The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/24/2006 - DOWNTOWN ZONE DISTRICT STANDARDS FOR TALLER BUILDI DATE: October 24, 2006 WORK SESSION ITEM STAFF: Clark Mapes 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 agree with incorporating Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP)recommendations for taller buildings into the Downtown Zoning District, with or without adjustments in response to ownership concerns in two specific situations? 2. If so, does Council find the proposed Code language to be adequate and appropriate as drafted? BACKGROUND This item is about proposed changes to Land Use Code Section 4.12, the Downtown (D) Zoning District,involving standards for development of taller buildings. Taller buildings in this case means buildings over 3 stories. The proposed changes primarily affect the Civic Center and Canyon Avenue subdistricts within the Downtown Zoning district. The two subdistricts are shaded green on map Attachment 1. This subject area is a 25-block transitional area around the west and south sides of the historic retail/entertainment core. The proposed Code changes come directly from recommendations of the Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP). The DSP was approved by Council in 2004, after giving more in-depth attention and study to this topic rather than that which is reflected in existing Code. Recently, however, adjustments to the DSP Height Limits Map have been proposed by property owners in two specific situations. Staff recommends focusing on those at the work session. The reason staff has proposed this item is to directly implement the DSP by making the Zoning District consistent with the DSP. Also, this item corrects problems created by current Zoning District regulations. New Information Since July Work Session—Proposed Map Adjustments by Property Owners Two situations have arisen in which property owners contend that the Height Limits Map in the DSP should be adjusted. Attachment 11 fully explains these two situations. October 24, 2006 Page 2 New Information Since July Work Session: Economic Assessment At the July 11 work session, Council asked staff to provide some wide-angle perspective on economic effects of the proposed standards. The direction was for staff to use readily available information and conversations with affected interests. A memo dated August 30, 2006 was sent to Council on this topic. Staff will be prepared to summarize/review the information at the work session. New Information Since July Work Session: DSP Public Outreach hi response to property owner complaints about public outreach,staff sent a memo dated September 25,2006 to Council which summarizes the public outreach related to the DSP and also this proposed Land Use Code update. Staff will be prepared to summarize/review this information at the work session. Previous Information Regarding the Overall Item The information below is a complete description of the item, essentially unchanged from previous packets except for minor editing. Quick Comparison Existing Regulations Proposed Regulations - A 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, rather than existing regulations; response - Caveat: floor area ratio limit of 5 to problems in existing regulations Problem Statement Existing building height and massing standards for taller buildings(over 3 stories)in the Downtown Zoning District are not effective because they create uncertainty about what is allowable. 