HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/11/2006 - DOWNTOWN ZONE DISTRICT STANDARDS FOR TALLER BUILDI DATE: July 11, 2006 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Clark Mapes Ted Shepard FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Downtown Zone District Standards for Taller Buildings (over 3 stories).
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support the recommendations of the Downtown Strategic Plan as the
appropriate basis for Code regulations governing development of taller buildings?
2. If so, does Council find the proposed Code approach to be adequate and appropriate as
drafted?
BACKGROUND
Staff has proposed changes to Land Use Code Section 4.12 of the Downtown (D)Zoning District
regulations, governing development of taller buildings (over 3 stories). The proposed changes
primarily affect the Civic Center and Canyon Avenue subareas of the Zoning district — the area
shaded green on map Attachment 1. This is a 25-block area located between the historic
retail/entertainment core and neighborhoods to the west.
The proposed Code changes come directly from the recommendations of the Downtown Strategic
Plan(DSP). The DSP was approved by Council in 2004. It gave much more in-depth attention and
study to this topic than that reflected in the existing Code.
Staff is proposing the changes to directly implement the DSP by making the Code regulations
consistent with it. Also, existing Code regulations on this topic are currently not effective.
Attachments 6 and 7 explain this in detail. Attachment 6 is the proposed Code revision from the
Spring Land Use Code Update process. Attachment 7 is a background Issue Paper, which includes
the relevant policies from the DSP.
Attachments 1 through 5 are maps, graphics, and photos to assist in consideration and discussion
of the issue.
July 11, 2006 Page 2
Quick Comparison
Existing Regulations Proposed Regulations
Table of numbers Convey allowable scale of new buildings
in block-by-block context rather than
168' limit, whole area, with a specific whole area
caveat
Descriptive design parameters
• Caveat: taller buildings "reviewed by P&Z •
Board using Compatibility Standards for • Based on greater discussion, study, and
Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale" general agreement,and compromise than
existing regulations
• Based on past precedents, with less
attention than proposed regulations
Existing Regulations Problems
Building height and bulk standards for taller buildings (over 3 stories) in the Downtown Zoning
District are not effective in guiding investment,programming,design and review of such buildings.
Important issues are not adequately covered;unimportant issues are covered with no benefit. Also,
the section could be presented in a more logical order. The single most important problem is the
table of numerical dimensional standards in 4.12(D)(2), which states a height limit of 168 feet for
the entire Canyon Avenue and Civic Center area. This corresponds to about a 12-story building.
For reference, the two tower buildings that exist downtown are about 154 feet in height.
On most of the 25 blocks in the subject area, it is clear that no new building would be appropriate
or approvable at the current 168-foot maximum height. That number simply does not fit the spaces
that could become available for redevelopment.
The stated height limit is offset by a requirement in 4.12(E)(1)(b) that buildings taller than 56 feet
must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board using Compatibility standards in section 3.5.1
(B)and(C)of the Land Use Code. Those standards require complementary design in terms of size,
height, bulk, mass, scale, and architectural character.
The current regulations are unpredictable and make it difficult, if not impossible, to know how tall
any individual building could be on a given site In some cases, it is an open question whether 3
stories or 12 stories could be built, depending on various interpretations. This uncertainity has
created problems for developers as well as neighborhood residents and property owners.
Proposed Regulations Solution Overview
The 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP) outlines the proposed solution. DSP recommendations
are the result of extensive public discussion among the Landmark Preservation Commission, the
Downtown Development Authority,the Downtown Business Association,the Planning and Zoning
Board, City Council members, neighbor residents, property owners, business owners, other
interested citizens,City staff,the Chamber of Commerce,developers,and architects. This included
July 11, 2006 Page 3
numerous meetings and walking tours, consultant advice, and staff investigation of other cities and
the issue in general.
The proposed solution centers around a block-by-block map of maximum height limits which
respond to the varying contexts of different blocks throughout the area. Height limits are described
as approximate,to convey a scale of building rather than fixed points in space. Also, the proposed
solution involves design standards for mitigating the bulk of taller buildings (over 3 stories)using
setbacks and a pedestrian-oriented base portion.
The proposed solution reflects general agreement on acceptability of a 5-6 story height throughout
the entire area except for a few blocks at the very western edge close to stable single family
neighborhood areas. The general agreement includes certain basic design parameters for setbacks
and terracing of such taller buildings:
1. Maximum height. Zoning limits for height should be adjusted to vary with the context
of each block.
2. Landscape setback. A setback for landscape planting should be standard on all blocks
west of Mason Street. The intent is to continue the typical soft green
edge that characterizes the area and contributes to the transition away
from the core area. Exceptions should be allowed at entrances, and
where a building features display windows along the street sidewalk.
3. Base. A taller building should have a clearly defined base portion,typically
I or 2 stories. A cornice or roof, fenestration, materials, and colors
should define the base. The ground floor of every building should be
differentiated to emphasize its relationship to pedestrians.
4. Upper-floor setback. Portions of the building above the base portion should be stepped
back, with the amount of floor area reduction generally greater with
greater height above the base portion. The reduction should be a
significant aspect of the building design, related to useable indoor
rooms or outdoor terraces or balconies.
5. Buildings up to about 6 stories(about 85 feet)are acceptable throughout the area,with a few
exceptions at the very western edge next to stable neighborhoods of detached houses. There
are concerns with allowing buildings taller than that.
The overall intent of the proposed Code changes is to allow up to 6-story buildings with fairly
straightforward review. Standards are then intended to allow the possibility oftaller buildings where
shown on the map, subject to more detailed consideration, public discussion, and negotiation of
design solutions. Issues to consider include additional bulk reduction to avoid long, high building
walls; shadow analysis; use of height to mitigate mass; and use of design to mitigate height.
