of 12-pane openings, a door on the right with two windows of the same dimensions to the left. The property owners would like to demolish the frame shed (1938) at the rear of the property; they will retain the garage (1935). This design was drawn by architect Dick Anderson, using the City's Design Assistance Program. REVIEW CRITERIA: Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, "Approval of Proposed Work": 1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; Item # 2 Page 1 Packet Pg. 9 Agenda Item 2 2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; 3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; 4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and 5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior's Standard's for Rehabilitation: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant Submittal (PDF) 2. Location Map (JPG) 3. Photographs (PDF) 4. 903 Stover prelim final review (PPTX) Item # 2 Page 2 Packet Pg. 10 -iL74i/�F 1 I 1 l ►.+- i � t �.+ r V Y t� l I� 1 '1 u V -kj --------- - i\ pHOKTH 'I'(RVAH7) E-LEVATION J-tiA LF. I/'lN3 II-0�1. pn GLIiO R �R 6t R iM0+i4 a NOR7H r O a O z s Y Renee UWFLJNG W/ MT o'yFj d �ro N m UM 10$ STOVER STREET as SIT£ ?LAN It+yo'_o %tH Lowro;4 -Ss6...tI:Nv�rau DRAWING ... REVISIONS. II1e�2. CHECKED nwrc _ Pocke[P911 H SGALG 14Z P_Q,. F W y' O N �U � a o w ON REVISIONS DRAWN. CHECKED DA DATE W Q Uw z 0 i t O �¢a o JOB �+- 121 SHEET z OF 2 .. Pocke[P9. 11 No Text L � r6r A mot d lip lip - _ _ eIIaRC AiL. 01 OswO. ttkm �.�.�toll T " 1 E = t.�.It 1 L r� Ahk 1 �' , I c^ar �i f 'ems - •�1Y y 1�• f /T r I :_..v�Z ..a. --- i jA of Sl O No Text No Text 1t /I44 y lee _� III/// y ��••. ��1�^ w .'-��•...� / NX _, i I % �. b. }�,a�"A-- � � • - �� �,�p�.. \ � �z sari .�v�w� It I Mwl� r .-• t v✓N � • �T i. r 1 .� r j R-4ct2pL'.�. I ' le I se . �_;.. =: rig,• No Text 1 Conceptual/Final Review of Rear Addition to 903 Stover Street Karen McWilliams, Maren Bzdek &Katie Dorn Historic Preservation Staff Landmark Preservation Commission October 14, 2015 wmpp� 1=67 �:: Fort Collins The Charles A. Lory House &Outbuildings 903 Stover Street or !�,. .';t^�•: .•;-r'" sip"" �� -_- _�-:_��_"- , ~��_ =_•.l• .._sue- . ••! •fir pa . `- — _ FCftyof lirt Collins 2 Location K Fort ll�n Local Landmark Designation • Construction Date: 1905 • Designated as a local landmark by Ordinance No. 039 In 1996 • Designation Standard B: Charles A. Lory, fifth president of Colorado Agricultural College (CSU) • Designation Standard C: Excellent example of Craftsman -influenced bungalow style; outbuildings date from the period of significance and contribute to the historic character of the property Fort Collins E Project Summary Two-story rear addition (Dick Anderson) • Roof • Second floor —side gable • First floor —rear gable • Windows • West (rear) Elevation — four windows across second floor, two trapezoidal windows in upper portion of the first floor, trio of openings on the first floor • South (left) Elevation — trio of openings on the first floor l^a ^f shed Fort Collins Drawings fort ll�n 2.d d..d G4. elm L po.1 SEL N F��2--LYIBTING © UttMr. W4EL PLAN .. SGA 66 '• ��'j�s I'_O�• r 0 .y d L C I E .7D L Q L d) 0 Cl) M O d E L V M a� a� El Packet Pg. 27 Photos Y Flirt Collins North Elevation 0 Photos L 14 South Elevation Flirt Collins 2.d El Packet Pg. 30 Agenda Item 3 PROJECT NAME 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Kaitlin Dorn, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Conceptual/Final Design Review for the Garcia Property at 321 North Whitcomb Street, Fort Collins, Colorado APPLICANT: Kate A. Polk, Property Owner OWNER: Kate A. Polk, Property Owner RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the rear addition to the Garcia Property located at 321 North Whitcomb Street, finding that such work would meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The property owner, Kate A. Polk, is seeking a conceptual/final design review of a proposed rear addition to the residence that is designated as a Fort Collins Landmark (Ordinance No. 161, 2014). DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The owners would like to expand the residence's rear addition. The new addition will be one story, giving the old and new additions a ceiling height of 8'-0" (existing ceiling is 7'-0"). At its widest, cover approximately all of the southwest addition on the west elevation, which encompasses approximately half of the west elevation of the original building. The existing addition will remain; however, the lean-to roof will be removed. The old and new addition's roof form is a gabled roof. The peak of the old and new addition's gable roof is lower than the peak of the original portion's hipped roof. The historic windows were rehabilitated through the Zero Interest Loan Program. The newer vinyl windows in the breakfast room and above the kitchen sink will be replaced. New windows on the addition's south elevation will be small awnings, set high to minimize the effect of the new house to the south. Other windows will be double hung units, similar to the existing. The door on the east side of the breakfast room addition will be reused as the west door of the addition. The existing breakfast room is not 50 years old. This design was drawn by contractor Kevin Murray, using the City's Design Assistance Program. REVIEW CRITERIA: Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, "Approval of Proposed Work": 1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; 2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; 3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; Item # 3 Page 1 Packet Pg. 31 Agenda Item 3 4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and 5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior's Standard's for Rehabilitation: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant Submittal (PDF) 2. Location Map (JPG) 3. Photographs (PDF) 4. 321 N. Whitcomb prelim final review (PPTX) Item # 3 Page 2 Packet Pg. 32 3.a Polk Addition 321 N Whitcomb St. Fort Collins, Colorado Description: A proposed addition to the rear (south) side of the home. The remodel would remove the lean-to roof on the existing kitchen addition, and change it to a dormer, with ceiling at 8'0" (existing ceiling is 7'0"). Also, an addition to the SW corner would add a laundry/mud room. The addition and roof change should minimally effect the street side view. Windows & Doors: The home has just had the original double -hung windows rehabilitated; partially by LPC loan money. These windows will not be affected. The newer vinyl windows in the breakfast room will be replaced as will the slider above the kitchen sink. New windows on the south will be small awnings, set high, to minimize the effect of the new house to the South. Other windows will be double hung units, similar to the existing. The door on the east side of the breakfast room addition will be reused as the west door of the addition. The existing breakfast room is not 50 years old. .y d 0 M �a a a� U c 0 U Cn E 0 z a� a� E 7 Cn C V Q Q Q a-� C E M V M a� a� El Packet Pg. 33 3� 1 SF� 3.a A=a/r I /fyio/�A ;�Z/X lfRT49woo �1- 2z �DiVy zGO. �f, AoDlT/OrV 5 0 l'=0 \ A00 /ON 3 a� .y d cC c ca a m c 0 U a mo 0 z N M TOM N M V Q CL E V m El Packet Pg. 34 1 Am m /1 QZ 1 L !� bus l h {` 1 • 9I •l1. -00 • • � �--'ice 'r' �' _', z t 4-� /✓dI ��� Oyu � fit 3.b 321 N. Whitcomb Street, Fort Collins, CO . I �I I r I . ■ � ■ ��/ 0 62.5125 250 375 500 Feet 1 inch = 250 feet ■: ■ I ■ - I � I I . r \^V EY I % - C. w u 0 L 0 z r N M T M_ a 0 a V J N i El Packet Pg. 37 3.c � b7 #� '.a IF -k tz � �� •� •• R 1� Packet Pg. 38 i! MIR •��t14 , L r No Text " O • • � '� •• +J .. �_ `ram r �' .� ` '>I. �• �r • � � _ _ • J ' _ _ -ram - - ••'•. �•_ •- , - , - J. �-�..� 1'i � • - : � -• aye �♦, � ��/~ w _••d'-♦1:�%fie !• •;° 1 :-. - •.' T r .�� _ _._. .._ ._'� ..� -tea" " • . .t I. rl = mom r Ag ,•^{i~ pit . �-*� 4b 3.c Nk2 PTA{ .i1 El Packet Pg. 43 ,.. I 19 00 r Y. maw: s T r � i r 1 r +�w • - ,ram -�MOIL, ;f .y WW7 � Conceptual/Final Review of Rear Addition to 321 N. Whitcomb Street Karen McWilliams, Maren Bzdek &Katie Dorn Historic Preservation Staff Landmark Preservation Commission October 14, 2015 1 Fort Collins The Garcia Property 321 N. Whitcomb Street 2 3.d 321 N. Whitcomb Street, Fort Collins, CO 00 62.5125 250 375 500 Feet 1 inch = 250 feet TOM N C) T M �i II ZI Packet Pg, 48 Local Landmark Designation • Construction Date: 1912 • Designated as a local landmark by Ordinance No. 161 in 2014 • Designation Standard A: representation of broad immigration patterns in early 20th century Fort Collins; association with a once predominantly Hispanic area of the West Side neighborhood centered around the Holy Family Catholic Church • Designation Standard C: embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a hipped roof Classic Cottage Fort Collins Project Summary • One-story rear addition • Roof • Remove lean-to roof from old addition • Build gable roof to connect old and new additions into original portion of house • Windows • West (rear) Elevation —new window above kitchen sink and new door on addition flanked by two new windows • South (left) Elevation two new windows to match existing old addition • Design Assistance from Kevin Murray Fort Collins 3.d ,i m m L E 0 tU Z T N C) T M L la C I E .7D L Q E O V Z T N M a-� E L V M a� a� El Packet Pg. 51 3.d ,i m m L E 0 tU Z T N C) T M L la C I E .7D L Q E O V Z T N M a-� E L V M a� a� El Packet Pg. 52 Photos ■ FCftyof lirt Collins North Oblique Perspective I Photos WWI .r South Elevation FCf lirt Collins 3.d �a M a W O A m m L N m E O c� TOM Z N CO) TMM �O M 3 a� a� L �a i E L Q m E O u Z r N Cl N E t V w a� a� El Packet Pg. 55 Agenda Item 4 STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT DISCUSSION ON TROLLEY BARN USES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to gather feedback from the landmark Preservation Commission regarding proposed uses for the Trolley Barn on North Howes Street, with consideration of how each use might affect both the building and the site. ATTACHMENTS 1. Trolley Barn Memo Signed (PDF) 2. Trolley Barn Neighborhood Meeting (PPTX) Item # 4 Page 1 Packet Pg. 56 4.a Fort Collins MEMORANDUM Date: June 17, 2015 To: City Council Through: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager �- From* Josh Birks, Economic Health Director Jackie Kozak Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer Sam Houghteling, Industry Cluster Coordinator Re: Trolley Barn Public Outreach Executive Summary Economic Health Office PO Box 580 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 970,221,6505 fcgov.com On Thursday, June 110, City Staff met to discuss next steps regarding the Trolley Barn, and public outreach pertaining to its future use(s). Two private entities, the Fort Collins Food Co-op and a Denver based brewery, have separately expressed an interest in using the facility, either through a rental, lease, or purchase agreement. Additionally, two public uses: a Community Marketplace and Fire Museum have both been proposed at the facility in recent years. Prior to putting out an RFP, City Staff is recommending that public outreach be conducted to assess community support for different uses at the site. In the 2015- 2016 BFO process, a $50,000 offer to conduct strategic visioning for the Trolley Barn was not supported. Staff will utilize internal capacity and partnership opportunities to conduct the following outreach plan. Public Outreach & Engagement 1. Downtown Strategic Plan Walking Tours In conjunction with the current planning efforts around the.Downtown Strategic Plan, City Staff will be conducting a citizen walking tour of the `NW Mixed Use District.' This tour will now include an emphasis on the undeveloped lots of Block 33 and the Trolley Barn. Estimated timeframe: early July, 2015. 2. Downtown Plan Visioning Event. Monday July 13`h, 6-8pm. Lincoln Center. At this large community visioning event for the Downtown Strategic Plan, planning staff will include targeted questions about the Trolley Barn in a clicker section of the program. Staff will also have a Trolley Barn themed table to solicit feedback from attendees. 3. Online Survey Staff will be put together a brief online survey to solicit feedback from community partners and citizens regarding potential uses at the site. 4. Workgroup/Charrette Building off the aforementioned outreach, staff will be bringing together internal and external stakeholders in August to discuss outreach results, direction from City leadership, and next steps regarding site uses, informing any future RFP for the site. N a� y D c L ca m a� 0 c 0 0 .y N 7 0 0 m CM W M v * Please see attached memo for additional context re: Trolley Barn Development Proposals. Packet Pg. 57 4.a City of wort Collins MEMORANDUM Date: June 3, 2015 To: Josh Birks, Economic Health Director Jackie Kozak Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager From: Sam Houghteling, Industry Cluster Coordinator Re: Trolley Barn Development Proposals Executive Summary Economic Health Office PO Box 580 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 970,221,6505 fcgov.com The Historic Trolley Barn is located at 330 North Howes Street in Old Town Fort Collins. Currently, it serves as a storage facility for Operation Services. In 2013, the Fort Collins Food Co-operative submitted a proposal to use 10,000 sq. ft. at the site, on a 20 year lease, in exchange for $1.5 million dollars in renovations and improvements. On February 27 h, 2015, Councilmember Horak submitted a SAR to determine the status of this proposal. Since then, the Economic Health Office has collected documents pertaining to the Trolley Barn, the Community Marketplace, and worked with Operations Services to conduct a financial assessment on renovating the structure. Estimates to renovate the Trolley Barn as a Community Marketplace range from $2,566,177 to $3,239,739, barring any additional expense such as environmental mitigation. Estimates to build a new structure, on the lot next to the Trolley Barn, range from $4,008,165 to $5,060,216. A year-round Community Marketplace, and focal point of local food distribution and consumption, has emerged as a community priority through outreach conducted during BOB 2.0, and by the Northern Colorado Food Cluster. In June of 2015, the owners of a Denver based Brewery interested in expanding in Fort Collins inquired about purchasing, leasing, or trading properties for the Trolley Barn. The Economic Health Office will be looking for direction from leadership regarding next steps, outreach needed, and the creation of an RFP for the site. Trolley Barn History From 1907-1951, the Trolley Barn served as the depot for the Fort Collins Municipal Railway, a three - line street car system that converged at the intersection of Mountain and College Avenues. One historic trolley, Car 21, was restored along with part of the Mountain Avenue line, and has run on weekends and holidays during the summer from City Park to Old Town since 1984. The facility was designated a Historic Landmark in 1992 and 1999. In recent years, the Trolley Barn and parking lot to the due south have been used by the City of Fort Collins Operation Services to store vehicles and equipment. N a� y D c L ca m a� 0 L H C O a O .y N 7 V N co CM W M v Packet Pg. 58 4.a City of For` Collins 2010 Feasibility Study In 2010, the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority ("DDA") commissioned a `Community Marketplace Feasibility Study' which included a demand and competitive analysis, tenant mix analysis, financial analysis, and economic impact analysis. The study estimated that a downtown marketplace could expect $11.5 million a year in fresh food sales, with significant participation from local producers, yet found a limited supply of full time local retailers who might become an anchor tenant. The study also identified five key criteria that are present at successful public markets: a great site, supportive physical environment, a culture of public market shopping, professional management, and high quality vendors. Generally, the test of economic feasibility is whether the market can operate without subsidy following a three year start-up period. Public markets are mission -driven entities which seek to fulfill social and economic goals. Based on the expressed interests of key stakeholders, as well as research findings, the following goals were recommended to drive the planning, development, operation and evaluation of the proposed Community Marketplace: 1. Create a dynamic and inclusive place in the downtown 2. Support the region's farmers and food producers and provide opportunities to independent entrepreneurs 3. Promote and model environmentally sustainable, socially fair, and economically viable practices 4. Provide educational opportunities, particularly about the local food system and conscious consumerism Food Co -Op Proposal In 2013, Emily Heinz, Board Chair of the Fort Collins Food Co-operative, submitted a partnership proposal to the City of Fort Collins in an effort to secure a building rental agreement. In the agreement, the Food Co-op proposed that they would make $1.5 million dollars of renovations to the Trolley Barn in return for a 20-year lease. The proposal would utilize 10,000 square feet, leaving additional space for a refurbished Trolley adjacent to the market hall, office space, and museum storage. This transaction rate comes to a rough rental value equivalent to $6,250 a month for the space. BOB 2.0 Proposal During the Building on Basics Capital Expansion Tax (BOB 2.0) extension prioritization process in 2014, a proposal to dedicate $3.5 million to a year round community marketplace was one of the last projects removed from the final list. The lack of an established site in the proposal, or firm anchor tenant, prevented the project from moving forward for funding. The Community Marketplace proposal was still well received by the community in the extensive outreach efforts conducted around BOB 2.0. • #3 Overall Highest Priority Project, & #4 Lowest Priority. 