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 most notable 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 existing tower buildings are about 155 feet in height. October 24, 2006 Page 3 On most of the 25 blocks in the subject area, it is clear that no new building would be appropriate or approvable at the 168-foot maximum height. The number simply does not fit most spaces that could become available for redevelopment,which raises a question about its relevance and meaning. The 168-foot 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 168-foot limit is also offset by a Floor Area Ratio limit of 5 for non-residential buildings—that is, the ratio of total floor area to parcel size. The current regulations are unpredictable and it is 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 uncertainty 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 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 responds the varying context 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. October 24, 2006 Page 4 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. 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. Semiannual Land Use Code Update Staff first brought this item forward as part of a semiannual Land Use Code Update on the premise that it is essentially a technical step to directly implement the Downtown Strategic Plan and it corrects problems with existing regulations in the Downtown Zoning District. Council requested more information, public discussion, and work session discussion in order to go beyond the "technical step" aspect and increase understanding and comfort levels with the implications. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the Code changes on a 4-3 vote. ATTACHMENTS 1. Context map of downtown area zone districts. 2. Map of existing buildings in subject area. 3. Map of existing height limits in subject area. 4. Map of DSP-Proposed Height Limits. 5. Map of Staff-Proposed Height Limits. 6. Map of Owner-Proposed Height Limits. 7. Series of Color Coded Graphics: General Height and Massing of Hypothetical Buildings under DSP-Proposed Height Limits. 8. Proposed Land Use Code revision, unchanged from previous packet. 9. Background Issue Paper, unchanged from previous packet. 10. Powerpoint Presentation. 11. Memo on Owner-Proposed Adjustments. 12. Memo to Council dated August 30, 2006. 13. Memo to Council dated September 25, 2006. i � I E■IIBIIIIIIIIQII�I= lilllililirrllllll i p. � liTiii►[uuull� ,��ItIII L • �Iw111111111fl11�G ` I � �� :C = illEIIII III " o � milli 1 • _ � II�IIIM� I�11111 • s - - illllle h �1nlHIM �' �A. -1_-'��Ilr' ' _• = _ li li1i41111i1 =�[N.41LaI Cop her Street ' 3 � ' rsit Ir ■ s . 009 rr IF . .fi/ ANEW ..f = bill Maple Street " ? 4 - _ ► . . ' 44 Cit Roo ... _ HaII• o • � . w 4. No LaPorte Street ,hTA Do .,r ` ;►, • t �.. f Y or 117A V� . ` r ..do or _ 1 j1+ • �� try ice /v JobT, «1 .r f Just ... � ', r f pp ` x .:� =' ' Center .+ TV , IV ; tercn � �• r (D ; 4r Mountain Avenue .i , f • . . ddd Imp L No Key Bank , . m ! Lit ;•' f r Oak Street ! ; aII ; v 1 r • ... ! � • � �- � t � 'r! '� ,- fill til 3� , � �• - ' ', ' L � • era • SON , � � ? Cortina F � � Existing ..- ; t� t ' ,� Buildings f ;. Ir we IV . s ; • . Olive Street _ �* s : - eta --.r . . ., , • • ,�* R \ -► 0 14 , �--;. �►.y; `1 - 4L s73 I DMA Plaza ' � ' rd _ • .�� _ p! �;; .ram , , # - ti • • .a - . . r � IWO opt Lincoln - e Center ' " - R j y . ` Safeway : . ` o Al f LMiN CG� Review Using Compatibility Existing Height Regs �� • = _ _ 168'subject to P&Z Board Standards Civic Center& Canyon Avenue Sub-Districts Other Zone Districts ' ■ WNW,D R w MI B �■■� ■ � � I ,u � V� � �� stones � �=:dill ��i ■ _ ■� ...r4 �� 'r..•r �`� OldtCity Cente, . . . 56 � - JJ ml�aim wnlYi ; ��Yel�'n •' � ICI■■�'�'MI 1 � NOW ■ y� u.�`..,�� I�r ,yy- ■ n I r� �i i i ' �Lill ' � � � ' � • ■ L+� � • BI� ' � �� + NCM ■ (C�r u W LIR.,. ' • . . e e � ■ Canyon Avenue Sub�ds'tlic�t $� �� ■ ; �� ® . . . . . . ■ ■ �b 3 stones MIMNA WON •� -• -N C IVl - I i �L MiN �C Ck`F Wile I tamed JIffill!M1. ..... B ■ . I ' sul OId;GLA dy Cente_r,. •�. �)p`•��\ al 11, Be y�!, ■ ' � ' .I �, !J L Nil.vwi� L9M'N � tfc,�y 7 it I� I ■ MoirI IN 9 • • , � � ' LF 1 . r• �J t, � � � islories� s1nO �r ■r�r�1:11111d\ ��. oi 11 Proposed Height Limits 011 GS�1 , = L M ■N�� II WbL + m io_a I `. `2 5 stories c,c � • feet, MEI J i��g L9�LJL9 ' Film rill, -LI��`��_w_ t� _ �! _ _ �-- �I115 • - �� -` ■ - I: is :•' !,1 ■ ■ �� ■ 7 ■ NJ Note : On blocks with multiple height roll I J! CPU limits , lines convey general building EN 100021 massing concepts , not exact dimensions . FE oil I Civic Center & Canyon Avenue Sub-Districts MIM i Other Zone Districts J Ya�laYr L�� IJIJLt� storles� ■ L___—,J J - - - me MEN a�0 � �� ■ .