July 11, 2006 Page 4
Semiannual Land Use Code Update
Staff proposed these Code changes as part of the semiannual Land Use Code Update on the premise
that it is essentially a technical step to directly implement the Downtown Strategic Plan,and it fixes
problems with existing regulations in the Downtown Zoning District.
Council requested this work session to go beyond the "technical step" aspect, with additional
explanation, illustration, and consideration of the issue of taller buildings in the Downtown.
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the Code changes by a vote of 4-3.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Context map of downtown area zone districts.
2. Map of existing buildings in subject area.
3. Map of Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Subdistricts - Existing Height Regulations.
4. Map of Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Subdistricts - Proposed Height Regulations.
5. Series of Color Coded Graphics: General Height and Massing of Existing Buildings; and
Hypothetical Buildings under Proposed Regulations.
6. Proposed Land Use Code revision, unchanged from June 6 Council packet.
7. Background Issue Paper, unchanged from June 6 Council packet.
8. Powerpoint Presentation.
C
p O v is H:ol�
mil
L TA S'
L '\I
cu
E
$r
OW
S� 3NGST
C J
O lc WOMOj11 11 / �/`f SIWTM Y7
t
t� rrk-
E r
/ w I
o-
l
O \�✓ f FL6 Z
w
L s
'i'- _- '�-T ^�-^-•� �_`�-•N WLLEOE<„E F - i COItEGE AV
O <
a l' '
µ. j
NMIS> 5' MASON 4t;
� L 1
N rltl f55T fiHf WE513' N
t � N
_�_... � . ` NSNIHNM1JOJ 51 66FERW(1 106
• U j�L�Ljj
'FNM
ZO
U
,t k N.,
t .� x*+• .o I. ,v iV
oa
(7CDw (D
m 1�7F cn i d %►' C, �
CD . .�
v � . ads' i Rl{1 %�■r ' Y�' `i7 F r�
JIM
j
IA
AF
r t ,
t
�'a_ ��;�anuany a6allo�
C)
CD
!'? •' _
CDCD
A
VI 4
�, r-. � A/te. �. •::,` ,f,.
i �
LMN CC�F
2.5 stori s .
• ■�� mac:.;, � . �_ .� 1� ■
"' ����® - . �� r C•;ivicGente�abd si trio � ; � �� "� � ��
Existing Height Regs
168'subject to P&Z Board
B Review Using Compatibility
Standards
Civic Center&Canyon
Avenue Sub-Districts
Other Zone Districts-
IC&r r i - ■
M . � ■ �. \ ��\
�r lg r
Flirril� �``
OId,Gity Cent=r�^.
- • �— ' � III :-•+ .•
p� ■ FLi -• �� � yp�
`� Lim LS�1
11.9. .
J Lrr]i� iJ '■ii". �iLFJ!M ll��d IN
Fill
�1 ���Cam*' ' ;fly -•; 'ice � ®��1 ��®
■� ■ ■Canyon Avenue Subdlstnct �
■. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. s m v o r. r . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ■ -
rrn pr�r.1 B E niirsR ice.] ��J�• a ' Ate _ IO ���
l i �NyCR1 -,�•' I log�C ���nE,4 ■�r �s�„ � _.
VA, (i
SON _ r
� �� Proposed Height Limits
�� �= _ � � zs star�„s ' C C F
y
■
- - -
Civic Centei Canyon
Avenue Sub-Districts
Other Zone Districts
■ , - -
1 � I
.•_ � . . i' _ •�� �
■ �+� : ` ■ I i,� OId;City Center
i lillfil= o Bile
y • � ■riw• ri� N Gp6■ / /� I u i ,� i
ji��fJ Ir1f i�■ %iQ I 1 u �t ,r i
�� aa�`� pyr yR'— ■ /�RSi 1 ,e �
• L#JiR]•1i1■r.. C•SIJ!I��Iri�i • L_._.--_1 J u � � �� �
per . . . . . .. ,
• � ■ � ® i are 41 SN•CM
■
� 3stories Sstories
IWO
I14t
��.• *y 7� c '� lal
+ . ' '" W m M
-�»-
3
° '!'1 ' -�
'r• r m
College Avenue
{ .. 11
■
T
�• �
v
444
4 "Tit
i
1` f
� v 1
rd��� � t tv V. y .a. r �+ * •, a s '` � . fit r' %r'�.<,
-• S- S
j 1cc
1_*�-rv— n*yM 'r'{ .,,,.>..w-t, fit•
i 4F ( [[
-fix � .++• e+ � x '+4L
4 „' ai��
'{I/ � v „F . \� .;1+ �• d ♦ ao-^'+. � �i�. _ � Apr
�� � - yCi. � aryl-�:•�q^ t _Pwt
w .�p� � r,. - k , •ii
CD
kV
diV
CD 9 CD
14
CD CD
CD
` CD CDML
.S C f
. r
..u*-
pop i }
anuany a6o11o�
;.'0t ri ,.:. •-fir
IL
Y
N O _ '� 1 z
CD
3 _
rh rh l
��
d
61 �
.U)
i�
Lo
y � LU
0■s
am
1' s
i �
i
' � n
■
Mr, .
o j
ERE,
■
Li • T� '�
3
of
ccr
o
PIL ,
3
000,
r �
+ ,t
Mc
Y. AI k :
,IM
� It
V�e�'l
c
O R
at
r
i
,
1
4
O
r ^
\V O
PIL
PIL
UNIL
i
1 r f
•+r # ` ,,rayy ��� !�/, } 117�� � ��
X
C 7. f
�e Iff
40
a
r �
00
#gyp., p
rg
CD
c #A , H
Y
4
1� '
i h
41,
� i I
rafD
,
fD
2
n N
O
—
CL
�N
N
N 11111
0 � rn
tun. _
q�Y
isA` .. l �' �•
f
+ /
000
Mc
s �
0
�aJ1S BAIL
".