2 Packet Pg. 59 4.a Ci ty Collins o Shows a considerable public divide. o Results included from the Board and Commission meeting, CityWork Alumni Forum, Community Issue Forum Open House, and the Sustainable Living Fair. • #1 project in terms of community support in the online survey (60% of respondents listed project as important) and #1 project supported by citizens at the Sustainable Living Fair, Northern Colorado Food Cluster Strategic Outreach The mission of the Northern Colorado Food Cluster is to create a healthy community through a resilient, local food system, by supporting and promoting local food production, distribution, and consumption. Between May 2013 and November of 2014 the Food Cluster hosted six large community meetings and public input sessions. Additionally, in November of 2014, the City of Fort Collins and Northern Colorado Food Cluster hosted a focus group with regional growers, producers, and farmers. Feedback from both events was intended to support leadership in identifying economic and industry needs, as well as institutional barriers, in an effort to develop strategies and propose projects to address them. A year-round Community Marketplace, and focal point of local food distribution, was ranked as one of the highest potential projects and industry needs during the public input sessions and local producer focus group. Operation Services Fiscal Analysis Trolley Barn 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Marketplace Renovation Total Projected $255665177 $2,720,148 $2,883,357 $3,056,358 $3,2399739 Budget / Cost *Estimates include $250,000 project contingency. *Each year includes a 6% cost escalation. New Marketplace 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Projected $490089165 $492489655 $4,5039574 $49773,789 $590609216 Budget / Cost *Estimates include $370, 000 project contingency. *Each year includes a 6% cost escalation. N y D c L cC m a� 0 L H c 0 0 .y N 7 0 0 co CM W M v Packet Pg. 60 4.a of FO�t CottinS Environmental Mitigation Award On May 28 h, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded the City of Fort Collins Sustainability Services Area $500,000 to conduct environmental assessments in the Poudre River/North College Area. Eligible properties include blighted areas once used for auto repair and servicing, as well as petroleum storage. The Trolley Barn, which once served both purposes, and is located near the Poudre River, could be a prime facility to conduct an environmental assessment at, in order to asses if any environmental cleanup is needed. New Requests and Potential Next Steps In June of 2015, the owners of a Denver based Brewery interested in expanding in Fort Collins inquired about purchasing, leasing, or trading properties for the Trolley Barn. Operations Services and Economic Health will be looking for direction from leadership regarding next steps, necessary outreach, and the creation of an RFP for the site. • Public Outreach, RFP Process, and Strategic Plan for Block 33. o The Trolley Barn and adjacent lots on Block 33 are in a prime location and serve a key point of connectivity due to their proximity to the Poudre Trail, Museum of Discovery, Lee Martinez Park, North Transit Center & MAX, Old Town, and the City Municipal Campus. o The facility was almost designated as a fire museum during the BOB 2.0 process, and components of the Municipal Campus Plan have the Trolley Barn as a functional facility with an extension of the active trolley line turning north on Howes Ave from Mountain Ave. o The building itself, despite certain structural complications, has been described as "a diamond in the rough," and has been designated as a historic landmark. o Before moving forward on any proposal, or RFP process, additional public outreach may need to be conducted to ensure that the City is being careful and vigilant with a longstanding community treasure. Included in Original Packet: 1. Trolley Barn Map 2. The Community Marketplace: Refining the Mission Report 2010 3. DDA Market Feasibility Study 2010 4. Co -Op Proposal 5. Co -Op Site Plan 6. New Marketplace Estimates 7. Renovated Marketplace Estimates 8. Operations Services Site Plan 9. BOB 2.0 Marketplace Proposal 10. Community Marketplace Operational Model Memo 11. EPA & City of Fort Collins SSA Environmental Assessment Award 12. Email regarding purchase or lease of Trolley Barn for Brewing Purposes 4 Packet Pg. 61 4.b Trolley Barn Neighborhood Meeting Agenda • History of the Facility • Timeline of Events • Current Public Outreach • Next Steps 1 Fort Collins N N L M� W O LL r a O a O .y N <.i N 3 11 M CO) zi Packet Pg. 62 4.b History From 1907-1951, the Trolley Barn served as the depot for the Fort Collins Municipal Railway, a three -line street car system that converged at the intersection of Mountain and College avenues. One historic trolley, Car 21, was restored along with part of the Mountain Avenue line. Since 1984, Car 21 has run on weekends and holidays during the summer from City Park to Old Town. The Trolley Barn has been designated a Historic Landmark. -Ip� 2 oty of Foet Collins Packet Pg. 63 4.b How did we get here? Timeline of Events 2013: Food Co-op submits new proposal to renovate Trolley Barn as a year round marketplace (Co-op had expressed previous interest). Proposal to utilize Trolley Barn as a Fire Museum in BOB 2.0 process. Fire Museum does not make final list of awarded projects. 3 February 2015: City Council submits a SAR instructing staff to evaluate proposals and potential costs. May/June 2015: A business entity approaches the City about purchasing the Trolley Barn for private use. July — Oct 2015: City Staff conducts public outreach to gauge the Community Vision for the historic site Nov 2015 — Jan 2016: Bring forth the outreach results to City Leadership. Prepare potential RFP based on the Community Vision for the site. pof ort Collins N L m 0 U. FM a O a O .y N N 0 W M CO) 01 d N O O Ma L O a� z L m W 0 FEE ++ i W E t U ZI Packet Pg. 64 4.b Public Outreach Process • Downtown Plan Walking Tours: City Staff conducted 2 citizen walking tours of the Trolley Barn on June 30t" and July 10t" • Downtown Plan Visioning Event: On Monday July 13t", from 6-8pm at the Lincoln Center, the Economic Health Office solicited feedback at the Downtown Plan Visioning Event. • 60% in support of a Community Marketplace. • Considerable interest in hybrid approach. • Online Survey: The City has created a brief online survey to solicit feedback regarding potential uses at the site: This will be open through September of 2015. • Open House/Neighborhood Meeting: On Sept 9t", at the 215 North Mason Community Room, from 5-6pm, City Staff will be hosting a neighborhood meeting to discuss potential future uses at the Trolley Barn. Cityt Collins 4 Packet Pg. 65 4.b Online Survey Results • To date, 354 residents have responded. . With any potential change, what is the most important to preserve +00 p 7m N — *2% L 20 -- - ° wm cpw" rlebaw a�x Oft 4. I would suppo, +°o 78.1% 0 0 o cownsft ►wwp c. IB.fa% 20.4% 20% 118% EY..m cb...p.near dAflbatansapa a9aaa"(efriew P*ftw straps) Foot Collins El Packet Pg. 66 4.b Next Steps • Provide outreach results to City Council & Executive City Leadership. • Possible City Council work session presentation. • Consider a `Community Charrette' if multiple interested parties have expressed a shared vision and are open to partnering on a project. • Once approved: Create & Release an RFP. • 90 day response period. • Estimated release: January 2016 61 Foot Collins L m 0 L FM rM c 0 .N U V1 M M Ol 0 O L 0 Z L m 0 L C C� G V zo Packet Pg. 67 Agenda Item 5 STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT DISCUSSION OF USES FOR THE CREAMERY BUTTERFLY BUILDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to gather feedback from the Commission on future uses for the Butterfly Building at 220 Laporte Avenue, with consideration for how each use could affect the building and the site. ATTACHMENTS 1. Buttefly Building Presentation-LPC-Hergott-1 0-14-15 (PDF) Item # 5 Page 1 Packet Pg. 68 5.a Ll i f, ti 0 r 0 - o - c - N - 7 - ti M M LO TOM o = +1A Ali L tU J C 4) 0 i a a� lw m � d E Ja � � • � ,i Oct Packet Pg. 69 City of .F-6rt C [tins Outreach: • Open House &Ice Cream Social • IdeaLab • Social Media Overall Consensus • No great frontrunner • Coffee Shop • Ice Cream Shop • Gear Rental Shop Original sign during time as an Ice Cream Shop c. Mid to late 1960s N 7 V N 0 M M_ LO CD T T 0 CD L J O N L CD 15 m m zo Packet Pg. 70 Fj PIN O nu Zro a 9r: m�AFA =vvm m Ah Hyb i` rid Possibilities r City of .F-6rt C [tins Early November: Final decision back from ELT Mid November: Call for proposals Early January: Tennant chosen and confirmed *Potentially presenting to the Local History Archive at the Discovery Museum and the Fort Collins Historical Society in October Questions: 1. What are the main items ELT needs to be aware of through the selection process? 2. What are the restrictions on the building? 3. What is the status of its listing as a Fort Collins Historical Landmark? ZI Packet Pg. 72 • CPIO (specifically Annie) is the lead on public communication and is NOT responsible decision, proposal approval, or requirements/changes that will for the actual architectural happen to the building • This will need to be communicated to ELT and the future tenant • Would like to include quotes from LPC and status of building as a landmark in follow up press release in mid - November once a decision has been made and call for proposals is sent out Question for us? Packet Pg. 73 Agenda Item 6 PROJECT NAME UNCOMMON - 310 S. COLLEGE - REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner U:%mX4A1►N1910►,F11%II@]► PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Review and request for recommendation to Decision Maker of a proposed 6-story mixed use building at 310 South College Avenue. The project is adjacent to several buildings that are designated on the National Register of Historic Places and as Fort Collins Landmarks. This Project Development Plan (PDP) is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. APPLICANT: OWNER: RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview The proposed building has a total floor area of 150,000 square feet, and a footprint of 30,600 square feet. The ground floor consists of retail commercial spaces totaling 8,900 square feet. The upper levels contain 120 apartment units, with a total of 248 bedrooms. Parking is below grade and on the ground level, underneath upper floor building space, with access from the alley. Cathy Mathis, Birdsall Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 CA Student Living Fort Collins, LLC 161 N. Clark Suite 4900 Chicago, III 60601 Staff recommends that the Commission make a recommendation of denial to the Planning and Zoning Board for Uncommon PDP #150013. This project has the potential to affect several properties that are designated, on the National Register of Historic Places and on the Colorado Register of Historic Properties, as well as Fort Collins Landmarks. These include properties within the Laurel School National Register District, as well as individual Fort Collins Landmark properties. Therefore the project needs to comply with the standards contained in Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. Area of Adjacency For the purposes of staff's review of the project, and based upon the height, mass, scale, bulk, and the visibility of the proposed project in light of the definition of "adjacent" in LUC Section 5.1.2, property adjacent to this project Item # 6 Page 1 Packet Pg. 74 Agenda Item 6 was established as being located one-half block in each direction from the block upon which this building is proposed. This area of adjacency contains several officially designated National, State and Fort Collins landmark properties, including: the Armstrong Hotel, the First Baptist (currently Mountain View) church at the southeast corner of Remington and Magnolia Streets, the Bode Property at 220 Remington Street on the west face of the next block north and east of the subject block, and several houses in the Laurel School National Register District on the west face of the next block south and east of the subject block. At its September 28, 2015 work session to preliminarily review this project, Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) members discussed alternative Areas of Adjacency for consideration. Non -Compliance with Applicable Land Use Code Standards Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, contains standards for new buildings where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the surrounding neighborhood context. The proposed project is adjacent or in close proximity to several such historic properties. Therefore, the project needs to comply with Section 3.4.7. Land Use Code ("LUC") Section 3.4.7(A), Purpose, states in pertinent part: "This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible:... new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site." This Purpose statement, while not setting forth a standard in and of itself, provides guidance in applying and interpreting the applicable standards contained in LUC Section 3.4.7. Staff review of the proposed project in light of the applicable standards in LUC Section 3.4.7(B) indicates that the project does not fully comply with those standards, nor is the project in alignment with the Purpose of LUC Code Section 3.4.7. 3.4.7(B) General Standard states in pertinent part: "The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is ... located on property adjacent to the development site and... (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; [or] (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto." Staff finds that the project is not designed to protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood, nor is the project compatible with the historic character of such properties. While the applicant has made some design adjustments to address the problem of scale, bulk, and massing, the current design remains incompatible. This is because of the discrepancy and incongruity of the footprint at 30,600 square feet, which covers 90 percent of the lot, combined with the extent of building mass at the 5ch and 6ch levels, and the size of the east wall which is 74 feet tall and 200 feet long - much larger than any buildings in the adjacent context. The individual and collective effect of these elements does not support the area's historic character. The attached graphics prepared by staff illustrate the building's height and mass in relationship to its context. Relative to the historically significant properties in the area, staff finds that the sheer mass and bulk of the proposed building would introduce an overwhelming presence that would be incongruous and dominate the look and feel of the area. Item # 6 Page 2 Packet Pg. 75 Agenda Item 6 Staff's Conclusion: Staff finds that the project does not comply with the requirement that a project's development plan and building design protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of historic properties adjacent to the project site. Furthermore, staff finds that the project does not comply with the requirement that "New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission make a recommendation of denial to the Planning and Zoning Board for Uncommon PDP #150013, based on the project not meeting required standards for protecting and enhancing the historical and architectural value and compatibility with historic resources. ATTACHMENTS 1. Uncommon Staff Presentation 2. Applicant Presentation (PDF) 3. P&Z Staff Report Uncommon 4. Uncommon DDA Letter (PDF) 5. Armstrong Letter (PDF) 6. Plans and Illustrations (PDF) 7. Landscape Plan (PDF) 8. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (PDF) (DOCX) (DOCX) Item # 6 Page 3 Packet Pg. 76 IPM M • I" 10-14-15 Jah f rr lip • :°� - --43. �' = Via.' ' � � a Ar - L6. N Uncommon Contextual Analyse Fort Colhr "" 6] r lIWO r MO uc. v I• ie 11 ,p ,u ut ub r. I: i YI I I I l J illlllg ! . - I \ 1- { t^ • ..r C- r I f •, w - 'r I t►► _ �' i Dlive 1' I r- City of - I FortCollins Logo on image = model ►�� ; ,.e _ and image created by tr tie I ,�T w 0 City of Fort Collins Fj wY _ For 21L, soot, for e L f t s a� of 0 �.•,.S•r.1ftA lu •Th City of Fort Collins �J o] r llwo r-, T'. ofdo w as� Citycf ort Colli r-, - Ci o I � 0 Nor T � - r Y � .�,�,rIT I�tll.�,..• xFIttlilllllll�r 'I} Ia NJ +I ..- S live e] r llwo .:.. .. a ,ul � Alto it he Ir � � �� � 1 11 CIS I�Y��.♦ l^ i.. { - M • f! � 4 • 1 1/ �4 r l — _ -- - — —City of= -- - ��--� Fort Collin Cmaw* �tt• 011' 1 J� r r � Hwy __• ��'� ► _IIR fill t�. 111N� - tiv!.. - - !?.� �a+ ....... Pi [1 A Fj Ater — o -: it r ,. �..so t jttlpa• J • � � I. 1 • vc1A11 ,..' •-- liveIwo >% at r „1 jl l - ... ♦ oRf' , u . . 1' V• 1..'�i_ JOE -- Magnolia 9n .. tr � •- xF' fill It rill I 1 City of .F-6rt C [tins : Ne T Kill c,x.i o i l 4 I 9. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST -TREES HIDDEN Applicant's Image Ad rnT` _ Packet Pg. 87 o] r llwo Pi Ip • oil ' v l[ �f7 4r r s� Cmaw* rt f i low 1 , r L I'll � ib it ?26 . Thlfi.l ram, i ij All t i ll I 4 live s� A•.-e r-, 1� s lee Ir 7 - ,k Fort Collin: Cmaw* ,I 1 ' 1 of r � t ttin It �U'l1�ib .