- � 1 : O d :C.it�y►Cente�lr,►' � � � �, u � .� ��6e �66 Hai ■ L_.�� _ f�! �; ��I�I�I � o � �.� ��. .��*�le � ■? � L .. '1�1 WERE lisp, I _; 11 _� di a �� ■ �L __ ■ � 0� riJ ■ � � � I y II 1 �11 f�l � � 0 FOR 11 ■�. �J r7■ I ■ / � / I ram` - � � - �� _ ��1� ' � - 7111111111 J Lf7i■M] '�� C�L*J ■�1 �IJr� ■ `_._,�J JI 11 ■ WON 10 PI RA mg F *1 I i 1111 oilLm - J MEN MENOMINEE WE 113 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ih Ikyj III :11 :4 G • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ * ■ ■ ■ �Q!C�■ NGGIM nog f 3 stories C �! 5 stones '�� ■ N ICi� B ilfrr• II:LJ LC�C j . ■�� r�i � C�3lstones Q 1 We MW r� 17T1� Attachment 6 a '' Proposed Height Limits _ - la = +/- 150 feet, 10- 12 stories C,_--,,, _�- _,.,__ ;p;; L- +/- 115 feet, 7-9 stories 85 feet, 5-6 stories ° 1 45 feet, 3-4 stories 0 t�I �.- Note:On blocks with multiple height o ' �- ❑ ' �] limits,lines convey general building i [ MAPLE ST massing concepts,not exact dimensions. z it l F ® Civic Center&Canyon 5-6 F IF � � Avenue Sub-Districts 0 g� m ¢ro( �z Other Zone Districts a o £ z z LAPORTE AVE 5 -6 85 85 z TRi ° �9 _ Sl LLLL 3 FMLLOUNTAINAVE EMOUNTAIN AVE El 5 . 6 85115. 10 12 1 • o _ 85 n10-tz tso 150 F - - OAK ST E OAK,$T C9 N � o� 00 �,(�]55 NIAw. � w 10 - 12 m 150 _ m W OLIVE ST __ c> n 0l 5 _ 6 5-6 5 _6 c �� ❑ '. 88 85 86 W MAGNOLIA ST E MAGNOLI ST E MULBERRY ST VIMI ta ''i _T- o ',aC7 � � ] L 'i1 7 LI J �- i C Canyon Avenue/Civic Center Subdistricts- Downtown Height Issue Proposed Height Limits • Owners' Recommendation .o,-�• �w�� Vol '*I•• - 4 %�"� L k' v All t Cher StreetIN ILA JIF Maple Street = - Existing Buildings Shown White .7M City '�- . , = ,...� � %' ■t ' . j%W - � Hall . 11 Ys othetical Buildings . ,F Y Shown Colored Similar to - Height Limits Map LaPorte Streetit : * �• 1 Will • � � • JA ► `' * � i� � • ' ` Old TownOct . Mountain Avenue : tVia , FWV` V L' MTI. I _ •i 4;00 ,. e '.F'¢ • . C _ /. .• ' 1 Oak Street .� t T: v .. r , / '♦, _•. - »�{ = Hypothetical vie _. . .. V - Depiction r T w Olive Street all r Of Proposed A— TTi � a ry a IF AK MW It 11 IF zoning it Lincoln - - . t - � . . A ' • . r s fix`: � `' L - ► ':r _ ,. ., _ ' - Center Safeway , h t - - - �. � r . 7.1[ r Fly r PIT IF Itt i 16, City — -c Hall .. r . �r• _r 1R1� sums / louia/Es/ia Ave/� r i. . � AL NAW J qr r APAv - O/%VB SI�eG�t r Pip f ` LR MEW= . _ s i redi Safeway r Looking North From Mulberry Street Existing Buildings mat.=. . . . . . . ■ ., dOW � �-Y_ - �w t ram - ' - � •• �� . - _� N+ . � l - _ w jou/ atia!/7 A vd/su� - - - - - _ - -rIl ry.C�`� yf� , � _ - _ _ . • �'. tip. 40p- Im 4 bit _S �. /✓' . -,mac� � '— �-� , �7�� , f4 • �� - -ram � �� . �. ,`'; _ _ � � _ r MY - • - �� . _ -. Y ice. �i�i_ �_ � 1 T ``! L � Looking North From Mulberry Street Hypothetical Depiction of Proposed Zoning Looking Southeast From Cherry Street Existing Buildings _ 776� OltIN Mq Ix ti �s �' _� . . . ter'AMA- ` �"5► �_ ✓ �.�` _ 7G '� _ � IdOW � � - � j, ' r !yam /� -�� r �� ~ I- ��'► =i > Looking Southeast From Cherry Street Hypothetical Depiction of Proposed Zoning _1! � . ,T• .:.�� .c-'`fie. ; �� e WOW - - ? ter►zo ft,sNOD 'ramlow �� .C• S ," + -� �'' ` dy; �?-�La� ` . +�" _ " � 1 � ,�• , . •' '•+. � �`j- dow IV = �Moo .1 � ��' - ��,d�am•.- j-' - „ • �� _ ' ~'�_ • •` "�; � . �`� - Z .� =tom � � ` � 4' - " � . �►- - �- i Block 23 - „Taco John 's " Am Block t' I Looking Southeast from 46 'r t Cherry Street - _ _ Detail View Ic WO CIS WW S - �_ K �� . '� " -. • - - . . � `- , I �/ - � ice\ 4� ; - - ' , f�,'r , _ t .+.