. P
M1i i
am
' ♦ I j ) l 4 r
tamNOW
7
banI��a�b uiejuno j '
�a
41 .
uj
Nod
"► �. f}f f �
amam
NL
2 t . •'�� at r
;� r .
t '+1f iy� ti;yf:y
fD
anuany uielldo - �
r � t � r •4 � gr
A
• '�� ,. o p4k
WAS e
� f �'
` CL
fD Z
t ?' aaAS g,aii0 , f�� cCIE
�.
t I i R ol
0
4f a� F
trust MOM 6
• Item#730, City Council Semiannual Land Use Code Updates:
Revise building height standards in the Downtown zone district, Sections 4.12(D)
Problem Statement
Building height and bulk standards for taller buildings (over 3 stories) in the
Downtown zone district are not effective in guiding investment, programming, design
and review of such buildings. Important issues are not adequately covered;
unimportant issues are covered with no benefit. Also, the section could be presented
in a more logical order. The single most important problem is the table of numerical
dimensional standards in 4.12(D)(2), which states a height limit of 168 feet for the
entire Canyon Avenue and Civic Center area. This corresponds to about a 12-story
building. For reference, the two tower buildings that exist downtown are about 154
feet.
On most of the 25 blocks in the subject area, it is clear that no new building would be
appropriate or approvable at the current 168-foot maximum height. That number
simply does not fit the spaces that could become available for redevelopment.
The stated height limit is offset by a requirement in 4.12(E)(1)(b) that buildings taller
than 56 feet must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board using Compatibility
standards in section 3.5.1 (B) and (C) of the code. Those standards require
• complementary design in terms of size, height,bulk, mass, scale, and architectural
character.
The point is, it's impossible to tell how tall a developer could build on a given site. In
some cases, it's an open question whether 3 stories or 12 stories could be built,
depending on various interpretations.
Solution Overview
The 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP) outlines this proposed solution. DSP
policies result from extensive public discussion among the Landmark Preservation
Commission, the Downtown Development Authority, the Downtown Business
Association, the Planning and Zoning Board, City Council members, neighbors,
property owners, business owners, other interested citizens, staff, the Chamber of
Commerce, developers, and architects.
Primary elements of the proposed solution are a block-by-block map of maximum
height limits, with general agreement on acceptability of 5-6 story height throughout
the entire area except for a few blocks at the very western edge adjacent to stable
single family neighborhood areas. That general agreement is based on certain basic
design parameters for setbacks and terracing of taller buildings.
•
1
Those parameters are:
1. Maximum height. Zoning limits for height should be adjusted to vary with the
context of each block.
2. Landscape setback. A landscaped setback should be standard on all blocks west of
Mason Street. The intent is to continue the typical soft green edge that
characterizes the area, and that contributes to the transition from the core area.
Exceptions should be allowed at entrances, and where a building features display
windows along the street sidewalk.
3. Base. A taller building should have a clearly defined base portion, typically 1 or 2
stories. A cornice or roof, fenestration, materials, and colors should define the
base. The ground floor of every building should be differentiated to emphasize its
relationship to pedestrians.
4. Upper-floor setback. Portions of the building above the base portion should be
stepped back, with the amount of floor area reduction generally greater with
greater height above the base portion. The reduction should be a significant aspect
of the building design, related to useable indoor rooms or outdoor terraces or
balconies.
5. Buildings up to about 6 stories (about 85 feet) are acceptable throughout the area,
with a few exceptions at the very western edge next to stable neighborhoods of
detached houses. There are concerns with allowing buildings taller than that.
Standards should allow 6-story buildings throughout the area, with fairly
straightforward review based on general agreement on key parameters. Standards
should allow the possibility taller buildings, where shown on the map, subject to
more detailed consideration, public discussion, and negotiation of design solutions
to decrease negative effects. Issues to consider include additional bulk reduction
to avoid long, high building walls; shadow analysis; use of height to mitigate mass;
and use of design to mitigate height.
The whole premise of this proposed Code change is that it's better than what exists now,
and it directly implements the Downtown Strategic Plan. The reorganization is more
logical than the current format.
2
• The reorganization eliminates the table of dimensional standards, and follows this
outline:
(D)Building Standards
(1) Setbacks from Streets
(2) Building Height
(a) Old City Center
(b) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center
1. Measurement of Height
(3) P &Z Review of Large Buildings
(4) Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings
(a) Old City Center
(b) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center
1. Base
2. Upper Floor Setbacks
3. More Upper Floor Setbacks for Buildings over 6 Stories
(5) Building Character and Facades [no content change]
(6) Parking Structures [no content change]
(E)Site Design [no content change]
(F) Special Provisions for the Civic Center[no content change]
• Attachment: Issue Paper
Attached at the end of this item is an issue paper from the Downtown Strategic Plan
process with some additional explanation.
•
3
Land Use Code Revisions
[Move to Building Design section below.]
beiew;
C-eAter Avenue GAeteE
Bone None Nene
Size
Miffiffma le None 49 feet 40 feet
width
MRN;mmm
Wildifig
eaver-age 100% 75% -7-5%
Mfflkifna
FAR* -2 -5 -5
Maximum
set�k" Q 15 feet 15 feet
114ieimmn
feat YaF
sethae-k A A A
Maxims 4-stefies not
building teexeeed
height 56 feet 168 fee 168 feet
these ideat:.,l uses aFe not inekided in L teta4 F 1. Flser area Fatia. These
ZxwzmerT
fE�(D)Building Standards.