^-�tiTi L.il live r-, 6] r llwe POW .. r [MV 0 ct 9 117 w:;11 d • w _ _ =-- Magnolia ,►'� �`' illi��ll Jill 11 ism 7 i t 1 1 f 1 MIN �' Jr I� I�r� � IIr 3.cja= Cmaw* �f - •n all &t%5 • � M r }lam R ire N �tr r-, rj POUDRE VALLEY RPPUANCE AdY PW k City Of Fort Collins l— r1 Cmaw* L bLdrFle'" • r • J r1 tit r•, i �► ;t 1 1 VIP 0 s• •- � 'Ks Magnolia Pi • r-, 11 WAM� fAiiV i Fort of _r 41 pins - -c IML w Raw \ 0 U N 0 M C O E E O CO)NO w C d N L ohm a !' AO - N O E E O v O E AMA v ca Ef Packet Pg. 101 pins t 1 1 t I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Uncommon ; Larimer County Larimer County DMA Plaza Building Justice Center ; - - - T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lot size: Lot size: ; Lot size: ; Lot size: 34,503 sq ft I 158,460 sq ft I 150,016 sq ft 1 28,280 sq ft .................. ---'-------------------'--------------------'------- ------------ Building Footprint: I Building Footprint: I Building Footprint: 1 Building Footprint: 31,113 sq ft 34,779 sq ft ; 38,694 sq ft ; 6,740 sq ft I I 1 coverage of building % coverage of building ; % coverage of building ; % coverage of building on lot: 1 on lot: , on lot: , on lot: 90% Coverage 22% Coverage 26% Coverage ; 24% Coverage I I 1 0 U 7; GI Packet Pg. 102 pins 0 15 30 60 90 120 Feet I Uncommon ' 1 Lot size: 34,503 sq ft ' 1 Building Footprint: ' 1 31,113sgft , I i coverage of building 1 on lot: ' I 90% Coverage 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 N � Cortina Lot size: 18, 240 sq ft Building Footprint: 13,363 sq ft coverage of building on lot: 73% Coverage 0 U F; 0 M i C 0 P 0 c D me LO M w M EN Packet Pg. 103 Cmaw* • � �•• 1� woo +im. J Cortina - 94'Tall !3%rw� ``` Cmaw* Uncommon — 74'Tall y� v- • _ .-• _ •• Ili r ' _ �... -- ro 1. aw A' • � � "y _: � -� al AMP MEWROM Ar Ir _ I _ -� City 00 .16 pins Imo"; G Packet Pg. 106 6] r llwe •City of ' Fort Collins _ a MEMW -Mlqr%4a r 4- I+JiE b + � � r1 • r r _�- 6] r llwe y Fort Collins IF i I 0 y� -' _ _ ■tea � � . _ � '..�IL � bib Cmaw* N.. r o l i p1 MIA .ti ALUL _ if �j �1 _ pins :-7 O U N 0 Cl) C O E E O V C M M El Packet Pg. 110 o] r llwo 41 ,. 6.b Uncommon I Fort Collins, Colorado Landmark inS Preservation Commission RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN NTFR aR 11FVL 6.b Project History + Background The city of Fort Collins is going through an exciting period in its development history as this vibrant and diverse community continues to grow and thrive. The downtown district specifically is experiencing many changes, while striving to keep its strong identity and maintain its role the center and focus of Fort Collins. Honoring its history is crucial for downtown. Unlike many other cities, Downtown Fort Collins is determined that new development be compatible with the existing context, while at the same time accommodating growth. Historically, the site was home to the First Methodist Church from the late 1800's until the 1960's when the church relocated. The site has been a long time home of a Perkins restaurant, and was recently owned for about 10 years, with plans for a mixed - use development that was never realized. The "Belle Claire" project, designed as a 6-story, 84 foot high mixed -use property, was unanimously approved by the City of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board in 2005, but the project was abandoned in 2007. The Perkins restaurant, located on the adjacent south end of the lot, closed in 2014 providing opportunity to rebuild the entire site. Chicago based CA Ventures purchased the 35,000 sf site in 2015, with plans to transform it into a mixed used development, providing retail space on the ground floor and residential above. First Methodist Church (1898-1963) Project Site (c. 1899) �. Perkins Restaurant (Closed 2014) Belle Claire Development (Proposed 2005) ARCHITECTURE 310 Uncommon Fort Collins, Colorado LPC Hearing 10.14.2015 ♦ RESIDENTIAL URBAN DESIGN Packet Pg. 113 6.b Existing Conditions The project site is located on the southeast corner of College Avenue and Olive Street (formerly the Perkins Restaurant site). It is approximately 0.8 acres and it stretches across ten traditional downtown lots (25' x 140'). The 310 South College site, now named Uncommon, is planned as a mixed -use building, with retail/commercial on the ground floor and multi -family residential on the upper floors. This site is ideal for this type of development due to its proximity to Old Town, the Civic Center, CSU, and existing transit lines. Providing apartments with a strong retail presence along College Avenue will fulfill the need for housing in a way that supports both downtown and CSU. Site Vicinity Map Q zar Fort Collins Museum of Discovery t s St Ave er in Ave t CoIIins y W OLce St E N ,lacnoha St coin Center 1 W Mulberry St 4 New Belgium Brewmg Company OM Fort Collor Heritage Par 15,. I,, . 4s Odell Bn ° V Gr Se E Mountain Ave la s E Uzh S' Udall Natural Area SITS 0 s S N 7 Fr T E Magnolia St !2 E Magnolia St im] E Mulberry Si N N Myrtle St F m E Myrtle St E Myrtle St in II wt:1(51 rV 3 N PARK 9 _N I St E Laurel St N u m m E Plum St 2 0 i S Context Map Olive street - northeast of site 310 Uncommon I Fort Collins, Colorado I LPC Hearing 1 10.14.2015 OAK SI KEEI YWLA FORT COLLINS MUSEUM OF ART ARMSIRONG HOTEL College & Olive - northwest of site DMA PLAZA LOLLY HOMES TEAM TAP & HANDLE :TE OF PURELY College Ave. - west of site "!WRIESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN Packet Pg. 114 AND 1F ' .k 1 . =&W�% 1� F. inm- fZ OAk ST. rx ui ' O r w — a �I is 1 % 4 1 —MW� r J • tarTom♦ �� OLIVE St. s 6 - li 1 -a•/ MAGNOT Ta' 1 MULBERRY ST. y ilk: ...�.1 ' p _ + 4 - u •1 1 .444 f Y _---r G V 4� �•� ��yw' kii 259 S. College Ave. p 328 Remington St. 220 Remington St. p 408 Remington St. -- Q 412 Remington St. Q 418 Remington St. nk^ 4 416 Remington St. 00 4: 420 Remington St. 6.b Existing Conditions = Views from Laurel School Historic District Center Park 01 VI '2:j U N U E Mount in W ountain A, e�� yak St IMI %/////// //// i/////// 3 ark %/ 00:iiiiii% i q '1MIO j/ 1IMI rVa] i//VIA > j�j �� //jam j 1O cn Q 5 IU)// %10 ! G ing Peoples _ Learning Center IIIIIII, I - , -1 ■ 1 ill - 310 Uncommon I Fort Collins, Colorado I LPC Hearing 1 10.14.2015 ARCHITECTURE RESIDENTIAL URBAN DESIGN Packet Pg. 116 f t tA. — ^ V .q.t �eAL I1IIII i -ram- ' S t 1 41W 4910 DMA Plaza Building - 300 Remington . Apprtments - 3�emington ` 411 ' Safewav - 460 !�% pA II _aM17t. � I=_ e Wells Fargo - 401 S. College MMMMW fAsrE�FPN4� � Taste of Philly - 303 S. College J ... 40 Tap & Handle - 307 S. College Armstrong Hotel - 259 S. College Jolly -Homes Team (Clock Tower) - S. college Zoning Map 6.b Planning Policies + Principles Uncommon is located in the Canyon Avenue Subdistrict of the Downtown District (D). The site is directly adjacent to the Old Town Sub- district to the north, making this a transition zone. With that in mind, great effort has been made to be compatible with, and respectful of, the adjacent Old Town Subdistrict, while achieving the allowed development intensity that the land use code allows for this site. Uncommon is also located within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone. Being in the heart of downtown Fort Collins, Uncommon seeks to take full advantage of its proximity to the Downtown Transit Center, bus routes and the MAX line. Other goals in- clude promotion of pedestrian activity and reduction of dependency on cars. These will be accomplished by providing reduced parking (us- ing the TOD overlay guidelines), taking advantage of the Fort Collins Alley network, and creating a higher density mixed -used development. And with its location, Uncommon will become the unofficial "gateway" to Old Town. ¢ 4IP ca Height Limits 0+1-1501110-12 stones q 0 r f �+1-115fee[J-9stodes _WEI J7 e --�, a ON-85 feet. 5-6 stones 3-,4 5-6 ` +1-45 lead. 3-4 stones E 45 B5 Note'" On doors enth multiple he Lij Iaeetlaee convey enalbuIldmict MnPti sr naseinq concepts, not exact dimensions ions 5-6 3-6 i ir= Civic comer ECanyon Avenue Sub -Districts derY - i_ _ _ Other Zene Districts tAl'ORTE N.'E 17 D a �1pF q Ca tul _ 'It 5-6 85 85 Y-RIFJBtE, CT. {yll • e�OJNT414 AVE _ m LPGrAf/W IaL a IIIIM - 5-85es1 EJ L'®6 - -- B5 ' 15 - I !ry ggFz OAK sT RcvuK 7—a+ INKI y r r r u�r 10-12 Is 5.6 I85 WdIYE ST _ a r 3.1 �� 1 10-12 GM a 45 fi 5-6 5-6 5-6 � it- 5-6 150 85 85 s 85 YIAWLNOUL$T IF II ST 3-4 10.12 gC9'D�150 a0IQ 115 1"" r n 111.��� o C - e wLeewnitr Height Limit ARCHITECTURE 310 Uncommon Fort Collins Colorado LPC Hearing 10.14.2015 Alts VA I URBAN DESIGN RESIDENTIAL PacketPg.119 6.b Planning Policies + Principles 00 REMINGTON ST 1 STORY t 139 FT BLOCKAWAY :DMMDN FORT COLLINS LOF' S COLLEGE AVE h 00 S COLLEGE AVE STORY ■ 74 FT -5 STORY t 55 FT RIME LEASING LOFTSATMAGNOLIA IPARK LANE TOWERS FIRST NATIONAL TOWER CORTINA LOFTS LA RIMER COUNTY BUILDING KY BAK TOWER !4 MAGNOLIA ST 10 W. MAGNOLIA ST 15 S HOWES ST 05 W OAK ST 24 CANYON AVE 00 W. OAK ST 1�11ESIYORY OST 6 STORY ■ 50 FT STORY t 60 FT 12 STORY ■ 152 FT 10 STORY t 158 FT STORY t 76 FT STORY t 63 FT t 156 FT BLOCKAWAY BLOCKSAWAY BLOCKS AWAY BLOCKSAWAY BLOCKSAWAY BLOCKS AWAY 5BLOCKSAWAY In order to create a compatible building within the context and immediate vicinity of Old Town, the building will have a Base -Middle -Top configuration. The Base will be a continuation of the retail base along College Avenue to the north, which will also create a platform for the upper floors of the building. This retail portion/base of the building forms a strong edge along College Avenue and Olive Street that will promote and enhance pedestrian activity. The building Base is broken into 25' modules, following the distinct fagade experience along the College edge. As many buildings located in the Front Range, views to the mountains are always a strong consideration impacting the massing of the building. Uncommon maximizes west -facing residential units, while creating upper level courtyards that help reduce the mass of the building. 310 Uncommon I Fort Collins, Colorado I LPC Hearing 1 10.14.2015 �I w E � • It Height i Mass Context Diagram - District Level IOWERBFNND (1 BLOCK EASn CANYON AVE. SUBDISTRICT MAX ALLOWABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE OID CITY CENTER CANYON AVE. SUB2I'TR }g STORIES / ]15 R. MAX.ALLOWABLE MAX ALLOWABLE BVILED ENVELOPE BUILDING ENVEIDPE f5E STORIES / 05'T 4 STORIES / 56'T. Height & Mass Context Diagram - Neighborhood Level ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN RESIDENTIAL ��✓� /IJJJ Packet Pg. 120 Ili1Ck•n le 41Ty— w 10 p MDO to y 43,570 sf 305635 sf - 3 stories 5 stories tat � s 1 G�esL^.a•S� � GT t p I jot , r � i .s N .1. tD Y N ry N y N IOD .+ , N n coM fp eD U) r M a M n�` 1N to eD to 7 " Oy tl�� 1 13,912 sf 11,470 sf� man Ia n 4 stories 4 stories I '� -�' �. __•ems.. _ i, I � _.t 6.b Building Massing + Compatibility The land use code allows a building height of up to 5-6 stories and 85'. We have made efforts to reduce the building height (75') and provide additional setbacks at the 2nd floor and above. In order to create a compatible building within the context and immediate vicinity of Old Town, the building will have a Base -Middle -Top configuration. The Base will be a continuation of the retail base along College Avenue to the north, creating a platform for the upper floors. Floors 2 - 4 (Middle) are set back from the retail base to provide relief and to avoid a tall wall along the street edge. Floors 5 and 6 (Top) are set back even further to reduce the impact of the massing to the surrounding buildings. A change to "lighter" materials at these levels further helps these floors to recede from view. The massing along College Avenue is broken up into three wings, each with a separate character, thus creating the feel of three separate buildings. Building Massing Diagram - North/South Total e Height ---- NO BUILD Additional Height Above AREA $ d Stories, 85' +/- 5-6 Stories, �yith Design To Mitigate The 85' +/-_ Additional Height and Mass 4'" Story " ^" Additional ------ Floor Plane GrounLandsd Setbacks Above V Story Ground Floor Base Portion to Setback Mitigate Height And Mass z"Story !� \ " 1"Story Base Portion Of Building Fourth Story Setback Property Combined Ground Floor And in the Line Upper Floor Setbacks To Old City Center Subdistrict Mitigate Mass And Height Required Building Massing in the Old City Center Subdistrict Required Building Massing in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Subdistricts Fort Collins Land Use Code, Division 4.16, D, 4, a, Figure 19 Fort Collins Land Use Code, Division 4.16, D, 41 b 310 Uncommon I Fort Collins, Colorado I LPC Hearing 1 10.14.2015 Building Massing Diagram - East/West ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN RESIDENTIAL Packet Pg. 122 6.b Building Massing + Compatibility Armstrong Hotel With close proximity to Old Town, it is very important to design a compatible building that with fit well with the surrounding context. The Armstrong Hotel, which originally opened in 1923 will have a significant influence to how the adjacent buildings will look. The building's architecture reflects the simple, symmetrical forms of the 1920s. The East and South fagades create a strong base for the 3 story building. Identifiable 25' fagade modules, clearly were used as the guideline for the fagade. Punched openings on the upper floors strengthens the simplicity of the architecture. Parapet articulations, top the building in a clear, simple yet strong finish to the building. These are cues that the new building will follow, not to replicate and copy these elements, but to be compatible with it and other buildings along College Ave. as well as the Canyon Court subdistrict. Understanding very well the extents of the zoning/land use code of what can be built on the site. ARMSTRONG HOTEL 3 STORIES +/- 40'-01 TYPICAL DOWNTOWN STOREFRONT ii .� ti • 11111 1_1 i� i nnuu TYPICAL DOWNTOWN RETAIL BAY SPACING +/- 25'-01, Massing & Compatibility Diagrams -Armstrong Hotel i ARCHITECTURE 310 Uncommon Fort Collins, Colorado LPC Hearing 10.14.2015 ♦ `� RESIDENTIAL URBAN DESIGN `I��J Packet Pg. 123 6.b Building Massing + Compatibility _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 I I I I RETAIL STOREFRONT BAYS +/- 25 FT Base Level Retail Storefronts COURSE HEAD JDOW WITH SIDE LITES K COURSE SILL COURSE BANDING Contrasting Brick Details at Windows and Openings 310 Uncommon I Fort Collins, Colorado I LPC Hearing 1 10.14.2015 Masonry Pilasters RESIDENTIAL CORNICE BANDING STONE BASE a Y !9 0 O .v w O O Y 0 O Y m v c w E E 0 U d X ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PacketPg. 124 w. All • , :1. S `� ,1irm: 1111V�- 40%4 Aso" �I 6.b Building Massing + Compatibility :: : il 2 WEST .w. -M Belle Claire - West Elevation (College Ave.) w a^a. M1 - w � •Podium Base along street +/- 27 feet high (vs. 18 feet high for Uncommon) • Top of large stone arched windows at +/- 22 feet high -�• • No step -backs at upper levels r ` , • No separation of building masses at upper levels • Tall "tower element" (above 84 feet high) at northwest corner, directly across from p , 1-story retail on Olive, and catty -corner from Armstrong Hotel • No variety of storefronts along street face, or inset storefront entrances • Stucco predominantly used exterior material at upper level walls • Floor -to -floor height of 12 feet at upper residential levels (vs. 10 feet 8 inches for Uncommon) • Overall building height of 84 feet (vs. 74 feet for Uncommon) 1■■ LI �1�IIC�I��1111111II� I:��II■I�I■I■I rur;�II:I--�II:u_+;��I11;�I�II1'I' il■171111711■r��1117■I�I■I I��r��ol■��I ��I 171 1111 All III I1il9l,■111111111 loll III, Ili l■�'!l11�I1■1��1 ��a�l■ I��r,��,' � ■III■��III�IIII�i�+IR*'�1 1�■I�111�11 ■�lI li:illll■■IIII�■IIIOMNI dom■gimmmosommo MAX. ALLOWABLE -185_u ROOF LEVEL LEVELS a _LEVEL4 139-4" LEVEL 3 128--8" LEVEL -118' _ B" -,ar E vEL-a1 9 • ARCHITECTURE 310 Uncommon I Fort Collins, Colorado I LPC Hearing I 10.14.,du1a ♦ RESIDENTIAL URBAN DESIGN Packet Pg. 126 6.b Building Massing + Compatibility v..K. MA,K� ,fin NIW •MLC MM.10M NORTH vim! Nf 'C 310 Uncommon Fort Collins, Colorado LPC Hearing iu.14.2015 �IRry�p•�11. NT �8'• •q}4 TP1 WA 4 M w T M WERO� At>p �1R R'Yf rwr� y Belle Claire - North Elevation (Olive St.) • Tall "tower elements" (above 84 feet high) at both northwest comer and northeast corner, directly across from 1-story retail on Olive • No step -backs at upper levels • Stucco predominantly used exterior material at upper level walls • Floor -to -floor height of 12 feet at upper residential levels (vs. 10 feet 8 inches for Uncommon) • Overall building height of 84 feet (vs- 74 feet for Uncommon) MAX ALLOWABLE -1IW-9' ROOF 1]1'-4" LL L6 1W -Y. LL L5 159-9' LL L4 139-4 LL L3 129-5' LL L2 119-9' -109 9 LLVEL RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN Packet Pg. 127 6.b Building Use = Base Levels Uncommon will be a mixed -used development that will extend the retail activity along College Avenue, connecting Old Town with the CSU campus. Outdoor public open space will be provided on the ground floor, where this "Paseo" will provide connection to the Mont- ezuma Fuller Alley. Residents' private open space will also be provided on top of the second level. These exterior spaces will provide a great gathering space for the residents, while main- taining close connection to the street level activity of College Avenue. Parking Strategy & Site Access To minimize access impact to the already busy College Avenue, all vehicle access and service will be via the alley. In order to not further contribute to the downtown parking shortage, Uncommon will meet all of its parking demand on site, with access -controlled parking for residents provided in the basement level, and retail parking on the ground level. I Level P1 ,f Level 1 A«f. U9 U b C C K v I ° WM_ 11diI ARCHITECTURE 310 Uncommon Fort Collins, Colorado LPC Hearing 10.14.2015 ♦ RESIDENTIAL URBAN DESIGN Packet Pg. 128 , R., a. Wo is ,. • . w i 6.b