+ems •.. ate _ %�" ��' P Log, LM r _ /i _ / gal:- / - � . log. . . ' " 05� 7 AW - � l+ - a •��C . fir- _ _ _ • to t - - . : -emu."•✓ . ' �- Looking West Over Old Town Existing Buildings av � �a - �i � � • � e .`may.: • •��r•..� __ --� -cam ` _� �3. Mew— �,. . + lf�. �+ •f.^�s �' '1�. 2iS i 54 �i - - '. 1.�- • � •• 45< -'/& — V �� ■ � �!� , � 1 mil' ra`ti.�. � � Y-♦ .r _ � a � 1 at we 01 49 •gin - n • •y mow-. - _ Looking West Over Old Town Hypothetical Depiction of Proposed Zoning Looking East Over West , � , Side Neighborhood Hypothetical Depiction of Proposed - Zoning IL —,►+,�" .. ' 1� Savings — — BuildingIr : ; • - " Steele 's ONO t �-, Site I • 1. 40 kAmr Vat 'M aw 1 — ' _ � � _-ram . ■ _ A � . � wac�moln e • 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 new buildings would be not 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 the 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] • 3 Land Use Code Revisions (D)Land Use SmitdamTs. (1) Flem-Area. All fiew buildings gr-eatef than fifty thattsand (50,000) square feet i floof afett and my additions of greater than fifty thatisand (50,000) squafe feet t-o existing bt6ldings ghall be 9*eet to Planning and Zoning Boafd . Move to Building Desim section below.] below--. GenteF A-,�efme Gent hfinifffwn !a 1slene ]+lane None size Nlifliffmfl le None 40 feet 40 €eat width Maxiffmn leg eeveFege 1 AA% 73% 73% Maxifftwn FAR* 2 3 3 setocthaek** A 15 feet i§ fie i sethaelE A A A NifetiffitHR 4 aeries not building to yea height 56 feet 468€eat 168 feet these__side_fiO._.._s afe_at inel _ded in the total of the floor,.__.. _a+ia These ,._,. —"free noorr Emeept as other-wise allowed in 4.12(E)(1)(a). {£�j(D)BevelepmerBuildinQ Standards (1)Rudd ign 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 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. Building setbaeks shall be fninimi5-ed in Eteeofdanee with the fallowing standffds to 1. Setbaeks for new buildings shall align with the setbaeks of existing buildings within M bl k C ee ift whieh the new building is being a natfeete i f with N.,. ..,.th,.,�l. ,.C,. VLVr111UMV. sta", and the property line aleng the publie street frowage. See Figure (This Old City Center standard moved to a new subsection in Building Design, below.) the !at eii whieh both buildings will be loeated. be eanstfueted between the baek of an existing building and the r-eaf property fifte o (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 Proposed Height Limits ds c d some ;t ! ED+/-150 feet, 10-12 stories €. i „ry ,grl L� i s a • ... :t +/-115feet,7-9stodes .,. - --- - +/-85 feet,5-5 stories I +1-45 feet,3-4 stories to r "— Note:On Docks with Multiple height - - limits,lines convey general building t MAPLE ST massing concepts,not exact dimensions. `i z Civic Center 3 Canyon Avenue Sub-0istricts -t- I'�z- '(✓� ¢ly -w 2 k^� tY �f,f Ner i y Other Zone Districts z > IAPORTEAVE �l,✓n/f � 1C �i Z � b G ,'" 5 'B � rc 'v c h- /� Q✓ / N TRI I L ( pad JMOUNTAIN AVE EMOUNTAIN AVE 1 �7$t 5 i 72 t50 „ �i--'" I OAK ST _ EOAK sT m I t} p ,� i s ;NMMa t_ z W OLIVE ST GP�A 10-14 5 16 Y P WMAGNOLIAST EMAGNOL ST 8,A ioa.An 1fr iY 7-8 „ � 7-9 r- L y I E MULBERRY ST Canyon Avenue/Civic Center Subdistricts-Downtown Height Issue Proposed Height Limits Figure 18.5 6 • 1 Measurement of Height Limits for the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Subdistriets. 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 distance equal to or greater than the height of the loft or penthouse structure. See Figure 18.6. nW.;ri.?G^tN0.4 C- 1 Figure 18.6. 7 Planning and Zoning Board Review of Large Buildings. be ..,.t,ieet to nlatiff:_it and Zenine Beard review based an the staandaMs set 3fth in. Development plans with new buildings (or building additions) treater 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). fajOld 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. NO BUILD 4'Stnry a ---_Yloor.P1. V S�ry . 