(1) Setback from Streets. A landscaped setback shall be required on all block faces
west of Mason Street, excluding the block faces along the west side of Mason Street,
except that no such setback shall be required at building entrances, and in front of
4
• display windows along the street sidewalk. Setbacks shall be compatible with
established setbacks of existing buildings on the same block face and necessary utility
easements. Landscaping shall be designed as an integral part of the development plan.
At a minimum, widths of landscape shall be adequate to allow health of proposed
plant materials.
(This Old City Center standard moved to a new subsection in Building Design,
below.)
(2) Building Height.
(a) Maximum Height, Old City Center: 4 stories not to exceed 56 feet.
(b) Maximum Height, Canyon Avenue and Civic Center: Varies block by block, see
Building Heights Map (Figure 18.5).
•
•
5
Y
Proposed Height Limits
IL
+/-150 feet, 10-12 stones
�+ F B u
,.I 115 feet,7-9 stones
I; -- +/-85 feet,5-6 stones
+/-45 feet,3-4 stones
i w
-TM Civic Center&Canyon
MAPLE ST _- - Avenue Sub-Districts
O[Mr Zone Districts
ml W N Z
C N� �3 m y \Y
IT ii;Iitz _ %= c
I, ....LAPORTE AVE pe
T ii
TRIM �, '�' )' .f2
;C
MOUNTAIN AVE EMOUNTAIN AVE
F
z [I
E
45 - � 150
0
� OAK ST _ �KST
10 12 I
m W OLIVE STi�----
�—.'
WMAGNOLIAST EMAGNOLI ST
$ 4 El
7-fl ' 7-97 mn115 115 r I
1. �-� 3,__
_ E MULBERRY ST{
Canyon Avenue/Civic Center Subdistricts-Downtown Height Issue
Proposed Height Regulations
,_.. ._..
Figure 18.5
6
• 1. Measurement of Height Limits for the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center
Subdistricts. The maximum height limits are intended to convey a scale of building
rather than an exact point or line. In the case of sloped roofs, building height shall be
measured to the mean height between the eave and ridge. The maximum height limits
are not intended to hinder architectural roof features such as sloped roofs with
dormers, penthouses, chimneys, towers, shaped cornices or parapets, or other design
features that exceed the numerical limits but do not substantially increase bulk and
mass. Lofts or penthouses projecting above the limits shall not exceed 1/3 of the floor
area of the floor below, and shall be set back from any roof edge along a street, by a
distance equal to or greater than the height of the loft or penthouse structure. See
Figure 18.6.
15iF('E^SIWtA�—
PWknA
cm-
Figure 18.6.
•
7
(3)Planning and Zoning Board Review of Large Buildings.
Building heights avef four (4) stories ,. fifty (56) feet, whiehever is greater, h rl
1.
Development plans with new buildings (or building additions) greater than 25,000
square feet in floor area per story, or which exceed either 6 stories or 85 feet in
height, shall be subject to Planning and Zoning Board review.
(4)Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over 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.
`a
a
NO aW6U <$
.1a9A.
E,ifi�SEF`
3
4"Story
Pkwr Ptanc
V Story
t° Story �Jo w+
1"S ory
QL
Fourth Story Setback
in the
Old City Center Subdistrict
Figure 19
(b) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center:
1. Base. Taller buildings (over 3 stories) shall have a base portion consisting of 1 or 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 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.
8
• 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 insure 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.
kfftaFfT
Addtonal Neigh Over 6 Stories/85;
Additional Setbacks and Mass
„y+l. Reduction
Landscaped
Setback
E
•
combination of Ground-Floor
and Upper-Floor Setback;
Massing, ground floor setbacks, and upper-floor setbacks shall be compatible with the
historical and pedestrian character of Downtown, shading, views, and privacy.
3. Additional Upper Floor Setback and Mass Reduction for Buildings Over 6 Stories
or 85 feet in height in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Subdistricts.
The Planning and Zoning Board may approve additional height above 6 stories or 85
feet, where allowed as shown on the Building Heights Map, provided that the
applicant shall demonstrate how the additional height is incorporated into the
programming and design of the building in such manner as to mitigate mass and add
significant architectural interest to a building. Architectural design details, projections,
recesses, and rooflines shall be used to mitigate the additional height.
4. Alternative Compliance for Mass Reduction Standards. Upon request by an
applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative plan that may be substituted
in whole or in part for an architectural plan meeting the mass reduction and setback
standards in this subsection (4).
•
9
(a) Procedure. Alternative architectural drawings shall be prepared and submitted in
accordance with the applicable submittal requirements. Such drawings shall clearly
identify and discuss the alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will
accomplish the purposes of the applicable standards equally well or better than would
a plan which complies with such standards.
(b) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find
that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally
well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section, or
deviates from the standards in a nominal or inconsequential way.
In reviewing the proposed alternative plan for purposes of determining whether it
accomplishes the purposes of this Section as required above, the decision maker shall
take into account whether the alternative is compatible with its context in the mitigation
of height and mass, considering scale, views, shading, and privacy.
(5)Building Character and Facades.
(a) 1. Blank walls. No blank wall that faces a public street, public plaza or walkway
shall exceed fifty (50) feet in length.
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.
(c) Windows.
1. Glass curtain walls and spandrel-glass strip windows shall not be used as the
predominate style of fenestration for buildings in this District. This requirement shall
not serve to restrict the use of atrium, lobby or greenhouse-type accent features used as
embellishments to the principal building.
2. If ground floor retail, service and restaurant uses have large pane display windows,
such windows shall be framed by the surrounding wall and shall not exceed seventy-
five (75) percent of the total ground level facade area.