Exterior Improvements Landscape Concept The streetscape along College Avenue and Olive Street will encourage pedestrian interaction along the ground floor. The sidewalk along College Avenue will be widened to 7' and will have variations along the storefront allowing for seating and bicycles. A landscaped path along the south edge of the project will provide connection from College Avenue to the Montezuma Fuller Alley as well as provide some relief to the adjacent parcel to the South. This "Paseo" will have an urban character, with seating, oversized planters, and pavers. The courtyards at the second level provide a shared open space for the residents' use and still have a connection to the ground level landscape. The residents' amenity space will have direct connection to this space, encouraging interaction. The site is lined along College Avenue & Olive Street with mature trees that will be preserved. Building set backs have been specifically set to allow for the existing tree canopies. Street trees will be added to inf ill existing gaps and at the existing curb, which is to be removed. Site Grading & Drainage The site is currently within a city flood plain, requiring flood -proofing of the ground floor of the building. The site slopes gently from the southwest to the northwest, towards the Cache La Poudre River. Roof drains will be filtered through planters at the podium level, improving war quality, before entering the city's storm water drainage. Exterior Concepts Plan - Ground Floor ARCHITECTURE 310 Uncommon Fort Collins, Colorado LPC Hearing 10.14.2015 ♦ RESIDENTIAL URBAN DESIGN r.Packet Pg. 130 IPA ' OOO Orb' I •� Imo• u�n . ..,0 :n . • . S. C 0 L L E G E A V E N U E- - - 11111111 lllllllll/1 / '� %I -RUN -- Luuur uuunm ,� � - �1 lr ��, �s� ��<a • �s� ��� �i� .ram _ •�ti:� r •gab r !i p�iR � rF . T.I1 I� pp It J 1. jr KI oo top ■all W-a ®'°' 3Y'� ISN. 1 0 6.b Architectural Character + Materiality Uncommon will use high -quality materials compatible with the context of downtown. The use of masonry and stone on the lower floors will provide a strong base and create continuity along College Avenue. Use of steel/iron at the storefront will compliment what is seen throughout Old Town and the historic areas of Fort Collins. The extensive use of storefront glass will allow transparency to the retail spaces and allow strong interaction with pedestrians along College Avenue and Olive Street. The residential portion of the building is characterized by solid elements with punched openings. Cornice lines create a distinct separation of the base, middle and top. Canopies are used on portions of the fagade to reduce the feel of height. The use of masonry is reduced in the middle portion of the building to reduce the feel of being too heavy. Transitioning to the top or the upper floors, the materiality changes to a lighter feel while maintaining high quality. West Elevation - South College Avenue Exterior Material Concepts Pigmented Brick Light Masonry/Stone ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .WORKS r Stucco Horizontal Siding ARCHITECTURE 310 Uncommon Fort Collins, Colorado LPC Hearing 10.14.2015 ♦ RESIDENTIAL URBAN DESIGN Packet Pg. 135 • • • - • - 7 1 •- • •. • - • - I' I iF c .. r Ill �— • ./� i 1■I1I■ 11lIIsolv11ill11111■1 Nov11■I Ali limilosivilill III 11m11lmis11■11III ■ICI 11�11!!!�11�11 1�1 1�1 ! IMI11. Muslim 1■I! 11�1!!!�11�111�1 11■Il I■I I■I �� ���1 ■��� ■INS IVI�I I■1 !11■III*,i�i ■11■I� �:� 1■��i■1 Co�l�l■ �I1� MINIMUM I■II 11�1! 211111 al I■I-aR�l I■111■I ■ICI ■ I■11! I■I I■I 1�1l1��il■II I■I �1�I�!!��I�1� 1■I I■I loll III 1�I■ IrOi�� � , ..,� ' ■ems, ,.r.�� ��■ � 0 LOA ■I■MINOR, ■I Ili 11■01■1IFNIE N�III I■1111■IAMM!!I■III■I�■ICI■ , IICIIIICI■I III 11�11l�!�IIIII III II�ICIIIICI■I III 11i11l',!■IIIil III �IIIII �;I. mill �m 0 _'lIIICI■I III l_!'1111 III :� �_■ 111 0 or I l i sm moll al�li ICIIMM111111111 III IF1111 IIr11 Li:• 11l11111m,!loll Ill III O III III Ill III III III I■�'�IIIICIII■ICIIIICIrp ICIIIICI ,�ilz�i■i..:. III III ;,�!!��III III ICI ICI IICI�IICIIiI Moll WI IIIIoo1l1 Mill III liginimimilli ICI IICII 1111=1111 111111�III �- II1 III. Il�MIIlImm� on ■IIII CI ICI IICI�11�11I 2 6.b Architectural Character + Materiality The residential portion of the building is represented by a more of a punched opening feel. The Cornice lines create a distinct identifier of the base, the middle and top. Enlarged cornices become canopies and it is placed above the 'middle' portion of the fagade to reduce the feel of height. The use of masonry is reduced in the middle portion of the building to reduce the feel of being too heavy. As you transition to the top or the upper floors, the materiality changes to a lighter feel but still main- taining a high quality. Color is also used to create a differentiation of the massing and reduce the impact of the size of the massing. We will use colors that are compatible and can be found in the downtown area. View From West Enlarged South Retail Enlarged Middle Retail Enlarged North Retail ARCHITECTURE 310 Uncommon Fort Collins, Colorado LPC Hearing 10.14.2015 ♦ RESIDENTIAL URBAN DESIGN PacketPg.138 6.b Architectural Character + Materiality IF � � View From Northwest 310 Uncommon I Fort Collins, Colorado I LPC Hearing 1 10.14.2015 ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN RESIDENTIAL ��✓� /IJJJ PacketPg. 139 6.b Architectural Character + Materiality s 1 View From Southwest 310 Uncommon I Fort Collins, Colorado I LPC Hearing 1 10.14.2015 �i' k 1 ��i -4 i4-1 ff- ' 1,t4 ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN RESIDENTIAL ��✓� /IJJJ PacketPg.140 6.c ITEM NO HEARING DATE STAFF October 29, 2015 Mapes PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD PRELIMINARY STAFF REPORT FOR OCTOBER 29, 2015 HEARING. THIS STAFF REPORT WILL BE UPDATED PRIOR TO HEARING. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This Project Development Plan (PDP) is for development of a terraced 4- to 6-story, mixed -use building at the southeast corner of College Avenue and Olive Street. The site formerly contained Perkins restaurant, which was recently demolished and removed. The property is zoned Downtown (D), Canyon Avenue Subdistrict. The proposed land uses are permitted, and the PDP is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The site is 35,000 square feet. proposed building coverage is 30,600 square feet. Total floor area is 150,000 square feet. The ground floor consists of streetfront retail commercial spaces totaling 8,900 square feet, and the upper levels contain apartment units totaling 120 units. The units are a mix of studio and 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units with a total of 248 bedrooms. 125 parking spaces are provided. Parking is below grade and on the ground level, underneath upper floor building space, with access from the alley. RECOMMENDATION: M Staff recommends denial of Uncommon PDP #150013. 0 STAFF COMMENTS: E E 0 U c 1. Overview D 0 The overall mass, bulk, and scale of the building have generated significant staff concerns since the initial review of the plan concept, and remain an outstanding design issue in staff findings. Staff finds that the degree of mass reduction of upper floors is not adequate to result in y compatibility with the surrounding context. N a The combination of lot coverage, footprint size, and height result in a building with an overwhelming mass much larger than the buildings that form the relevant context. DMA Plaza '/2 block away is about 45 feet taller than the proposed building, but has a roughly 6,900 square a foot footprint, less than one fourth the footprint of the proposed building, and landscaped Q setbacks of roughly 30 feet from streets. The commercial block to the north has similar lot Planning Services 281 N College Ave — PO Box 580 - Fo<< Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970,221,6750 Packet Pg. 141 6.c Uncommon PDP #150013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015 Page 2 coverage and long wall lengths, but is only one story in height. No development within the relevant context area exhibits building mass, bulk, and scale similar to the proposed building. This issue involves several interrelated Land Use Code (LUC) standards for building compatibility and for sensitive planning that is harmonious with the adjacent surrounding neighborhood context, including standards for compatibility with historic resources in the adjacent area. Staff findings acknowledge the many aspects of the proposed development that are consistent with the community's planning policies and zoning regulations for this portion of the Downtown. The proposed multi -story, mixed -use development with active ground floor commercial uses, residential units above, and parking below, is consistent with planning and zoning in terms of uses. High quality building materials are proposed. Pedestrian -oriented design of the clearly defined base portion, to resemble multiple storefront buildings, is consistent with design standards. Design measures have been taken in response to applicable standards for mitigating the mass of taller buildings (over 3 stories) downtown. These measures help to mitigate the mass, bulk and scale of the building to a degree. 2. Planning Background and Context The 1989 Downtown Plan and 2006 Downtown Strategic Plan establish a vision and policy direction for redevelopment in Downtown. Policy direction is based on very extensive community discussion, and represents a careful balance among widely differing interests with regard to taller buildings downtown. Policy direction is translated directly into LUC standards for height and massing of new buildings downtown. Code standards are written to provide qualitative requirements rather than exact metrics for building size limits. The premise is that developers and architects of new buildings can be more E creative in designing to fit the unique circumstances of a given site in the downtown area, if they E are not required to fit the design into a predetermined numerically defined box. c D Additionally, the premise is that the resulting degree of flexibility in the development review a process will be resolved in an iterative process among staff, the development team, the community, and ultimately by the decision maker. M co The site is recognized as suitable for infill and redevelopment. This recognition anticipates a 06 larger new building, to be sensitively programmed, sized, shaped, and designed in response to a the context of existing development, and nearby historic buildings in particular. E U The surrounding context within about one block comprises an eclectic range of buildings from different eras, in varying styles, with heights in a range from a majority of single -story flat -roofed Q buildings to several 2-story buildings, to the 3-story Armstrong Hotel, to the the 11-story DMA Packet Pg. 142 6.c Uncommon PDP #150013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015 Page 3 Plaza apartment tower. Several nearby buildings are designated or found eligible for designation as historic resources. Abutting zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses Single -story commercial buildings, Remington Lot public parking lot, 3- North D, Old City Center Subdistrict story Armstrong Hotel cater corner across the intersection South D, Canyon Avenue Subdistrict 1-story commercial buildings 2-story office building and parking lot, East D, Canyon Avenue Subdistrict 2-story apartments 1-story commercial buildings and West D, Canyon Avenue Subdistrict parking lots, Armstrong Hotel cater corner across the intersection 3. Compliance with Applicable Land Use Code Standards Staff comments below regarding Land Use Code standards are arranged by topic area. Building Mass, Bulk, and Height Standards Several standards in the Downtown zoning district work in conjunction with General Standards for All Development citywide to regulate building size, height, bulk, mass, and scale. Standards do not state exact numerical parameters. Rather, they consist of descriptive requirements so that exact height and mass are to be determined as part of the design and development review process. Downtown Zoning District Standards for Mass, Bulk, and Height: Applicable standards for height and massing in the Downtown zoning district are found in Article Four of the Land Use Code, subsection 4.16 (D)(2) Building Height. A block -by -block height limits map shows maximum height limits in the Canyon Avenue Subdistrict. Under subsection 4.16(D)(2)(c) the stated limits "are intended to convey a scale of building rather than an exact point or line." On the subject block, the maximum height limit is 5-6 stories, +/- 85 feet. The proposed project is below this maximum limit at 74 feet. rm 0 E E 0 U c D t= 0 a a� co N 06 a c a� E �a Q Packet Pg. 143 s.c Uncommon PDP #150013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015 Page 4 The height limits map is accompanied by requirements for "Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over three stories)". Taller buildings must have "a base portion of one or two stories, clearly defined by a prominent, projecting cornice or roof, fenestration, different materials and different colors from the remainder of the building." Staff finds that the proposed project complies with this requirement for a clearly defined based portion. Code subsection (D)(2)(b)2 requires upper portions of the building to be further set back above the base "in such a manner as to contribute to a significant aspect of the building design. Upper floor setbacks shall be determined by an emphasis on pedestrian scale in sidewalks and outdoor spaces, compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings, preservation of key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces, and preservation of views in order to ensure sensitivity to the historic context and scale of downtown and to maintain a degree of open sky as part of the visual character of the City." The standard is accompanied by the following figure showing how ground floor and upper floor setbacks can be considered together to mitigate mass and height. Total Height Additional Height Above 5-6 Stories, 85' +/- 5-6 Stories, With Design To Mitigate The 85 +/---- Additional Height and Mass Landscaped Ground Floor Setback Additional Setbacks Above Base Portion to Mitigate Height And Mass Base Portion Of Building Property Combined Ground Floor And Line Upper Floor Setbacks To Mitigate Mass And Height While the proposed building provides upper floor setbacks, staff finds that the upper floor setbacks as a significant aspect of building design are not determined by an emphasis on pedestrian scale in sidewalks and outdoor spaces, compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings, or sensitivity to the historic context and scale of downtown. _ 0 E E 0 U 0 as Cn N a _ m E U Q Packet Pg. 144 6.c Uncommon PDP #150013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015 Page 5 Staff's finding is based on the combination of the following specific factors: • 4' step back at 50' and 60' walls on College, • 200' long by 74' tall east wall; • Extent of 5t" and 6t" story portion. Staff finds that these factors undermine the effect of the base portion in defining the scale and mass of the building; undermine compatibility with scale and massing of nearby buildings, create tall mass abutting the sidewalks without adequate reduction in mass of the upper portions, and create an overwhelming presence out of scale with the historic downtown context. A related mass mitigation standard in the Downtown Zoning District requires ground floor open space to help offset the mass of taller buildings. Subsection 4.16 (E)(1)(c), Plazas, states that: "for taller buildings located in the Canyon Avenue subdistrict, ground floor open space shall be provided that is organized and arranged to promote both active and passive activities for the general public. Such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to the public and must include features that express and promote a comfortable human sense of proportionality between the individual and the environment, whether natural or man-made." Staff finds that the proposed plaza is not open space due to its degree of enclosure in the building structure with floor area above. This largely negates the effect of the open space in mitigating and offsetting the mass of the building. As shown, the plaza is a very positive feature of the building, and it serves to meet another standard for building character -- subsection 4.16(D)(5) -- as an outdoor space incorporated into the building design. General Development Standards for All Development -- Mass, Bulk, and Height: rm 0 Zoning district standards mentioned above work in conjunction with several general E development standards for all development city-wide in Article Three of the Land Use Code. U Applicable standards with regard to mass, bulk, scale, and height are evaluated as follows. D t= 0 a Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, contains standards for height and massing of new buildings where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the surrounding neighborhood context. The proposed project is adjacent or in close proximity to y several such historic properties. Therefore, the project needs to comply with Section 3.4.7. N 06 a Nearby historic properties include the 3-story Armstrong Hotel, the First Baptist (currently Mountain View) church at the southeast corner of Remington and Magnolia Streets, the Bode Property at 220 Remington Street on the west face of the next block north and east of the subject block, and several houses in the Laurel School National Register District on the west o face of the next block south and east of the subject block. Q 3.4.7(A) Purpose, states: Packet Pg. 145 6.c Uncommon PDP #150013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015 Page 6 "This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: ... new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site." Staff finds that the project is not designed to respect the character of the historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood because of the discrepancy and incongruity of the footprint over 30,000 square feet combined with the extent of building mass at the 5t" and 6t" levels, and the size of the east wall which is 74 feet tall and 200 feet long — much larger than any buildings in the adjacent context. Relative to the historically significant properties in the area, staff finds that the sheer mass and bulk of the proposed building would introduce an overwhelming presence that would be incongrouous and dominate the look and feel of the area. 3.4.7(B) General Standard reinforces the Purpose discussed above. It states: "The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is ... located on property adjacent to the development site and ... (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; [or] (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto." Staff finds that the project is not designed to protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of the adjacent historic properties as required, in terms of mass and bulk, for the reasons stated previously. Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility, requires compatibility with the context of the surrounding area in terms of building size, massing proportions, design character and building materials. Section 3.5.1(B) General Standard states: "New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived from the neighboring context." rM 0 E E 0 U c D 0 a m �a co N a c a� E U M Q Packet Pg. 146 6.c Uncommon PDP #150013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015 Page 7 Staff finds that the proportions in massing in combination with height are not similar or derived from the neighboring context. Staff finds that other aspects of the building design meet the requirements of the standard. 3.5.1(C), Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale, requires buildings to "either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing block face, or cater -corner block face at the nearest intersection." Staff finds that the mass and scale are not proportional to the mass and scale of other structures on the same block face and opposing block face and adjacent property. No other buildings nearby have a similar combination of height and coverage with similar proportions in walls and sheer volume. Subsection 3.5.1(G) Building and Project Compatibility, Building Height Review, subsection (1)(a)3 Neighborhood Scale requires buildings over 40 feet in height to be found "compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass, and building or structure scale to human scale." This standard articulates the noncompliance found by staff, with its reference to the combination of height, length, and mass. The neighborhood contains development from a variety of eras spanning the 1800s to the 2000s. The majority of buildings are one and two stories in height, with the Armstrong Hotel an exception at three stories and DMA Plaza an exception at 11 stories. rm However, no buildings in the adjacent context have the combination of lot coverage, wall length, 0 and height remotely similar to the proposed PDP. E 0 U c Staff finds that the highlighted terms of the standard are not met. D t= 0 a Parking Standards �a Applicable parking standards are found in subsection 3.2.2(K), with a formula for development y within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone. 125 spaces are required, and the a PDP provides the 125 spaces. c a� Building Character and Facades Standards Standards in the Downtown zoning district work in conjunction with General Standards for All Development citywide to require design features that provide visual interest and human scale. Q Packet Pg. 147 6.c Uncommon PDP #150013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015 Page 8 Staff finds that the project complies with applicable building character standards other than height and massing standards, in the Downtown zone district, with the following comments. Downtown Zone District Standards for Building Character: Subsection 4.16(D)(5), Building Character and facades, prohibits long blank walls and glass curtain wall systems, requires buildings to incorporate outdoor spaces such as balconies, terraces and courtyards, and requires high quality materials. Staff finds that the PDP meets the standard with the exception of one standard for building materials which requires a Modification as follows. Modification Request for Exterior Fagade Materials: Subsection 4.16(D)(5)(e) for the Canyon Avenue subdistrict requires that "all street -facing facades shall be constructed of high quality exterior materials for the full height of the building. Such materials, with the exception of glazing, shall include stone, brick, clay units, terra cotta, architectural pre -cast concrete, cast stone, prefabricated brick panels, architectural metals or any combination thereof." The PDP proposes the use of stucco and lap siding on upper levels, which do not comply. These materials are recessed from the lower levels by distances ranging from 9 to 31 feet. These lighter materials are deliberately used at upper recessed levels to help the upper levels visually recede from the lower streetfront facades which are intended to define the scale of the building. Staff finds that these materials are effective in achieving their purpose in this particular case, and if the PDP was to be approved by the decision maker, this Modification would be supported by staff. o E E General Development Standards for Building Character: U c D Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility, requires compatibility with the context of the o surrounding area in terms of building height and scale, massing proportions, design character and building materials. �a co Staff findings of non-compliance regarding height and massing are independent of the quality N design, materials, and detail features of the proposed building. Staff finds the proposed building a design to be in compliance with the components of this standard that address building character and materials. Factors include use of brick, stone, metal, and glass to articulate the College E Avenue fagade into three different building masses, prominent entrances, architectural canopy a and arcade features, cornice features, pattern detailing in all materials, kickplate details, Q storefront windows on ground level, and recessed windows in brick portions of upper levels. Packet Pg. 148 6.c Uncommon PDP #150013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015 Page 9 Finishes and details are designed to respond to the context created by neighboring downtown buildings. Landscaping and Tree Protection Code Section 3.2.1 requires a landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the street, the building, abutting properties, and users on site. The PDP protects existing street trees and adds street trees to fill gaps. A new section of turfgrass parkway will be added where an existing driveway is being removed. Four existing trees on site are to be removed per a tree mitigation plan approved by the City Forester. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.1. Bicycle Parking Space Requirements Code Section 3.2.2(C)(4) requires 260 bicycle parking spaces for the 248 beds plus the commercial space. The PDP provides these required spaces including required enclosed spaces. Site Lighting Code Section 3.2.4 limits light glare and spillover. The proposed lighting consists of complete glare cutoff fixtures on the building in compliance with the standards. Transportation Level of Service A Traffic Impact Study was submitted and accepted by the City's Traffic Operations Department. M Staff finds that the project does not create incremental impacts warranting any changes to the configuration of streets, intersections, and sidewalks. o E NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: 0 U c A neighborhood meeting was held on June 22, 2015. Meeting notes are attached. r. 0 a FINDINGS OF FACT: Staff will provide findings of fact in a final staff report prior to hearing on October 29. y N RECOMMENDATION: a c a� Staff recommends denial of Uncommon PDP #150013 based on standards for building mass, E bulk and scale, and compatibility with historic resources. a Q Packet Pg. 149 6.d DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY September 18, 2015 City of Fort Collins Planning Review C/o Cameron Gloss, Planning Director 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 TRANSMITTAL to: Landmark Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Board RE: 310 S. College Avenue — Uncommon Dear Commission and Board members: On behalf of the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors this letter is submitted in support of the project proposal at 310 S. College Avenue, also known as "Uncommon". The DDA Board conducted a concept review of the project at its regular meeting on September 10, 2015, and was advised that the owner anticipates the submittal of a formal request to the DDA for a tax increment investment in eligible facades and public improvements in the right-of-way later this year. Earlier this year the DDA Board amended its policies and criteria for public -private partnerships to recognize the evolving nature of development occurring in the downtown, which are pre- dominantly infill/new construction projects. This evolution is not unplanned nor is it haphazard in its outcome. The implementation of the City's comprehensive master plan and downtown plan over several decades set the stage for the infilling of vacant and underutilized lots, which characterizes the former Perkin's site and surface parking lot. Looking toward the future, and also being mindful of the past, the DDA Board has expressed its desire to facilitate projects that will: Be appropriate to the context of the different sub -areas of the DDA district; Be enduring with regard to building materials for quality and durability; Be looked at by future generations as recognizable and representative of a building style that is unique in its own era of development; and Avoid the blending of architectural styles or designs that result in architectural el- ements that are faux -historic in appearance or inaccurate for the present era of building. When examining the project concept at 310 S. College during the review, the DDA Board ob- served and noted the following: i d Y ca _ 0 .7 m 0 0 0 ca ma a� E E 0 m a� m 0 U 0 T co E 0 U _ LO Cl) W M v 6.d The site is surrounded by existing buildings that represent many different eras, which creates the comprehensive context for the new building's de- sign. Surrounding the site are buildings constructed in the 1920's, 1960's, 1970's, 1990's, and non -historic remodels that occurred in the early 2000's. These buildings represent a mix of 1-story, 2-story, 3-story, and 11-story heights. The site is on a transitional block and is adjacent to, though not lo- cated in the historic core. m The street -level portion of the proposed building (College Avenue and Olive Street) provides significant articulation and experiences for the pedestrian and fits the scale of downtown Fort Collins. The use of masonry, stone, steel, iron, and glass are enduring and represent quality and durability. The northwest corner of the building (@College Ave. and Olive St.) should be more prominent in stature as are the corners of many buildings, both historic and new, in the downtown. Also, the second floor patio could be moved from the middle of the building /block to the corner of College and Olive to increase the level of engagement between the street intersection and upper floor users of the building. While being mindful of the project's proximity and effort to relate to the scale of the Armstrong Hotel, the new building should be recognizable and representative of its own era of devel- opment and not be left to fade into the background as an unremarkable building. The proposed building is handsome and avoids an undesirable blending of architectural styles or designs that are faux -historic in appearance. We are appreciative of this opportunity to share the DDA Board's thoughts on this project and encourage the thoughtful consideration of these observations in your deliberations. Sincerely, Bevin Parker Board Chair ant Executive Director a� �a _ 0 .7 a� 0 0 0 ca Ma rM E E 0 a� W a� 0 U T 0 T M _ 0 E E 0 U _ D U) C) (O M v Packet Pg. 151 6.e Chris Johnson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hi Chris, Steve Levinger <Steve@thearmstronghotel.com> Thursday, October 01, 2015 9:16 AM Chris Johnson Missy Levinger Re: Armstrong Hotel Flood proofing items High Follow up Flagged Regarding LPC please feel free to share this: Dear LPC, I have met with Chis Johnson and reviewed his preliminary plans for the site located at 310 South College Ave. I believe the proposed residential apartment project will be a very positive addition to our corner at Olive and College Ave. I don't think it will detract or negatively impact the Historic Armstrong Hotel in any way. The intersection is quite wide and there are many trees between our building and the proposed new structures. The design he presented seems to fit our urban environment well and will be a great improvement over the parking lot that currently occupies the corner. I am hopeful that he is able to proceed with a project that appears to be a good fit for downtown. Respectfully, Steve Levinger Owner/Manager Let me know if you need anything else. Steve Levinger The Armstrong Hotel On Oct 1, 2015, at 7:23 AM, Chris Johnson <cjohnson e,ca-studentliving com> wrote: Good morning Steve and Missy, I wanted to reach out and update you on our 310 South College project, since meeting you last month. Al 0 M _ 0 E 0 U M M El it Packet Pg. 152 fi! 4 0 UNCOMMON 310 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 Awdm OWNER'S CERTIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ME ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ME ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN. THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME ONTHIS-DAYOF 20 BY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. NOTARY PUBLIC ADDRESS f" Y PLANNING CERTIFICATE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ONTHIS DAYOF ,20 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES I LEGAL DESCRIPTION I LOT I, UNCOMMON LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP T NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF ARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO (300, 310 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE) SHEETINDEX SHEETk SHEET NAME PDP1 COVER SHEET PDP2 SITE PLAN PDP3 EXTERIOR CONCEPTS PDP 4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS PDP 5 BUILDING ELEVATIONS PDP 6 BUILDING ELEVATIONS PDPT SHADOWANALYSIS PDP8 SHADOWANALYSIS PDP9 VISUALANALYSIS PDP 10 MASSING DIAGRAMS PDP 11 SECTION DIAGRAMS PDP 12 SITE DIAGRAMS PDP 13 CONTEXT DIAGRAMS PDP 14 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS PDP 15 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS PDP 16 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NORTH AUCUITICTUUI® 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozamlToom RESIDENTIAL W Z N W i O z Q OJ WO C7 U Lu J Z O OJ Z O Z: U OL co oW c PROd. NO. 115139 OR DRAWN Oz CHECKED: OZ APPROVED: OZ DATE: 09/0212015 �0 OZARCHITECTUREOZARCHITECTURE ISSUED FOR: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TITLE: COVER SHEET SC SHEET NUMBER PDP 1 I ra aP9.1a 6! F W W ry H F. 0 COLLEGEAVENU E SITE PLAN F= I r-=== 0' W 20' w BIT SE DATA wm_DIPURIGT toy rrNANAcUSE MUUTLFFAMI Ty xcx,^.,. xrruwrsTnuwwT orricE GLE HEIGHT DxED 6STORIESTVfN STORIES AWITIVUBE =CT Loom] USE DATA 3003 Larinner Street MPROVEMENTS x Denver, Colorado 80205 °Ai'(5AT� ALL OF WAY NA NVA NVA phone 303.861.5704 ovuUSE MIA wA IRA www.oza¢h.com loom HOUR) Tom A.Wo Tom A.Wo Tom A.Wo me CHAT FEAR "A 21,200 INDENT SAN THING UNITS UNITS 3 UNITS :o Uxns GAS NEDxwvq 122 )PROTON' 244 SF ITATEXEMPNEF SEGMENT TOTAL Go 675 FINDS 07 1252 SPACES On PROCESSING THEM AN REQUIRING ER 1 FOR BEIxD.UTHIN Iaoa DEA a.Pss� ,V�x�) SUE COMPPUCH PC TRUST 5 To 5 ON CAPE .,a �= ,a=PEP .NLE EDx VAN=PIZE) lREQUIRE SPACES RED SECURED„a ESPEGa aa, SIT SPACES REST] SECURED SPACES RECRD 12 SPACES ARNMOFMIC .DnDESECURED, SPACESPI FANAQ SPAaexPAxx GG�GEAT�EL1HERACKA Hs (20aEKURN) FLOOD PROOFING LEGEND FLOOD PRCC£ DOOR A FLOOD PROOF ROOM NOTES FLOOD ELEVATION IS 49% T FLOOD PROOF ELEVATION REQUIRED IS 4MR r(W FREEBOARD). A FLOOD PLAN USE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR EACH STRUCTURE AND SIZE CONSTRUCTION ELEMEM IN ME FLOODPLAN. AFEWFLOOD PROOFING CERTIFICATE MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF CCCUPAI RESIDENTIAL W D Z N W i O z Q OJ WO c� WU G J Z Z O OJ U Z O Z: U OL co oW c PROd. NO. 115139 DO DRAWN Oz CHECKED: OZ APPROVED: OZ DATE: 09/0212015 0 OZARCHITECTURE ISSUED FOR: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TIRE: SITE PLAN SCALE: SHEET NUMBER PDP 2 PacFeT P9151 fir 1'1 kkd Poo� oP c'NCEPTS OUTDOOR DINING & STREETSCAPE AT GROUND *I r•••••• ••r • PA 2 ••• 'f a:. �1 I l � �l Ohl Aw DIVISION 4.16 - DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (D) (D) Building Standards. (5) Building Character and Facades (b) Outdoor activity. Buildings shall promote and accommodate outdoor activity with balconies, arcades, terraces, decks and courtyards for residents' and workers' use and interaction, to the extent reasonably feasible. DIVISION 4.16 - DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (D) (E) Site Design Standards. (1) Site Design. (c) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center: Plazas. For buildings located within the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center subdislncts that are four (4) stones or taller, ground Moor open space shall be provided that is organized and arranged to promote both active and passive activities for the general public. Such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to the public and must include features that express and promote a comfortable human sense of proportionality between the individual and the environment, whether natural or man-made. LEGEND A ROOF DECKING (2,650 SF) B RAISED STEEL PLANTING BEDS (2,500 SF) C PLANTING BOX D PATIO FURNITURE LEGEND A PLAZA/ OUTDOOR SEATING(1200 SF) B PASEO (1700 SF) C RECESSED STOREFRONT W/ CAFE TABLES (200 SF) D BICYCLE RACKS BUILDING ENTRANCE I' ' iu __ 1 SECOND FLOOR EXTERIOR CONCEPTS PLAN FIRST FLOOR EXTERIOR CONCEPTS PLAN srA EMM A AACNITIVIIBE 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com RESIDENTIAL W Z N W i O z Q OJ WO cW 2 U G J U) Z O OJ Z O Z: U OL Coo oW ch FROM NO. 115139 OR DRAWN OZ CHECKED: OZ APPROVED: OZ DATE: 09/0212015 b OZARCHITECTURE ISSUED FOR: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TIRE: EXTERIOR CONCEPTS SGNT SHEET NUMBER PDP 3 Pw,arq is a 1 I _t It It Pool B ,ONE, MASONRY -BUFF PAINTED STEEL DIVISION 4.16 - DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (D) GRAY STUCCO FORT COLLINS POST OFFICE (D) Building Standards. (4) Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over three [31 stories). (a) Old City Center: The fourth story of a building shall be set back at a thirty- five -degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the public street frontage. See Figure 19. (b) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center: 1. Base. Taller buildings (over three [3] stories) shall have a base portion consisting of one (1) or two (2) stories, clearly defined by a prominent, projecting cornice or roof, fenestration, different materials and different colors from the remainder of the building. If the base portion is two (2) stories, the ground floor shall be further differentiated by fenestration and other detailing. 