(d) Nonresidential buildings. All nonresidential buildings permitted in this District
(including, without limitation, mixed-use and industrial use buildings) shall meet the
standards established in Section 3.5.3 for mixed-use and commercial buildings.
(Moved up from Civic Center section.)
(6) Parking Structures. [Moved from Site Design] To the extent reasonably feasible,
all parking structures shall meet the following design criteria:
(a) Where parking structures front streets, retail and other uses shall be required along
the ground level frontage to minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity.
The decision maker may grant an exception to this standard for all or part of the
ground level frontage on streets with low pedestrian interest or activity.
(b) Parking and awnings, signage and other architectural elements shall be
incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity at the street-facing level.
(c) Architectural elements, such as openings, sill details, emphasis on vertical
proportions such as posts, recessed horizontal panels and other architectural features
shall be used to establish human scale at the street-facing level.
10
• (d) The architectural design of structures shall be compatible in architectural design
with adjacent buildings in terms of style, mass, material, height, roof pitch and other
exterior elements.
(e) Auto entrances shall be located to minimize pedestrian/auto conflicts.
(E) Site Design Standards.
(a) Parking lots. Parking lots shall not dominate the frontage of pedestrian-oriented
streets, interrupt pedestrian routes or negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods.
Parking lots shall be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks, in side yards,
underground or in a parking structure, to the maximum extent feasible.
(b) Outdoor cafes. Restaurants shall be permitted to operate outdoor cafes on
sidewalks, including areas within the public right-of-way and in courtyards, provided
that pedestrian circulation and access to store entrances shall not be impaired. Outdoor
cafes shall also be permitted to operate on rooftops, balconies or other similar
locations. The following standards shall apply to all outdoor cafes:
1. To allow for pedestrian circulation, a minimum of seven (7) feet of sidewalk along
the curb and leading to the entrance to the establishment shall be maintained free of
tables and other encumbrances.
2. Planters, posts with ropes or other removable enclosures are permitted as a way of
defining the area occupied by the cafe.
3. Extended awnings, canopies or large umbrellas shall be permitted. Colors shall
complement building colors.
• 4. Outdoor cafes shall be required to provide additional trash receptacles in the
outdoor eating area.
5. Tables, chairs, planters, trash receptacles and other elements of street furniture shall
be compatible with the architectural character of the building where the establishment
is located in terms of style, color, materials and similar elements.
6. The operators of outdoor cafes shall be responsible for maintaining a clean, litter-
free and well-kept appearance within and immediately adjacent to the area of their
activities.
(7. Outdoor spaces. To the extent reasonably feasible, outdoor spaces shall be placed
next to activity that generates the users (such as street corners, offices, day care, shops
and dwellings). Outdoor spaces shall be linked to and made visible from streets and
sidewalks to the extent reasonably feasible.
[Moved up with other building standards](F) Special Provisions - Civic Center
Subdistrict. The Civic Center Subdistrict will serve as an important element of the
Downtown District and as the primary location for new civic uses and buildings. The
following criteria shall apply to all development in the Civic Center Subdistrict:
(a) Civic spine. All development shall incorporate the concept of the "Civic Spine" as
described in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan, allowing for continuous north-
south and east-west pedestrian connections. The civic spine will serve to connect
various buildings in order to unify parks and plazas.
(b) Building materials. The use of local sandstone is required in all civic buildings to
establish a visual continuity and a local sense of place.
(c) Civic buildings. New major civic buildings, such as a library, government offices,
• courthouses, performing arts facilities and transit centers, shall be located within the
11
Civic Center Subdistrict and placed in central locations as highly visible focal points.
To the extent reasonably feasible, they shall be close to a transit stop.
(d) Incorporation of new buildings. New buildings shall be designed in a manner that
establishes continuity and a visual connection between new and existing buildings
within and adjacent to the Civic Center Subdistrict. The height, mass and materials of
major public buildings shall convey a sense of permanence and importance.
(Moved up to Bujilding Character—this is not specific to Civic Center.)
(Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §42, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 99, 1999
§§20, 21, 6/15/99; Ord. No. 165, 1999 §39, 11/16/99; Ord. No. 59, 2000 §33, 6/6/00;
Ord. No. 183, 2000 §§14, 31, 12/19/00; Ord. No. 107, 2001 §43, 6/19/O1; Ord. No.
204, 2001 §§1,
40-42, 12/18/O1; Ord. No. 087, 2002 §§29, 30, 6/4/02; Ord. No. 090, 2003 §§11, 16,
6/17/03)
12
Anchmen 1
FORT COLLIN S
Downtown
STRATEGIC PLAN
• Attachment to Item#999,Section 4.12(D)—Downtown Building Height 5.3.06
ISSUE: CLARITY ON HEIGHT and BULK of TALL BUILDINGS
SOMWAIR S09 wi...ft. Fort Collins Advance Planning Department February 2004
Current City policies and standards allow the tallest buildings in the city to occur throughout the
Downtown Civic Center and Canyon Avenue area, encompassing 25 blocks west and south of
the historic core. This has proven to be a hot topic with major public interest on two different
sides of the issue.
Downtown Strategic Plan recommendations are a compromise between two directly opposing
sets of views, paraphrased as follows:
"WHY ALLOW ANY MORE tall buildings to diminish the historic character people love about
downtown?"
vs
"WHY NOT ALLOW tall buildings to add vitality and variety to downtown?"
The Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP)process has affirmed the general idea that taller buildings
over 3 stories can be appropriate Downtown,but the process also highlighted the need for more
• clarity about shaping any new tall buildings to fit the physical, political, and social context of
their specific locations. In much public discussion, the area has been scrutinized block by block.