2. Upper Floor Setbacks. Upper portions of taller buildings shall be further set back above the base in such a manner as to contribute to a significant aspect of the building design. Upper floor setbacks shall be determined by an emphasis on pedestrian scale in sidewalks and outdoor spaces, compatibilitywith the scale and massing of nearby buildings, preservation of key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces, and preservation of views in order to ensure sensitivity to the historic context and scale of downtown and to maintain a degree of open sky as part of the visual character of the City. n WEST ELEVATION - SOUTH COLLEGE AVE. � _ 1.4` rE., H11♦1il 1111-I 111111 111 11l igC1FIJ111-:1.11 ■� 111211I C1 111. ■ �I ICh 111 �111 111 -111 ICI '11 P1 111 u gill �1rI1I1It•rIrI1I1la _��.�� - - rear oil ICII I�IiiII� It I Fair �jIj � I _ 1 � �1 NORTH ELEVATION - OLIVE ST. "lligilD 3132•_1•L• MAX. ALLOWABLE 185' 0" ROOD LEVELL66 16P-8" LEVY 150. _ D" - L 139'9, -4" EVES 128' 8" EVEL2 O r u•_ in MAX. ALLOWABLE 185' 0 ROOF 171' - 4 Ll V 60' 6 150' 1 IT 0" LEVELT4 139'-C EVEL3 128' 8 L FST-0"18,-IT Ll EVES 00' 0" MATERIAL LEGEND A BRICK - DARK ORANGE B STONE/MASONRY-BUFF C PAINTED STEEL D BRICK - BURNT UMBER E VINYLWINDOW F STOREFRONT SYSTEM G BRICK - LIGHT ORANGE H BRICK - DARK BROWN J LAP SIDING - DARK BROWN K LAP SIDING - BEIGE L STUCCO -LIGHT GRAY M STUCCO -LIGHT ORANGE N COLORED CONCRETE M WMV if ARCHITIVUBC 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com RESIDENTIAL W It Z N W III i O Z Q Do WO C� wU C J Z O of () U _J Z �U U) O W FSOJ.NO- 11513990 D 'd(N. OZ CKE- OZ APPROVED. OZ DATE 0910212015 G OZARCHRECTURE UNCOMMON ISSUED FOR: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TRUE: BUILDING ELEVATIONS SCALE: SHEET NUMBER PDP 4 DARK ORANGE BRICK LARIMER COUNTY BUILDING Building and Project Compatibility EAST ELEVATION -ALLEY L32=1{P STOREFRONT I PAINTED STEEL OLD TOWN SQUARE Building Materials. (1) General. Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in materials. (F) Building Color. Color shades shall be used to facilitate blending into the neigh- borhood and unifying the development. The color shades of building materials shall draw from the range of color shades that already exist on the block or in the adjacent neighborhood. l` SOUTH ELEVATION -ALLEY EVE 86 1fiV _LEVEL01 50'-" LEVEL�4 139'-4" LEVELS8' 12 LEVELU22 118'-a' LEVEL�1 -iDD -a MATERIAL LEGEND A BRICK - DARK ORANGE B STONE/MASONRY-BUFF C METALPANEL D BRICK - BURNT UMBER E VINYLWINDOW F STOREFRONT SYSTEM G BRICK - LIGHT ORANGE H BRICK - DARK BROWN J LAP SIDING - DARK BROWN K LAP SIDING - BEIGE L STUCCO - LIGHT GRAY M STUCCO - LIGHT ORANGE N COLORED CONCRETE M WMV , ARCHITIVUBC 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 w .otnarch.com Z 0 5� L O U RESIDENTIAL W Z N W � i O Q Do WO (7 U J U) J Z OJ O �U D O� Cl) O O W FGOJ.NO_ 11513990 D-O"N OZ �H-CKE- OZ APPROVED. OZ DATE. 0910212015 G OZARGIFFECTURE UNCOMMON ISSUED FOR: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TRUE: BUILDING ELEVATIONS SCALE: SHEET NUNT-R PDP 5 Packet Pg. 15] fif E ARMSTRONG HOTEL 3 STORIES +/- 40'-0" — Historic and Cultural Resources TYPICAL DOWNTOWN STOREFRONT HEIGHT �I �1 g�ii TYPICAL DOWNTOWN � COMPATIBILITY DIAGRAM - _THE HOTEL RETAIL BAY SPACING +/- 25'-0" T r New Construction. (2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cor nicer, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Windowpatterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. See Figure 6. (3) The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block. 1 Building and Project Compatibility Building Height Review. (1) Special Height Review/Modifications. (a) Review 3. Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass and building or structure scale to human scale. Building and Project Compatibility gilding Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, :iculated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing block face or cater -corner face at the nearest intersection. (See Figures 7a and 7b.) Building and Project Compatibility Building Height Review. (1) Special Height Review/Modifications. (a) Review 1. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as re0ecling sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and shading ofwindows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building mass or redesigning a building shape. m r �w AUCUITECTUUE 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.rxxn RESIDENTIAL W D Z N W Q Z Q 00 O LLJ O c� LU G J Z Z O of U Z Z:U Z ZH OL co p (Z) LL co DOW NO. 115139 DO DRAWN OZ CHECKED: OZ APPROVED: OZ DATE: 09/0212015 b OZARCHITECTURE UNCOMMON ISSUED FOR: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TIRE: BUILDING ELEVATIONS - COMPATIBILITY DIAGRAMS SCALE: SHEET NUMBER PDP 6 PacFe1 P9153 F. 0 1•r 1 1'r 1 1'r 1 "'I •�. I��7f'.' 1 ° ■ ■ lei!=- Di �. ■.f '� A �: fll Lr■�� -/ , ■ .i I.J � II„� ■L �� �II;f 1L 0 1 � 1'r ■ � 1'r . � 1-r ■ ■ 1i "- ■ ■ + �- ■ ■ i I ■ LIL2T rrj ■ I��T — I � � "��� � 1� Ail r I © . • 1 El E)_ _ I ©SHADOW 1 m® ANCNITIETUHE 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 wwW.ozarch.com RESIDENTIAL W Z� Z N W Lr) z Q OJ WO c C7 U LU G J Z O OJ O Z � U co OO (Z) W co PROd. NO. 115139 D0 DRAWN Oz CHECr,ED: Oz APPRCVED: OZ DATE: 00I0212015 0 OZARCHITECTURE UNCOMMON ISSUED FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TITLE: SHADOW ANALYSIS SCALE: SHEET NUMBER PDP 7 4 0 n O .• 1 A_ © .. 1 `h it 11 y ql .•, .YII 1 m rA EV A AACNITIETUBE® 3003 Larinner Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 wwW.ozarch.com RESIDENTIAL W Z N W Lr) z Q Tp O WO C7 U LU J Z O OJ Z O Z: U OL co oW co PROd. NO. 115139 D0 DRAWN Oz CHECKED: OZ APPRCVED: OZ DATE: 00I0212015 0 OZARCHITECTURE UNCOMMON ISSUED FOR: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TITLE: SHADOW ANALYSIS SCALE: SHEET NUMBER PDP 8 l , I s --glow �. ld� t .•�- a . r, i 1� WW', ... fif 4 -Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over three [3] stories). (a) Old City Center. The fourth story of a building shall be set back at a thirty -five -degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the public street frontage. See Figure 19. (b) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center: 1. Base. Taller buildings (over three 131 stories) shall have a base portion consisting of one (1) or two (2) stories, clearly defined by a prominent, projecting comice or roof, fenestration, different materials and different colors from the remainder of the building. If the base portion is two (2) stones, the ground floor shall be further di fer- entiated by fenestration and other detailing. 2. Upper Floor Setbacks. Upper portions of taller buildings shall be further set back above the base in such a manner as to contribute to a significant aspect of the building design. Upper floor setbacks shall be determined by an emphasis on pedestrian scale in sidewalks and outdoor spaces, compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings, preservation of key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces, and preservation of views in order to ensure sensitivity to the historic con- text and scale of downtown and to maintain a degree of open sky as part of the visual character of the City. NO BUIM D ARE 4"Story ----- Floor Plane 3"Smry 2�Sfory 1'Story v Z 3 WIN Fourth Story Setback in the Old City Center Subdistrict FIGURE 19 3 OVERALL MASSING DIAGRAM - NORTH/SOUTH e Total Height Additional Height Above 5-6 Stories, 5-6 Stories, g5' +/- � With Design To Mitigate The �� +�--- Additional Height and Mass Landscaped Ground Floor Setback �, Additional Setbacks Above Base Portion to Mitigate Height And Mass Base Portion Of Building Property Combined Ground Floor And Line 4 Upper Floor Setbacks To Mitigate Mass And Height LEVEL6 +/- 61' LEVEL5 +/- 50' LEVEL2 +/- 18' MAX. ALLOWABLE 85' ROOF +/- 72' r i � I Additional Setbacks Above Base Portion to Mitigate Height And Mass J Base Portion of Building Property Line Combined Ground Floor and Upper Floor Setbacks to Mitigate Mass and Height � TYPICAL BUILDING MASSING Z OVERALL MASSING DIAGRAM - EAST/WEST srA EMM A AACUITICTUUE® 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.rbrtl RESIDENTIAL W Z N W i O z Q tp 0 WO (D U J Z O of U Z O Z: U OL co U O W co FROM NO. 115139 DO DRAWN Oz CHECKED: OZ APPROVED: OZ DATE: 0910212015 0 OZARCHITECTURE UNCOMMON ISSUED FOR: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TITLE: MASSING DIAGRAMS SCALE: SHEET NUMBER PDP 10 Park8 R1,61 = ■ IMIIMiMVMI �i CONTEXT MAP 6.1 Y F. 0 STREET SECTION STREET SECTION M� ❑6 ■;5e El W EE Ai6 Figure 18 5 HEIGHT LIMIT ZONING MAP ARCNIiECiUflE 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 v .omrch.com All RESIDENTIAL W Z C WV > o Z Q o0 W O J Z Z O (D U O Z U O0� cl)O oLL co PROd. NO. 115139 On DRAWN Oz CHECKED: OZ APPROVED: OZ DATE: 0010212015 0 OZ ARCHITECTURE ISSUE FOR'. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PIAN SHEET TITLE: SITE DIAGRAMS SCALE: SHEET NUMBER PDP 12 Packet P9161 6.1 FIRSWT T COLLINS NUEPR <S152 FT WER�RESRMITOT EFOS COLLEGEAvE F12411 T 05FT ESWiI OCKAWA AECE\VALOCKSAWAY • � � + AIL rsI, OLD CITY CENTER MAX. ALLOWABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE 4 STORIES / 56 ET. I H W P, 0 CANYON AVE �I �124 MAGNOLIAST ORY±]fi FT 5STORY+63R -::�- HEIGHT & MASS CONTEXT DIAGRAM - DISTRICT LEVEL WESTORy ST 11 S STORY SFT 5 BLOCKS AWAY EXISTING 11 STORY RESIDENTIAL TOWER BEYOND (1 BLOCK EAST) CANYON AVE. SUBDISTRICT MAX. ALLOWABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE CANYON AVE. SUBDISTRICT� 7-9 STORIES / 115 FT. I ----------- MAX. ALLOWABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE \\ 5-6 STORIES / 85 FT. \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U) I a I I I I J I -_ 0 � I I OHEIGHT & MASS CONTEXT DIAGRAM - NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL m rNmV, AUCUITECTUUE 3003 Larinner Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 wwW.ozarch.com RESIDENTIAL W Z N W i O Z Q 00 Lu c0 WO G J Z Z O OJ U Z O �O OL co (Z) ILL co PROd. NO. 115139 DO DRAWN Oz CHECKED: OZ APPROVED: OZ DATE: 09/0212015 �C OZARCHITECTUREOZARCHITECTURE ISSUED FOR: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TITLE: CONTEXT DIAGRAMS SCALE: SHEET NUMBER PDP 13 i ParMP9.,65 VIEW FROM WEST VIEW FROM WEST -TREES HIDDEN flit Al w ENLARGED SOUTH RETAIL lit ENLARGED MIDDLE RETAIL ENLARGED NORTH RETAIL mrA EMM A AUEUITEETUUE 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com RESIDENTIAL W D Z N W i O z Q OJ WO C7 U Lu J Z O of Z 0 Z: U OL co oW c PROd. NO. 115139 D0 DRAWN Oz CHECKED: OZ APPROVED: OZ DATE: 00I0212015 b OZARCHITECTURE UNCOMMON ISSUED FOR: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TITLE: EXTERIOR RENDERINGS SCALE: SHEET NUMBER PDP 14 I 6.1 e I f � l 4 -T�Iry Lit or TT i -.T` ` P VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST - TREES HIDDEN INIlLk y r� ENLARGED MIDDLE RETAIL ENLARGED NORTH RETAIL ffi r �w RUCUITIUUE 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 w .ozarch.com 41,54 RESIDENTIAL W Z W N LO Z Q 00 W O J Z Z O OUJ U O Z U O0� cl)O oLL co LOW NO. 115139 D0 DRAWN OZ CHECKED: Oz APPROVED: Oz DATE: 09/0212015 0 OZARCHITECTURE ISSUED FOR'. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TITLE. EXTERIOR RENDERINGS SCALE SHEET NUMBER PDP 15 F E PacketPg. 161 fi! F. UNCOMMON — BUILDING A Y I -jj'� f i � �l r UNCOMMON - BUILDING B RETAIL PODIUM WITH ROOFUNE FASCIA AND SIGNAGE/AWNINGS RELATING TO DOWNTOWN BUILDINGS -RETAIL STEPPED BACK FROM STREETAND SIDEWALKAT FIRST LEVEL WITH BIKE RACKS RETAIL MODULE BAY SPACING+/-25'TO MATCH DOWNTOWN RETAIL STOREFRONTS AND CAFE TABLES ALONG SIDEWALK STOREFRONT ENTRANCES WITH DISPLAY WINDOWS, SOLID PANEL BASE/KICKPLATES, • CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE, RECESSED STOREFRONT ENTRANCES THAT PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST AND TRANSOM WINDOWS OVER DOORWAYS TO MAXIMIZE NATURAL LIGHT • STEP BACKAT 2ND FLOOR FOR RESIDENTIAL AMENITY SPACE, INCLUDING ROOFTOP DECKS HIGH QUALITY EXTERIOR MATERIALS THAT REFLECT TYPICAL DOWNTOWN CONSTRUCTION AND ACCESS TO COURTYARDS BUILDING STEP BACKAT RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON LEVELS 2,3,4 TO PROVIDE RELIEF AT STREET • FURTHER STEP BACKAT LEVELS 5 AND 6 TO KEEP MASS AWAY FROM S. COLLEGE AVENUE ADDITIONAL BUILDING STEP BACKAND DIFFERENT MATERIALS AT LEVELS 5AND 6 TO MINIMIZE IMPACT • SEPARATION FROM BUILDINGS AB B TO PROVIDE VISUALAND SOLAR ACCESS TO OUTDOOR TRELLIS AND SUN SHADE STRUCTURES AT ROOF LINE FOR SHADING, AS WELLAS VISUAL INTEREST COURTYARDS AT LEVEL UNCOMMON — BUILDING A UNCOMMON — BUILDING C • RETAILAT LEVEL 1 THAT UTILIZES HIGH QUALITY EXTERIOR MATERIALS IN WAY THAT UNIQUELY IDENTIFIES RESTAURANTAND BUILDING LOBBY SPACES • BUILDING SET BACKALONG ENTIRE SOUTH END OF SITE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC PLAZATO SERVE AS AN OUTDOOR ACTIVITY SPACE, AND CONNECTALLEYAND S. COLLEGE AVENUE • BUILDING MASS CUT BACKAT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GROUND FLOOR TO PROVIDE OUTDOOR DINING SPACE, TAKEADVANTAGE OF SOLAR, AND CONNECT TO PUBLIC PLAZA • RESIDENTIAL UNITSAT LEVELS 2,3A STEPPED BACK FROM RETAILALONG STREET FRONTAGE TO PROVIDE RELIEF FROM STREET AND ACCESS TO SOLAR, AND STEPPED BACK FURTHER AT LEVELS 5 AND 6 • BUILDING STEPPED BACKAT LEVEL TO ACCOMMODATE CANOPY OF EXISTING ELM TREE • SUN SHADE STRUCTURES AND VARYING ROOF LINES HELP TO VISUALLY BREAK DOWN MASS ALONG STREET FRONT MLl P9 ui iii� iupu ila� � mmi mpii oa - min UNCOMMON —BUILDING B _1 UNCOMMON — BUILDING C m r �w AACUITECTUUE 3003 Larinner Street Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 www.ozarch.com RESIDENTIAL W Z N W i O z Q OJ WO c� W G J Z Z O of U Z z:U OL co p (Z) W co PROd. NO. 115139 D0 DRAWN Oz CHECNED: Oz APPROVED: OZ DATE: 09/0212015 0 OZARCHITECTURE ISSUED FOR: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET TITLE: EXTERIOR RENDERINGS SCALE: SHEEP NUMBER PDP 16 0 -- -- -- -- --- --- -- I A e° a° m m e° a° a m e° a. m m e. a° a •° a° m o° a. °.° o° a° m a° AWITIVUBE 3003 Larimer Street • °^° Denver, Colorado 80205 phone 303.861.5704 z" �F OFF OF OFFL'FFFFF �^FF [IFF www.ozarch.com IIJJ ° OFF r❑ �F60 g OFF OFF OFF ©FF OFF OFOFF OFF N . MKK) OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF OFF .W ' CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. / err ❑© D D �FF �FF �FF �F�FF FF©F m o, ➢N I; L� W s ,. L.F,� .I "° ➢➢• ➢➢• N ➢➢• ➢➢• i O •,nDO •„ Z W O 2 GRAPHICAL PHOTOMETRIC PLAN m m m m m m a, m m W U fi, c¢ a° o" o° m a° G J Z m m e° o° m m a° o° m o° a° o" m m a° o° a° m a° o° O O J e° Z Z: 0 e COLLEGE AVENUE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN O O _ D�co O W = co E F PROd. NO. 115139 DO DRAWN Oz CHECKED: OZ APPROVED: Oz s DATE: aslaz,zDls Lummaire Locations L�timn Aim F 1 CC a67.50 a2.00 11.W 11.00 0.00 0.°0 - 7 0 1 0 O.°0 Description 2 CC -116.s0 -12.00 11.W 11.00 0.00 0.00-116.50 -11.00 0.00 -x Min Max/Min Avg/Min 3 CC -88.s -12.00 11.W 11.00 0.W 0.00 -a8.50 -11.00 0.00 a CE -39.s° -12.00 llm 11.00 a.°° 0.00 39.50 -11.00 0.00 0 OZARCHITECTURE Calc Zone #1 + 1.0 fc 34.2 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A 12.50 -12.00 11.W 11.000.00 12.60 ".°° °.°° 6 CC sa.W -12.00 um 11.00 0.W 0.00 59.00 -11.00 0.00 CE 6s.75 -33.00 um 11.00 a.