Across all of the various competing interests, there is widespread support for A DEGREE of
redevelopment and intensification in this area, PROVIDED that the historic character and
pedestrian scale of downtown are protected by appropriate standards for careful design. Current
policies and standards reflect these ideas, but are too general and vague. The result is excessive
controversy and confusion over what they mean for a given development proposal on a given
block.
This DSP responds to the need for clearer mutual understanding of the issue, with
recommendations for height and massing of new tall buildings.
The rest of this paper summarizes:
• objectives for tall buildings in this area,
• proposed recommendations, and
• background summary of existing policy and standards
•
1
FORT COLLINS
Downtown
STRATEGIC PLAN
Attachment to Item#999,Section 4.12(D)—Downtown Building Height 5.3.06
ISSUE: MAXIMUM HEIGHT and BULK of TALL BUILDINGS
Blgeet N Related to TON BaNdbw
The three main objectives for tall buildings in the Civic Center/Canyon Avenue have been
affirmed in the DSP process: a market objective, an overall community design objective, and a
blending objective involving community design at the scale of the individual block. The
blending objective includes better understanding and acceptance by various interests through
public discussion and compromise.
Market Objective for Civic Center/Canyon Avenue area: Support the commercial health of
the retail/entertainment core with redevelopment that brings additional people and investment
into the downtown market. This mainly means more housing and jobs to underpin the market for
downtown retail, cultural and dining activities.
As affirmed in the DSP process, the Canyon Avenue/Civic Center area is THE place to allow a
dynamic, mixed urban environment with buildings of different sizes and functions.
In most cases, this would be achieved most effectively by new buildings that are larger than the
majority of existing buildings in the area. Reasons for this include the following:
• redevelopment is more financially feasible with relatively larger buildings, particularly if
parking is to be provided within structures rather than as surface parking lots; and
• market and transportation benefits of bringing residential and office employment uses close
to the core are more significant with relatively larger buildings.
Overall Community Design Objective for Civic Center/Canyon Avenue area: Reinforce
downtown as the focal point of the city from an urban design standpoint. Urban architecture,
streets, and other spaces can be more dramatic with the relatively larger buildings suggested by
the market objective.
Harmonious Blending Objective for Civic Center/Canyon Avenue area: Respond to the
other buildings in the area, in the design of new buildings. New buildings should reinforce
downtown as a place to be enjoyed on foot. Massing of larger buildings should be carefully
placed to create pedestrian-scaled streetscapes and architectural transitions from new, larger
buildings to nearby buildings, with careful consideration of sunlight, views, and privacy.
Development interests seeking individual expression should employ creativity in responding to
the context, in addition to making an individual architectural statement.
2
FORT COLLINS
Downtown
S T RATE G I C PLAN
• Attachment to Item#999, Section 4.12(D)—Downtown Building Height 5.3.06
ISSUE: MAXIMUM HEIGHT and BULK of TALL BUILDINGS
WIMMMendwen
Proposed recommendations from the DSP are excerpted below:
2.2 Urban Design
2.2.1. Continue to allow taller buildings (more than 3 stories), to support the market
recommendations for redevelopment in the InfilUTransition Area, and to reinforce
downtown as the primary focal point of Fort Collins from a community appearance and
design standpoint.
a. Redevelopment will likely require new buildings that are larger than the majority of existing
buildings in the area. Redevelopment is more financially feasible with relatively larger
buildings, particularly if parking is to be provided in structures rather than on surface parking
lots. In addition, the various transportation and market benefits of more jobs and housing
close to the core are more significant with relatively larger buildings.
b. As stated in previous plans and affirmed in this planning process, this area is THE primary
place to allow a dynamic, mixed urban environment with buildings of widely varied sizes and
• functions. Architecture, streets, and other spaces can be more dramatic with relatively
larger buildings as suggested by market recommendations for redevelopment.
2.2.2. Acknowledge that taller buildings affect various interests differently, with both
positive and negative effects; and set standards for scale and careful design so that
negative effects are considered and mitigated (e.g., changes to historic character, quality
of life in nearby neighborhoods, sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces, views, and large
existing trees).
a. Architectural creativity and individual expression should include responsiveness to a
framework of thoughtful standards for height, mass, and design. The purpose being to
blend recommendations for future redevelopment with the area's defining characteristics
that will remain as part of the evolving character over time. See 3.2.2 for more detail.
2.2.3. Continue to allow for modifications to standards within the framework of
development review, if justified by creative, responsive designs that meet the general
parameters in a different way.
a. Continue to acknowledge the possibility of creative, negotiated design solutions that fulfill
the purpose of a standard in a given development project, yet do not meet the letter of the
standards.
•
3
FORT COLLINS
Downtown
STRATEGIC PLAN
Attachment to Item#999,Section 4.12(D)—Downtown Building Height 5.3.06
3.2.2 Carefully locate and shape taller buildings(4-12 stories) in the westside
Infill/Transition Area to respond to defining characteristics of the surrounding
context. (The surrounding context includes both existing and emerging
characteristics that are consistent with adopted plans.)
a. Revise relevant Land Use Code sections with clearer standards for height and mass.
Standards should be flexible enough to allow for architectural creativity, yet rigid enough to
provide meaningful limits and parameters.
b. Standards should describe mass reduction techniques to carefully distribute building mass
to fit the local context; and to mitigate negative effects of taller buildings. Topics for
standards include:
1. Base. A taller building should have a clearly defined base portion, typically 1 or 2 stories.
A cornice or roof, fenestration, materials, and colors should define the base. The ground
floor of every building should be differentiated to emphasize its relationship to
pedestrians.
2. Step back. Portions of the building above the base portion should be stepped back, with
the amount of floor area reduction generally greater with greater height above the base
portion. The reduction should be a significant aspect of the building design, related to
useable indoor rooms or outdoor terraces or balconies.
3. Balconies. Balconies or terraces should be required on upper-floor residential units.
4. Maximum height. Zoning limits for height should be adjusted to vary with the context of
each block. See Figure 2.6, Maximum Building Heights Map, representing a compromise
among various interests.
5. Landscape setback. A landscaped setback should be standard on all blocks west of
Mason Street. The intent is to continue the typical soft green edge that characterizes the
area, and that contributes to the transition from the core area. Exceptions should be
allowed at entrances, and where a building features display windows along the street
sidewalk.
c. Various interests generally agree that buildings up to about 6 1/2 stories (about 80') can be
acceptable throughout the area. Greater concern and opposition exists to allowing buildings
taller than that. Standards should allow the former, throughout the area, with fairly
straightforward review based on the general agreement on key parameters. Standards
should allow the possibility of the latter, where shown on the map, subject to more detailed
consideration, public discussion, and negotiation of design solutions to decrease negative
effects. Issues to consider include additional bulk reduction to avoid long, high building
walls; shadow analysis; use of height to mitigate mass; and use of design to mitigate height.
4
FORT C O L L I N S
Downtown
STRATEGIC PLAN
•
ISSUE: MAXIMUM HEIGHT and BULK of TALL BUILDINGS
ii w of I - -- N Flucy Us STANMK ftwols Tell slumps
EXISTING POLICY WHAT'S LACIUNG
DT Plan—Vision: "Larger buildings should be Guidance on how much larger, in keeping with the
encouraged amid historic buildings,parks, plazas, and Framework Diagram. Explain that the tree-lined streets,
tree-lined streets. The Downtown's skyline should be parks, and plazas should be treated as a continuous
encouraged to continue to grow. A series of attractive framework that defines the building sites. (As opposed
towers can draw attention to Downtown." to buildings maximizing their sites,crowding out the
p. 2. sidewalks, and threatening the root systems of big trees.
The big building idea comes with multiple, strong
caveats. The point is to keep Fort Collins identity, and
keep the"soft edge"feel of the city.
DT Plan—POLICY 2—LAND USE:
"The intensity of land use decreases as distance from the Guidance on what degree of intensity we are talking
center of these districts increases." about.
"Intensive office development is encouraged in the
Canyon Avenue District while protecting the existing Again,clarify these caveats on big buildings so they can
character created by the large public buildings,historic be translated into Code standards,and maybe Design
• structures, lawns and stately trees." Manual explanations.
p. 66
DT Plan—POLICY 2—LAND USE:
"...C. Locate the highest intensity of development in
the Old City Center and Canyon Avenue districts and Guidance on what the highest intensity can be.
step intensity down toward the residential
neighborhoods.
E. Encourage greater intensification of land use in Guidance on how far upwards! Especially since this
the Old City Center and Canyon Avenue districts by lumps the historic core together with Canyon Avenue—
building upwards, seeking greater building coverage and those are two different degrees of greater intensification.
productive use of upper-story building space"
p. 67.
DT Plan—POLICY 7—URBAN FORM:
"Allow buildings of greater height and mass while Clarify how much greater height and mass, and be sure
respecting the character of individual districts and the caveats can be easily translated into Code.
historic buildings." Should greater height be contingent upon smaller mass,
p, 85 i.e. to get to 12 stories,have a slender shaft like the
existing ones?
Should we describe a step-back along all streets, with a
prominent base of 3 stories or less? Maybe make it
most prominent along east-west streets?
•
5
FORT COLLINS
Downtown
STRATEGIC PLAN
DT Plan—POLICY 7—URBAN FORM: Clarify all aspects of this policy,particularly the
"Maintain lower building massing(two to three stories) "buildings of greater height as the setback from the
along the street frontages of the major retail streets and street increases."
major pedestrian ways.Allow buildings of greater
height as the setback from the street increases. The
appearance of these buildings must be respectful and
sensitive to the historic character of this area."
EXTSTE14G STANDARDS WHAT'S LACKING
1. F.A.R.Limit,Canyon Avenue and Civic Center
Subdistricts: 5 for non-residential uses. Higher This would typically result in an office building about 6-
F.A.R.'s above 5 are allowed for residential uses, 10 stories. Need better design objectives. This says
limited only by other standards.75% lot coverage nothing about design.
allowed.
LUC 4.12(p. 78).
2.Height Limit, Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Add a clause"subject to Article 3 standards"to avoid
Subdistricts: 168 feet max. surprises;
LUC 4.12 (p. 78): Step-back along all streets with a prominent base of 3
These 2 subdistricts comprise most of the orange stories or less;
leverage areas on the Framework Map.
Define lower heights (4 stories?)at other edges of the
orange leverage areas;
Define lower heights adjacent to the historic core?
Lower heights adjacent to other historic buildings?
Lower heights adjacent to smaller buildings that are
NOT historic? If so, does shading make a difference?
Or is the bldg to bldg relationship covered best by
descriptive compatibility standards?
3.F.A.R.Limit,Old City Center Subdistrict: 2. Delete? Redundant w/4-story limit. Historic buildings
100% lot coverage allowed.LUC 4.12(p. 78). may exceed this, so it may not even make sense as a
protection of existing character.
4.Height Limit,Old City Center Subdistrict: 4
stories or 56 feet max.LUC 4.12(p. 78). Corresponds OK as is?
to the red core area on the Framework Map with 3 minor
exceptions where the red core area is smaller.
5.Height Limit,NCB zone district:
3 stories max. OK as is?
LUC 4.8 (p. 58):
Corresponds to edges of the light orange leverage area
on the framework map.