°° 0.00 65.75 -32.00 0.00 UNCOMMON 8 CC 6s.75 -60.00 llm 11.00 0.W 0.00 65.75 -59.00 0.00 Schedule 9 CC 67.25-100.25 llm 11.00 0.W 0.00 67.25 -99.25 0.00 ISSUED FORSymbol Label : Number 10 CC ss25 az1.25 11.W 11.00 TW 0.00 R.zs-120.zs 0.00 PRELIMINARY L L' DEVELOPMENT PIAN 11 CC -2425-193.75 11.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 -2425-192.75 0.00 16 INTENSE LIGHTING I1F506MHST39-FL STAINLESS STEEL WALL CYLINDER 45 Philips CDM-T 1 Lamps 3300 0.9 39 12 CC -sa.se-143.7511.00 11.00TW 0.00 -54.50-142.750.00 SHEET TIRE: G CC DEGREE FLOOD REFLECTOR 3 1 13 1 CC TOM-143.5) 1 11.00 1 11.00 1 TW 10.001 W.00 -142.50 0.00 LIGHTING PWJ 14 CC-169.5)-10z.0O 11.W 11.00 TW 0.00-169.50-101.00 0.00 15 CC -169.75 661.25 um 11.00 TW 0.00 a69.75 -60.25 0.00 4 Dthonia Lighting LONG, 35/10 L06AR 1000LM BOCRI 3500K 6" LED LED 1 1088.769 0.9 17.97 16 CC 61.m-145.25 11.00 11.00 TW 0.00 61.50-144.4s 0.00 SCALE O DD COMMERCIAL DOWNLIGHT 1 DD 38.75 ax7.0O 11L0 11.00 O.W 0.00 38.75 Q47.00 0.00 SHEET NUMBER 2 DD sas0 az6.75 11M 11.00 0.W 0.00 SE50 az6.75 0.00 3 DD 50.75-138.75 11M 11.00 0.W 0.00 SE75-138.75 0.00 e 4 DD 38.75-138.75 11M 11.00 0.W 0.00 38.7s-13e.7s 0.00 L 1 c `a H (HERE UDIS1300 01 UOI)P1)uxmmu3GN-0601103'S OLC-uumuuNuR: Sted R01d GN®spueT 4uGm931ORtl GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES 1 PLANT QUALITY ALL MARY MATERIAL SHALL BE A GRADE OR NO I GRADE ME -OF ANY DEFEC-S OF NORMAL MALTH, HEIGHT LEAD DENSITY AND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO ME SPENDS AM DEFINED By THE AMERICAN GASIFICATION OF NURSERYMEN AVON STANDARDS ALL TREES SHALL BE BALL AND BURLAP OR EQNSALENT • I RRI GAT ION ALL LANDSCAPE STAGE WITHIN TTE SITE INCLUDING TURF. SHRUB B_DS AND -RE E AREAS SHALL BE I RE AGE ED WITH AN AUTOMATIC I REACT ON SYSTEM DO 'LAN MOST BE RES I EWE D AND NOTE DVED By THE IBM OF FORT -OLLINS NAME UP THERE DEPARTMENT PRI DD TO THE SATCHEL OF A BJ I DING PERVIF ALL _JRF AREAS SHALL BE BANKON SYSTEM ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TRE-S INCLUDING IN GATED SEED AREAS SHOT _ - RIPHRH_K E°TR$E>TIO�s:EVO -ABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED By T-E Cm xnH THE VACATION PLANS THE GREAT ON SYSTEM STALL BE ADJUSTED TO ME-T THE WATER SEQUIR-KIENTS OF TLE IND VIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL • INSTALLATION AND GUARANI A L LANDSOKKING SHALL BE DELAYED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURAL PRACLUCES INA MANNED DESIGNED To ENCOURAGE CUSP BEAR ISTMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH AULANDSCAPING OREAMPTASEMUS-BEETY-RINS A LED OR THE INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WHO AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER 0 CREDIT PEDFORMANCE BOND OR ESCROW ACC DUET FOG 125% OF THE VALUATION D THE KFATERk-S AND LAGEOR PRI DR TO ISSUANCE OF A C-RTIFICATEDFOCCJPANC FOR ANY BUILDING IN SLOT STAGE • MAINTENANCE TGEESANDVEGETATIDN GRADE SHAPELESS ENCES SAYS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS AM THESE FINAL PLAINS SHALL BE CON31DERED AS ELEMENTS D T�EPR�EC-INTH-SANIEKIANN-RASPA�KING BULDINFEA EAMSANDO HERSTEDETALS IMPACT COAST GRADOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPON31BLE FDG THE DEATHLY MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION ALLLANDACAPING SHOT B_ MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE PESTS AQEDSANI AND ALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTI RES SUCH AS FENCES AND BRUTE SHALL BE REPAIRED AND THESE PLAINS TREES AND S-RE-T LIGHTS 15 FELT MERGER ORNAMENTAL JEBEL AND STREETLIGHTS 10 FELT MERGED TRIES AND PUBLIC WATER SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MA I LINES OFEET HALOGEN MEEK AND PULL C NAME SAN FACT AND STORKI SEASER SERVICE LINES 4FEETIMETWEENEHRJESANDRUBLI-WA EGANDSANI BE AND STDGV SCABS LINES NFL s�� aGE-rsH.0 BE PLACED n MINIMUM EIGHT i8)F-E AWAY DECIDING EDGES OFDW vnvsumn sPEawC as ymRKN 10 PLACEMENT OF ALL HANDSCAKING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE AM THE SIGHT D S ANNE GFURNERIN AS SPECIFIED By ME CITY OF FORT COLLINS NOSTRUCTURESOR LANDSCAPE EL-M-NE GREATER THAN 24SLASH BE ALLOWED ASMIN THE SOFT DISTANCE THOUNDLE OR EASEMENTS ANTH TTE EXCEPTION OF D-C DI TREES PROV DEDYNATTLE LOOKS- BRANCH SAMMAST6 FROM GRADE ANY FENCES BILLS THE SCOTT DISTANCE TRIANOB OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT M DGE THAN 42- IN 11 COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING W17HIN KETT D WAYS STREET MEDIANS AND MAP IN CIRCLES ADJACENT TO C DAMON OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE Dti_IAu Poesxcw REMOVAL ON ALL SEGMENT STRE-31DEWALKS AND ON A_DPnaaAYS PRIVATE DRIVES AND PARKING AREAS N THIN TH=_DeE-OM_NT. 12 HANDSCAKING ALVIN RIGHT D WAS STREE- MEDIANS AND -RAFF- CIRCLES ADJAC_NT TO RES DENTAL LONG ARE R-QUIRED TO BE MANDA NED By THE PROPERTY ORTHE 13 HE DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE THAT THE JIM LANDSCAPE PLAN IS COULD GATED AM ALL OTTER F CAL PLAN BY M NE SO THAT THE PROPOSE N P= D G I�S ED DRAINI AND OVER DEVE CEMENT MPRDVEVENTS DD NOT CONFLISTGATH NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATIONAND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE EL -IN -NT I TO PLAN 14 MINOR CTANGES IN SP-CES AND PLANT LDCATIONG LAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED By SITE CONDITIONS OF 'LAM AVAILABILITY PLANT LIST SPECIES AND QUANTITIES LLUBTANATED STALL BE PROVIDED ALCHANG-SOFP�NTSPECI��DLO�TONMU3T�V.�l�ENAPPR��BYTHECIW PRIDSTOINSTALLABON 15 ALL CANTING BLUE SLASH BE MULCHED TO A MINIMJV DEPTH OF THREE INCHES STREET TREE NOTES 1 A PERMIT MUST B_ OBTAINED FROM THE CM FORES-ED BEFORE ANY TRE-S DD SHELLS AS NOTED ON TVIS PLAN ME MATCH PRUNED OR N ME PUBLIC SPECIES TO BE PLAGUED REMOVEDRIGULTOFWAL MIS NO-MES EDGES BETAKEN THE S DENAMAND CURB ANS AND OTHER TY PROP-Rr' APPROVE ION � _ _Ow.GCODEVGLELY TO CITAT�S PEROT otil�IONG)AMAYARESULT IN REP�ACNG OR R-LDCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON -EB-IFICAT- OF OCCUPANCY SHOT B_P_R ARMED ETA ALI FORT COLL CA LICENSED ARBORS WHERE R-QUIRED A CODE STREET -REES STALL BE SUED GDAMPLATTEDBYTHEDEVEL USING A QUA IFIED LANDSCAPE -DETRACTOR 4 ME DEVELOPER SHALL RE'LACE DEAD DR D ING SMELT TREES AMER PLARMING MY FINAL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND ACCEPTABLE GAME CEO OF COUP COLLINS FORESTRY D V1310N ALL S-REET JEBEL IN THE PSOJECT MOST BE ED BLUSHED AM AN APPROVED SPECIES AND OF OLDSMOBILE MND71ON PLAN TO 5 SUBJECT -0 APPROVAL By THE CITY FORES-ED - STRE-T TREE LOCCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED TO BAN DMMODATE DRIVENNAY LOCATIONS, UJILITY SEPARLICTIONS Plant List CIY REM CaW E BOT1 LwME IF1Mf mm RRE MTLLLA NOTES IT TREES- ] + aVNCEo, N4LL0RNIC1eo Wl 1 111% BoaELI:ER, sFM1npi 1Migtlen TLw1 A:RnyW'SwStlen' YJ xs' ruI. EB 81RNOTIf LADER NiRK LEADER SAILINCH)M owr El x MIN, MCI LITRE LIME MMIBONN IIII hI3wi(ie' AD w TOWNS 4RiN�]R1M( r8 LEIVER TRFFB. e BAOLI O, WF110R/NCIEDW4 OOUM x nM H YPNERE TREE BNIrp MCMb x0' xC 1 9TTW(MRTRUN6CENIRK BE MEMBER E M.]% WALE CRIMRCNSENIRV IOTNAV A:spMYwbM'unwn SW✓ aY IY 1T" BE RNAILED, v.F11RRauGEO v✓1 S1RVtlRlIMANB(FMRAL LE%DGR Landscape Legend SOLVE IRRIGATED TURF BLUEGRASSBLENDSCO 2533SF RATWNGZONE STEEL EIX£R, ROUNDED TOP 0 E)USTING TREES WARE, TYP. NOTE: NOTE TIE WIRE BETWEEN THE STAKE NOTE. CEDAR MULCH PNDAHETREEMUSTHAVESLACK CLEAR MULCH TREE TREERINGSHPLL �L 1l RING9NLLBEWDIA BE3c BIA �„\1I �I1�/� .o«I...Rw I GROMMETED NYLON STRAP, TOP. PLAN TIEGRC METEDNYLONSTRAPBTOSTAKEWRHWIRE. WIRE TOP OF RWT CROWN TO EGGS SHALL PE BENT BACKTO ELIMINATE BURNS AND WME WC BE HIGHER THAN PIPE ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF WIRE FORNSUALPND SAFETY FINISH GRADE TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE P HIGHER THAN FINISH GRACE Y MULCH TREEBI0RIFBE TWO (2)T-LOST SLOWER PER TRUI TREE NNISHGRPLE Y MULCH — — FINISH GRADE p W - EMOVE ABLE CAGEPNNORTWINEOPEN BUREAU 8� "+{ rAMOUNDMUNK COT B REMOVETOP TOOK BURLAPMIN. LOW RELEPSEEERTIUZERTABLET(TOP.) 12"MIN. 1YMIN., BACIffILL W/X3 NATNE BOIL81/d 18"MIN.,i TOP WE GREATER COMPOST. THORWGHLYWATER ilP 17 THArvOIAaF SETTLE RW B SECTION EXISTINGSAL SECTION NOTE: WI RE BASIRIS AND TlMNE SHNL BE COMPIETELY REMOVED PRIM TO TREE INSTALLATION. DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL CONIFER TREE PLANTING DETAIL O PLANTER WRE TYP. NOTE: THE WIRE BETWEEN THE STAKE AND AHE MEE MUST FLAN E STACK OMITS OF STRUCTURAL SOIL C GROMMETED NYLON STRAP, TYP. PLAIN M OROMMETED NYLON STRAPSTO STAKE WITH WIRE. WIRE ENDS SHALL BE BENT BSCKTO ELIMINATE BURRSPND WHITE PAC RPEALONG ENTIRE LENGTH C£ WINE FORNSUPLPND SAFETY TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE I"HIGHER THAN FINISH GRADE KEEP GUY MAKERS ORNE THREE (3) T-POSTS PER TREE FOR TREES WER6 IN HEIGHT. ORNE TWO Q) TFOSTS FOR TREES IN NEI GUT OR MAN SPACE - ANCHORS EQUALLY AROUND TRUNK AVOIDDAMAGEMBRPNCHES. S REMOVEWIRECAGEAND/ORTWINE OPENBURIAP 80 PROUNDTRUNK CRTBREMOVETOP1OOFBURIAP Q SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TOP.) SEFIAE EXISTING SOIL NOTE WINE BASKETS AND TWINE SHALL BE WMPLETELY I.T�3.T,e P. ten,* HIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEAMMAND CURB MEDAYSANDONTHERCITY PROPERTY a COLUNS DESUWm- ATON(REGTioNEa l)a DMA�TEo RESULT wRPPUDmGOR SCHEDULING MEE AND A HOLD ON Hydrozone Table ZONE AREA WATER USE GALLONS MODERATE WE ED 10 CAUSE 4400 GOP LOW AT) BE 3GAUSF I AT) FAIL ASS BE 5,��L MERGED TREE PROTECTION NOTES 1 ALL TREE PROTECTION AND REPLACEMENT RE AN I REM ENTS IN LUC 3 2 IF G SHALL BE POLY) NED EXIST NOTRE A SHALL BE I MIEN70PIPD ALL [SHOULD MEES IN THE 'OTENTA CONS—RUCH ION I MPAC_ EDGE SHALL BE CLOSE RED AND DENT FIE D By SEED I ES SZE CONDITION INTENT TO SAVE OR REMOVE AND KI IT GAT ION 2 ALL TREE PRUNING RE DUVAL AND PROTECTION SHALL ADHERE TO THE SEAT I DEMENTS FOUND I THE CITY OF FORT COL INS DOES MANAGELDEATSTANDAFIDS AND BEST MANAGAGENTPRACTNES CAN UAL ATOLL GAS APPROVED BY ME C IT MANI MARCH 31 2310 4 TH-CRTICALRODTZONEOFEACJ BABY CA TREE D-SIGNATED TO BE PSESERVED SHALL BE PROT-CME) S D THAT SOIL -OLFACTION DOES N BY OCCUR THS ALL INCLUDE R-STRICHING GAT PIRELLI USE AND GAMBIA STORAGE IN THE AN THAT ROOT ZONE OF GAUT THE- AVD D CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS NFENEVERPOSSeLE ALLGERADING AFFABLY AND PAVING LEVELS BLOT DBECONTOUR-DSUFFCENTLYTO COMMANDS CUTS SHOULD B_ SMOKY FLUSH AND -OVPLETED VERY QUICKLY AMER ROOT EXPOSURE OCCURS ONCE THE ROO- CULTURE S -OMP ETE HIM -DATE JCOGERTHEEXPDSEDRODTTISSJE PONT GOOD SOIL AND THEN WATER THE AREA TO VAST ROOT EXPLORE, ION TR_E 'ROTECT ON STALL BE BE- JP AND IMPLEMENTED PRIDE TO CONSTRUCTION TREE PROJECTION SHALL INCORPORA ETY-FOLLOWING GAMBIA MAYBE AT THAT KIEE_ OR FLABBY THE FOLLOWING CETERA 2, FENCING MAY CONSIST OF ORANGE SNOW SHANDONG HERSULTHELEMATENI CPG _CTioNGAR I_RPENCNGGPALGE3UPPDE EGGYT PH MEEALPOss OGSMiwisueovsonc INCLOSE PROOF Mary PCO AR—MBLANKETS DD OTHER SUITABLE MATERIAL BHA LEE ARAPFED AD GULF THE TRUNK BY MEES FLAT ARE TO A(D-JAL CONSTRUCTION ACT CITED ATAMINMUM ME 30170MOREE- BE THE TRUNK SHALL BE ANALOGY b THEACTYA LOCATION BE TR_E PROTECT ON FENCING SHOO DBEDETERMNEDDYAN DNSTEVEETMBETZE-MY-FORESTE DIV13ION d THERE SHALL B_ NO VOV_M_NT OF EQUIPMENT OR STORAGE OF EQJI'M_NY MATERIALS DEBRIS ORR LSORCUTSOMYNTLECRTICAL ROOT ZONE AREA UNLESS APPROVED By TLE CITY FORGER DIVISION .MODIFICATION OR REMOVAL OF TREE PROTECTION ENDING OR BLANKET WRAP MUST BE APPROVED BY -HE FOR-STRY DIVISION PRIDE TD THE * WHIMPTIEDRIPMEO ANY TREE HARP ED FOG GET_NTGN AND PSESERVATION THERE SHALL BE NO - IT EXCAVATONORFILMLESSA QUALIFIED APHORIST OR FOREST-R HAS EVALUATED AND NOTE DVED ME D13TURBANCE APPROVED CUT EXCAVATION OR FILL WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ENSURE TRE-S COST BE AC-OMPLISHED JS CA METHODS APPROVED By A QUALIFIED BELFAST AND CITY FORESTRY DIVISION THIS My INCLUDE THE R-QUIRED USE OF FUND TOO S ORAN AIR SPAD_ MEN N-CESSARY * IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE CA FINAL ROOT ZONE OF GAUT THE- DBGROUPOFTRE-S TOBERETTAINED TY-FOLLOVILDCRITERAMUSTBE FOLLOWED 10 A17ACHEAEN SSUCHASWIDES CABLES ALI ROPES SIGNS NDI DR DESPITE SHALL NOT BE FASUFFEENEDYLOANY PROTECTED MEE 11 ALL REQUIRED OR OPTIONAL THE- REMOVAL DR PRUNING SHALL BE PERFORMED By A PRIVATE TREE SERVICE HOLDING A CURRENT 'TV OF 12 ADS YING THICK LATESS DECADE STUCK SABA A 'ORTON OFTTE ROOTS STEV D EXISTING TREES My BE DIRECTED AT INDIA DUAL QUATHELL NG -DNS_RUI TO 13 -DNA E - - COMPACTION- - BBORIMPROPER ACTVITIESAILL�E3ULTINAPENAL�DFUPTDFU L DAMAGES FOR THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE TEE) AS DETERM NE BY THE CITY GREATLY DIV SION OR COAL LED ARBORIST US NO THE COUNI OF TREE AN LANDSCAPEAPPRAISER VINCE FOR PLANTAPPRAGAL DEBT 14 A FINE OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS MAY BE LEVEL AGAINST ME C DMEASTOR FOR BACK INC DENT OF UNNECESSARY CANADA TD ENZYME MANAGER STALL DOCUMENT ME INCIDENT WITH AN EXPLANATION OF WHY A F HE GAS NOT IMPOSED 15 TYPED STALL BE DAIL COORDINATI DO WITH FIELD CAGUAS By THE CITY FORESTER DIVIS ON STOP ORA C DNSULTING ASEAN S_ DURING THE CRTICALPHASSESOCTLEPSDECT CRT CAL PHI AR_ DEFINED AS NVORK BEING CONDUCTED IN PROXIVITY' OF TREES TO BE PC THECT-D OR TRANSPLANTED CACHE ANY FORM OF DI COULD DI E�f.IPLESCDJLDeED-MOLI-IONOFEXS-INGCONCRE-E ROOLI CONS -RUCTION OF BETA I NOWAK SAND CONI BE N_NCJRB THE CONTRACTOR OR CITY 'ROJECT CANADA IS R-SPON31BLE FDG SCHEDULING TREE XI CRI STAGES OF THE 'ROJECT TO _N3UR_ TREE PROMOTION SPECIFICATIONS ARE FOLLOWED AND SUSPECTED FAILED VECUMINGROOTE DR DAMAGING ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUND PORT DNS OF A PR_GEGVED OR TRANSPLAMED TGE_ 17 WHEN FACING TLE GRADE AROUND A TREE ADRYASE LISREQUIR-D MEN LOASERING TTE GRADE AROUND A TREE AGETAININONVALLIS I& IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE SEAT A CA EXCAVATION KEEFER THAN SIX INCHES SHALL BE BOGGLE ISTEDBLBORING UNDER THE PONT SL31GKI OF PROT-CTED EX STING ME-S AT A MINIMUM D-PIN OF LOOSELY FOUR INCH-S TTE DISTANCE 13 ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE KOHLER GARY AND IS SCALED FROM TREE D BUFFER AT BREAST Er ADDED 10 CALL CULTIVATION SHOULD NOT EXCEED 2 INCHES IN DEPTH WHO THE DRIP LINE OF ASIA EXISTING PR DI TREE THEGRADESHOULD ALSO GOT BE AHEAD MORE MAN 2 INCHES FLUSH ME DRIP LINE OF ASIA MAYBE PROTECTED TREE TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE I - HIGHER THAN FINISH GRACE MULCHSEENOTES- 5'DEPTI MAAMUM FINISH GRACE OPEN BURLAP AROUND TRUNK CUT 8 REMOVE TOP TO CE BURLAP BAC 213 NATNEBOIL COMW/2/3 81CKOLL THOROUGHLY EXISTING pE ING HOLE WATERSETRE SUL TO BE IT LARGER A DIA OF SECTION RWT&LLL FOR LUMNOWVES 12"LARGERMAN DIA OF ROOR3NL PON SHRUBS GROUND COVER & SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL ��GROUP �saEMnn�relpLanNig INa0a0m «a Mwifialn AVG. >a 9NSY5WI BSYutlfA 9d13 v® lBGwp.ue UNCOMMON Preliminary Development Plan Fort Collins, Colorado CA Ventures 161 N Clark, Suite 4900 Chicago, IL 60601 Staff Comments 9215 7JULY2015 Landscape Notes, Details & Schedule SHFFT � OF 3 H W D Z a w O J O U F O 0 a GAX \jA d u.� b I,DVMw UDIS1300 D) LOPOPPROULU DB-e9DIlAJ'S aIDc -MEmu PTI: stud MMId Dn®3PUM1 EMDm93MyV Existing Tree Schedule COMMENT NAME TO BE REMOI IMPLICATION DISCOURAGE joiN S El`2tl-0' NORTH — Al PAINTING LINDEN TO BE PROTECTED SIZE HE CONGHTION GOOD IRRIGATONREADLFDAMAGEDS:3 — AD PAINTING LINDEN TO BE PROSTECTED SIZE IF CONGHTION GOOD umDAnoN BEEF (IF WlNGE➢33 — AS PAINTING LINDEN TO BE PROSTECTED SIZE 17 CONGHTION MEATON BEEF RIIF EAMAGEDS 3 — AM PAINTING LINDEN TO BE PROSTECTED SIZE IF CONGHTION MGATION BEEF mIF wAwGEn33 SIZE To- - #5 EXISTINKI UNDER TO BE PROTECTED MITIGATION READ TFIDAMLOGEDIT 35 IN EAUSTING KETTLEY COFFEE TREE TO BE PRUDDECTEE SIZE 27 ADSORPTION: FUR MmGATEN SEEN of PASSAGED #7 EXISTING PENNEY COFFEE HEAD TO BE PROTECTED CONDTITION FAIR MDiM.TiDN REao OFA` FwMADEDT. a Do EXISTING SENSATION BOXELDER TO BE PROTECTED SIZE 5 SANDI STOAT ON Fwv (F DAMAGED) T - DID EXISTING AMERICAN ELL' TO BE PROTECTED SIZE 41 ERGOT ON SEA D A DAMAGED) 6 SIZE A ERGOT ON REDD 2 SIZE 17 COBALT ON FAR MIT GAT ON SEA D 3 SIZE 17 CONDTT ON FAR THIS EXIELTING SIBEIRLAN EIRM TO BE SPONSORED SEE HE CONGRESS FAIR PUTS MFIGAnON READ (IF DAMADED,6 SIZE ME CONEURTION FAIR IRRIGATED REST) (IF DAMAGED)4 SIZE Ir CONEURTION POOR IRRIGATED REST) I 415EXISTINGASIATO REEMERGE 1 LINDEN NO 0 * LINDEN NO 0 * LINDEN NO 0 * LINDEN NO 0 * LINDEN NO 0 * MEASURES NO 0 LARGE NOTES MINKINTON TREES RAW BEEN PROVIDED REFSHEET2FORLOGRUPONS GRUBBIEST TO THE FLY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY DINTSEN STALL BE MASS FOR THE A FREE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY STREET TREES ARE PLANTED IN PARKWAYS BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB. STREET TREE LOCATIONS AND NUMBERS MAY CHANGE TO MEET ACTUAL UTILITY)TREE SEPARATION STANDARDS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN APPROVAL OF STREET TREE LOCATION AFTER UTILITY LOCATES. STREET TREES MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE PLANTING. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. i - GROUP aEamnDA.el pa'EtmlwmRm Ui MwrRan Pva. TM NET �3m B3Eutl{D9d13 v® l9Gwp.us UNCOMMON Preliminary Development Plan Fort Collins, Colorado CA Ventures 161 N Clark, Suite 4900 Chicego, IL 60601 Staff Comments 9215 7JULY2015 Tree Inventory & Mitigation Plan SHEET2 OF 3 LARGE NOTES MINKINTON TREES RAW BEEN PROVIDED REFSHEET2FORLOGRUPONS GRUBBIEST TO THE FLY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY DINTSEN STALL BE MASS FOR THE A FREE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY STREET TREES ARE PLANTED IN PARKWAYS BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB. STREET TREE LOCATIONS AND NUMBERS MAY CHANGE TO MEET ACTUAL UTILITY)TREE SEPARATION STANDARDS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN APPROVAL OF STREET TREE LOCATION AFTER UTILITY LOCATES. STREET TREES MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE PLANTING. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. i - GROUP aEamnDA.el pa'EtmlwmRm Ui MwrRan Pva. TM NET �3m B3Eutl{D9d13 v® l9Gwp.us UNCOMMON Preliminary Development Plan Fort Collins, Colorado CA Ventures 161 N Clark, Suite 4900 Chicego, IL 60601 Staff Comments 9215 7JULY2015 Tree Inventory & Mitigation Plan SHEET2 OF 3 H Landscape Plan 0010W UDIS1300 01110110131101111110308 06xII^J'SONE -nnmrromfl: 900 laid WrOsol" 4u0w4RMM Plant List 0 S El`21Y4' NORTH MITIGATIONTREE MITIGATIONTREE ITTY RATIO OMMON NWE Ba3YYJL IYLE IFIMf WIDEN SMIE IIHTULLUMM NOTES Er T@U- e + WANCED. WELL BRANCHED W/ 1 11.1% BD%ELDER, 9FN44PIXiIMeBNmTm) Ave myM'SmsOae W 25 }cMBO BIIWCM1RVNeCEMN1 LEADER BILRCEO, WELL BRANCHED W/ 2 MM LINCEKLIRLELEAFIMMpbor Tae) Me cw3N'Geanapre' <C 30' 3'cY.BB STRMOMIRLW.B CEMRK LE DER TREEB. 8 BNNY'ED, WELL BWVICHED W/ OO 2 22M LIV4 JMNESE TREE 5 pupa reeaNtl ]C ]0' I.S aL STRNpII TRUNK B CENTRIL BE LEADER 8 657% M4aLE, CRIM9CN5ENIRY WRNAY ker gaomlbe Crlman SMN 3C I3' IS."i BE PAVN'ED, WELLBPFNCHEDWr 9TMW TRUNK B CENTRA LEADER Landscape Legend M08F IRRIGATED TURF BLUE GRASS BLEND BUD ]SVSF PLATNING ZONE EM STEEL EDGER, ROUNDED TOP 0 EDUPBNG TREE2 Q PVrNIER O MITS OF STRUCTURAL SOIL A FREE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY STREET TREES ARE PLANTED IN PARKWAYS BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB. STREET TREE LOCATIONS AND NUMBERS MAY CHANGE TO MEET ACTUAL UTILITY/TREE SEPARATION STANDARDS. UJdDSCAPE CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN APPROVAL OF STREET TREE LOCATION AFTER UTILITY LOCATES. STREET TREES MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE PLANTING. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. �GROUP aEMnn�rel W� 1� mo o-�o� Ui MwrAan Pva. /a 9NSY 5IO1 B3Eutl{DBE13 v® leGwp.ue UNCOMMON Preliminary Development Plan Fort Collins, Colorado CA Ventures 161 N Clark, Suite 4900 Chicago, IL 60601 Staff Comments 9215 7JULY2015 7Lands�capePlan SHEETS GF 3 6.h Neighborhood Meeting 310 S. College Ave (CA Student Housing) 281 N. College Conference Room 6.22.2015 1 5:30-7:30pm Staff Presentation Still early in the process: • PDR meeting held 6-17-2015 • Neighborhood Meeting today • All other meetings and submissions TBD Site context • Perkins site (everyone knew where this was) • Zoning is Downtown, densest zone we have in the city. Also part of Canyon Ave subdistrict. • Height permitted: 5-6 stories, 85 ft in height. Mass and height must be mitigated by additional setbacks, pedestrian scale (2-4 story height) o Question: on all sides? A: As abuts the City street/sidewalks, so not as much on the alleys • Proposal: mixed -use, multi -family 0 103 units, 270 bedrooms o Ground floor retail 0 236 parking spaces internal o Review: P&Z Applicant Presentation Chris Johnson, CA Ventures — lived in CO for 8 years in the 90s Intro: "We have cut our teeth on student housing, but have since diversified..." to assisted living, retail, office, etc. This project: mixed use, commercial on ground floor. Consistent with what you see in downtown now. Multifamily above is not exclusive to students, currently contains some 4-bed units. - "We are very interested in stakeholders." Staff, local biz, DDA... we want feedback. We don't build to sell and move on. Have expanded our management company — 9 mil sf in several states. Approach: - Understand community, shape projects in a positive way. We're here to stay and become part of the community. - Look to develop in places with alternative transportation, services easily available. - Students: we're learning that close to downtown you should see more non -student populations (young professionals, etc.). Question and Answer Q: Will these be rented by bedroom? A: Historically that's been our approach, regardless of who rents (student, young professional, etc.) N W 0 z a� m W 2 00 0 0 L 0 ai z m E El Packet Pg. 173 6.h Q: What kind of pricing? A: Market -rate. There may be some fluctuation/higher rents if we need to reduce number of units. Q: You're saying multi -family, but you're open to a student component? Who's in the 4-bedroom — separate individuals or an entire family? A: Could be either. Q: Percentage of students in the development? A: Historically (last couple of years) 60% student, 40% young professional. The closer to downtown you get, the more that flip-flops. We're not 100% sure yet, but expect more young professionals than students because we're closer to downtown. Clarification from Seth: City of FC doesn't differentiate between multi -family and student housing, we're not allowed to by law. It's all multi -family housing, whether oriented toward students or not. The things we do: require more parking if it's a rent by -the -bedroom model, which is more typically associated with student housing. Q: So that 4-bed unit could be rented to 4 individuals? A: If it's one unit, then it would be subject to additional requirements in land use code (you -plus -two) Q: Are you public or private? A: Headquartered in Chicago, we're private. Applicant Presentation Continued Ari from Oz Architecture — Design Concepts - Overview of zoning - Comparable heights in the surrounding area —taller buildings around, lower heights in Old Town - In line with Montezuma Fuller alley - Our lot is a significant gateway to downtown but in keeping with taller buildings outside of downtown We still have some height to play with here, but we're trying to keep it down and respect the surrounding area. Q: One of our main concerns is congestion from the 236 additional parking spaces/cars. Can you show that? A: We'll get there. Massing - Added some width to sidewalks on either side - Increased height of ground floor to enhance pedestrian experience - Stepback on 2nd floor and above of 5 ft - Additional setback on south side - Carved out courtyards, additional setbacks on 2nd and 61" floor - Instead of an outdoor plaza, we've internalized it into a courtyard - Our goal is to have this development blend as well as possible, "instantaneous mental connection" to the fabric further north on College Ave. - Trying to relate the building to the Armstrong Hotel "somehow" - Connect with alley network, alternate pedestrian connection to Old Town El Packet Pg. 174 6.h - Most of the traffic is coming through the alley. 2 levels of parking below grade, 1.5 levels above grade. - "Corner building" element at approx. 4 stories Landscape - Will try to preserve mature existing trees - Moving building back to provide a wider sidewalk - We see the trees as a gateway going from south to north, no plans to remove any of that - Paseo and pocket park — not just for residents, but for everyone. A more "urban" treatment than is common here. Bikes will come out at grade. - Courtyard will connect to College Ave (somehow — I'm confused about this) - Amenities (biz center/study, fitness room) connected to courtyard estion and Answer Q: I live in Magnolia Lofts. I'm finding sophistry in that you're not indicating that you're going primarily to a student market. How will you deal with the congestion? A: I can relate this to other markets. Students have access to the MAX within 2 blocks, ride bikes ... I walked every day when I was a student because it was hard to find a parking spot. These apartments come fully furnished — we time out the entry carefully over a few days when there's a "turn" at semester start/end. There aren't moving vans. It's not a huge rush at gam and 5pm from a student population because schedules vary. Students come with their own set of concerns, but also provide some relief from commuter crush. Q: What about visitors? A: There's unsecured parking at retail level. Expect that this will "turn over" into visitor parking after retail peak hours. We don't anticipate large numbers of cars. We've been encouraged to talk to nearby neighbors who may have excess parking. Q: How many stores, how many customers? Where will they park? A: First floor is open for retail parking, no one targeted for those retail spaces at this moment. Between 3-4 retail spaces. 0 Z Q: Do you realize there's a library right around the corner? The more people parking, the fewer people that can go to the library. A: I've seen a lot of parking on College Ave — I've parked there every time I come to town. 0 0 Q: People might have to go further out into the neighborhood to park. L 0 Q: What duration of the process? (timeframe) for both process and building construction 01 A: City: We don't put out time frames for the applicant. We turn things around in 3 weeks first time, 2 Z weeks every submittal thereafter. It's a matter of how quickly the applicant responds to and complies with comments and land use code. E A: We anticipated a 2016 opening. After receiving feedback, we pushed everything back to 2017. Construction 16-17 months after approval. Q Packet Pg. 175 6.h Q: Parking at the library — they're also building townhomes right down the street. Another concern is the focus in Fort Collins on student housing that's basically luxury housing. How will the students be affording/managing all this? Is there any affordable housing? How can they afford this? A: The people who graduate and have a job are also things we want. If that's what happens, that's totally ok with us. In our building, it's market rate — not subsidized. Address parking (Seth): Right now we're in the middle of updating our Downtown Plan and we'll be dealing with parking downtown to find solutions. Right now we want your feedback — take a Downtown Plan card and sign up on the email list. Q: Proportion of parking for apartments vs. retail? Entrance into alley — City considering the way College to olive goes? Currently can't turn south A: City: 0.75 parking spaces per bedroom, 2 parking spaces per 1,000 sf retail. A: (Martina) We haven't received a submittal yet. We don't have good answers for you yet. We are requiring them to do a traffic impact study, we scope the study with them to make sure it's measuring things we need them too. How do we make sure entrances and exits to the alley are safe? Have to look at all the intersections out to College — Olive, Mulberry, Magnolia. Asked them to look at intersections on Remington too. We know there are left turn restrictions — we have those for a reason. Safety (width of medians) and flow on College. The applicant needs to work with this or make a proposal. Also require the applicant to look at bike and ped access, bike parking. Usually we use national standards for trips generated, but we did our own study for student housing. We found that student housing has less daily and am trips, tend to come home on bikes then get in cars and go elsewhere. More p.m. trips. Q: One unique thing about this building is that if it becomes a high student population, we need to account for higher numbers of visitors due to location of building (near Old Town). Q: Have you accounted for semester breaks? Change of students in and out? Consider those in study. A: When fully occupied, at peak hours — that's what we look at. We don't make them build to the 3 days a year when everyone's moving in/out Q: Where will the construction workers park for 16-17 months? A: We've targeted a couple of places nearby where people might be able to park. Example: rent from Safeway. Other option: shuttle from remote lot. Q: What percentage of units are 4-bedroom? A: 37/103 — approx. 35% of apartments, 53% of bedrooms will be in 4-bedroom unit Q: City needs to look at that. Cramming 4 people in, that's where a lot of the problems are. All these projects now are packing in as many 4-bed units as they can, and will be an ongoing problem. A: City: Thank you for that input. We do have a section of the code that addresses 4-bedroom units, but maybe it could be more robust. Q: Resident of Lofts at Magnolia, former CSU professor. Encouraged to find that the building won't be strictly students — there is a shortage of high -quality housing for professors, staff who would love to live in the community instead of moving out to Loveland, etc. There's already a lot of student housing — as a professor, I don't want to be in a building that's predominately student -occupied. Don't overlook the demand of professors and staff. Young professionals stay, students don't. A: Max Flats was proposed as student housing, now it's 100% young professionals. Packet Pg. 176 6.h Q: I'm a pedestrian. That whole area is treacherous at times. I'm nervous about all the traffic coming in off the alley. Is that access to the south accessible for citizens? A: yes. Q: I'm concerned about the intersection of Remington and Olive. How many more cars and bikes will I have to dodge to get a cup of coffee? Q: Is there in-house management? A: Yes. Q: Are you going to look for staggered use of retail space? A: What we don't want to do is tie our hands. There could be a restaurant, but we really don't know yet. We have extra parking capacity available to help with that. Q: Retail geared toward the residents? A: Not necessarily. More as an extension of College Ave. Q: Hearing that they're furnished makes me think huge student population. I'm surprised that the gateway to Downtown's historic area we want a huge student housing project. Are we short on student housing in Fort Collins? Is that what we want as our gateway? Is that fair? "Pathetic way to go." Professionals and professors don't want 4 bedrooms, they want affordability. They don't want furnished units. A: Per fair housing laws, we can't tell people who they can or can't house. (Seth) A: I don't know about the furnishings. (applicant) Q: Where will the children play? A: Showed outside areas. Q: Furnished units: if I were moving there, I'd like to bring my furniture with me! A: If you want to bring your own furnishings, that's ok. The reason for mentioning it was to bring relief to the idea of move in and move out. Also we tend to see more wealthy international students who don't want to buy a car or furnishings. Q: (Seth) If you study the market more and want to open up to the full market, would you continue to have 4-beds and furnished apartments? A: Furnished apartments typically are, but we do have some buildings with smaller unit sizes. We're seeing that there's not the demand for 1 and 2 bedrooms in this market that we'd need to make it work. We've done research. Q: What are you thinking for lease length? A: 1 year Q: The MAX is a great concept, but is still in its infancy. Spokes E and W aren't developed yet. Antsy when I hear that people will rely on transit because people WILL still rely on their cars. Back to parking. Transit is not a panacea. A: I couldn't agree with you more (Martina). As we look to higher density and supporting transit, it's a little chicken and egg. Tough balance. We don't want to approve a really dense development on the El Packet Pg. 177 6.h promise that everyone will ride their bikes, and then they don't. We also don't want to build more parking than we need. A: Every CSU student gets a free transit pass as part of tuition. They're using transit, but many still bring their cars. (Martina) A: We did a TOD study and ended up INCREASING our parking requirements (Seth) Q: Security in parking garage? A: CCTV on sidewalks, parking garage, courtyard, public areas. We take that very seriously. Fob access to lower levels of garage and doors into stairwells, unit entries, elevators. Q: Are the units leased by the bedroom? A: Currently, our model is per -bed. If we go back and do a study and find that 4 beds aren't the solution, we might look at that. Q: Less concerned with type of units, traffic... more concerned with sheer mass of building. As you drive north you come by Safeway. This is a 75-foot high Safeway. I'm ok with the length, but concerned about single mass with single architectural style — it's overwhelming. I go to Old Town every day, own a business in Old Town. A: The City is very concerned about this too (Seth). Markets change. Uses can change. That massing is really important to get right because it doesn't change. This is a very prominent location, more of a gateway piece. Staff is working hard to work with the applicant to bring the project to the pattern of downtown. We'll have a design charrette tomorrow with the applicant to help with this. A: We understand that we're coming in to be part of the community (applicant) Q: I also perceive this as the entrance to Old Town. The size is a buffer zone, not welcoming. It says "stop." How does this relate to the philosophy of Old Town? Family friendly, etc. A: Not fully formed yet, but I'd say it's in 3 parts. First, we're trying to bring the pedestrian experience forward. The second part is following what's established in the land use code to lighten mass, provide angles, provide green space, etc. Third.... Q: How do this people you're marketing to fit in with the family -centric feel? A: We will allow families and small kids. How do we divide some of the units? Noisier people (students or families) on lower levels. Q: Moratorium on new development pending the completion of the Downtown Plan? A: No. But we'll be looking at urban design as part of the Downtown Plan. Q: Is it possible you won't get it right if we let the building start construction? A: That's why compatibility is so important. Our code isn't super clear — says its 85 feet in height, but we need to work closely with developers to make sure that they can't just build a huge block that's 85 feet high. Q: Encourage you not to underestimate the urban sophistication of downtown Fort Collins. It's traditional, historic, trendy... not all that different from the Pacific Northwest (re: earlier reference to Seattle) A: Thank you. That's great to hear. As we meet more people, that's becoming more apparent. El Packet Pg. 178