6
FORT COLLINS
Downtown
STRATEGIC PLAN
• 6.Historic Resources Compatibility Standards:
Compatible Design; Respect for Historic Character; OK as is? Esp. if the zone district is made more
Protect and Enhance the Resource; Taller Portions specific?
of Buildings Set Back. Developers may feel there's too much room for
3.4.7 (p. 71-73). interpretation. Neighbors and historic preservation
interests may feel the same way,but with the opposite
goal in mind. In staffs middle ground, it was a good
tool in review of Steeles Mtn.Ave. Residences project.
7. Compatibility Standards: Complementary Design, Same comments as above. A good tool to use in design
Similar Proportions to Nearby Bldgs. and review of a project,but can be criticized by
3.5.1 (B) &(C) (p. 75-78). Specifically applicable opposing interests on both sides for not stating exactly
under 4.12(E)(1)(b). what can and can't be done.
8.Height Review Standards: Full of redundancies,needs complete overhaul.
Shading and Privacy Impacts; Repositioning of Bldg; What is not redundant is barely useable, e.g.
Redesigning Bldg Shape; Reducing Bldg Mass; 6...shall...not have a substantial adverse impact on the
3.5.](G) (p. 78-79). distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent
public and private property. Adverse impacts
include...contributing to accumulation of snow and ice
during the winter......
Many buildings could be found in violation of this.
Some topics maybe worth salvaging in an overhauled
section:
General consideration of excessive shadows or privacy
• impacts;the shadow analysis along with summary
conclusions about why the shadows are OK from the
standpoint of off-site interests;
9.Height Review Standards—Modification of Height OK as is? This one overrides the height limits of the
Limits: height limits can be either increased or zone district if it's done for one of the purposes listed.A
decreased by the decision maker. deliberate loophole.
3.5.1(G)(1)(c) ( . 80).
•
7
•
a*:fir s ,bk
r
VS
s
Y' Y
�,�..', s `,• ,1R6 �� � t tit`2zk.iiF,." Y.. �-J� , '(n.G�y .,��� fl qe�,� �" � N �..rr.
Taller
Buildings
Downtown
pyYmmm CammamNl lens dahicb uM Waunum lMgMa �m
I �
k } —
Public Process
■ 12 Meetings, Whole Spectrum
■ Walk the Blocks
. Consultant
■ Staff Work and Other Cities
•
1
Questions for Council
■ Accept Downtown Strategic Plan as basis
for Code change?
■ If so, is proposed Code language OK
as drafted?
t
Downtown
Context
2
iJ
,
k
^c9e S`
RRLL �
5
e .
5�
. . . . : . p . .
` \)y\. f»
:�- ,,-.
., � t
�.
;�.
�,
, �
{.
$_
�,
�•tii
,h,,.
.,. _
;,
.�. __ - �-
--.�.
_ ;
�,.
�,
Y vs-
P E�...
�� d. H
�m v`
"_ <.� � -�
� ;! .�
�: gsb' .s4q .
�t � �`�� 4 ny �
E<
Z+' u^..:� �x
. . e, c. .. ...
� ...,`H. t `' _.
A-
�:
C'r�.:
'6
*� �r Y
....i� a .r. �£ � w.
e a
£ p �
fir;_
{ a
i
�+
...� w_.:..= r ... a A�r� ..�. _..
'G�.�w��iFera` .LL.��^�
µ
Issue Background
. Existing Downtown Plan
. Steeles Site Example
• . Downtown Strategic Plan Framework
, Protect and manage downtown core
Leverage downtown core through infill
r Blend infill development with adjacent
neighborhoods
Solution Overview
■Block-by-Block Height Limits
■ Pedestrian Base
■Setbacks (Ground & upper floors)
•
7
B CI fl Z TY:
a
.. .. .......... .
M
�. ..,,.
Ee-
✓ sue..... ®, l...s
r �:
�, -1
W� �. :� '�� .�.
- ,,.
�.
_.,<,
/Wr I �� � L � �„_
N
� �--_-
�— 1
"=,..�
�s�—
Pedestrian-Oriented Base Portion
f
•
1. Ma.Taller WIWkeps(over 3 modes)Mall haw a bona pordon wnslstw
of 1 or 2 obeles,Dearly afland by a premineed,prolardintl wmlrn or raer,
fmdasb*tl ,dtllweMmafMak,antldm asmewsfrom Meremainder
demanding". bMe bw pwmm b 2 afodu,Me praund floor sMtl W
hMer dYlmanUafed by Mesbatlon and otdar dmailinp.
2. Upper Floor Sed,acks. Uppw PorUonsafhMrbolWlnps Mall Wf.dher
aMb abovemabaseMwMamwnm umcontrlbuhhasgntllweR
apwx Dime WlWlep design.
Upper floor shacks send W deeermead by an emphut on ptlubian
scale In stdawalks and outdoor spades,wmgflbillry with Me scek and
mewls,of nearby W lle",preaervafbn a kq sensitive MM.In
hive cmn s,end Mpr scasak aDowmawn and b maWbin•dope esof
open sey on part of the vandal chnQ aMe tlfy.
•
11
• -
12
8' ¢
9ko¢r
4 Stories
�+h�G
5-6 Stories, +/- 85 Feet
• `' rya
i
a , IIYt
!3#M.
13
h
ae I
IsX�. it '
•
6 Stories
6 Stories g
•
11
7 —9 Stories, +/- 115 Feet
7
13
' Fr
7 Stories
•
15
( �'\
/ }
7str
. (p .
astr \
$2str, +Ios Feet
) �(
16
z ;
LL
10 Stories
y
BStones,
� F
9 Stories
17
M±P�y k
» : \ , Stories
13 Stories
18
��� : . • . , . ,
-
.��
Packet
19