2"stow Y Fourth Story Setback in the Old City Center Subdistrict Figure 19 (b) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center, Four Story Buildings: Buildings that comply with Figure 19 shall not be subject to mass reduction requirements for taller buildings in subsection (c)below. (c) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center: 1. Base. Taller buildings (over three 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. 8 . 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 detennined 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_ kPl[�fT Additional Height Over 6 Sbories/85; Additional Setbacks and Mau , +t Redaction Landscaped Setback 1 } ! 1✓ TOIFV-rlo�4 Combination or Gmond-Flo r and Upper-Floor Selbacks Massing, ground floor setbacks.and upper-floor setbacks shalt 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. • 9 4. Alternative Compliance for Mass Reduction Standards. Upon request bean 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). (a) Procedure. Alternative architectural drawings shall be pr_pe ared 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. Buildings with multiple itar-effonts shall be uptified thettgh the age of afehiteetufall� _(b) 2. Stafefrents. Stefefients are an integral pai4 of a building and shall be integfally (eh) 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. or gable feefs, but stteh reefs shall be similar to 4he r-aefs of buildings widlin the blael fsee. (ec)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 6ground floor retail, service and restaurant uses shall-have large pane display windows..-,Ssuch windows shall be framed by the surrounding wall and shall not exceed seventy-five(75) percent of the total ground level facade area. 5, (d) Nonresidential buildings. All nonresidential buildings permitted in this District includingwithout 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.) 10 . (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-facinglevel. evel. (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. (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. H CaSite 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. (e-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. 11 J11W1 al1YYl L11Y llJ] (a) N"efe parking struetufes ffent stfeets, retail aftd other uses shall be required alaft (b) Purlaufig wad a••« "... ... ...1 other ..fehiteet...„",1 elements shall 1. as posts, as_s_d _.a ac.YaaauL panels and vxxaea shall be used to establish human seale at the stfeet f4eing level. with ..Ja v...a buildings in waaaao of oLyaY, uuoo, a luwaaux, LIYLgh , ci: .[Moved up with other building standards] (3F)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 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. (in eluding,aas, without .. . (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, 6/19/01; 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 Attechmem 9 FORT COLLINS 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 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 locam ish"d U Tel lmho 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 STRATEGIC PLAN • Attachment to Item#999,Section 4.12(D)—Downtown Building Height 5.3.06 ISSUE: MAXIMUM HEIGHT and BULK of TALL BUILDINGS up IMEN8 ■s 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 Infill/Transition 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 '/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 COLLIMS Downtown STRATEGIC PLAN • ISSUE: MAXIMUM HEIGHT and BULK of TALL BUILDINGS Review d WON IKICYMN STMMU OMM N Tall S■ UM DT Plan—Vision: "Larger buildings should be Guidance on how much lareer,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." E�LTfl"+tG'5T1U ' 'S ZAGN+G 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.Ws 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 staff's 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 4.12E 1 what can and can't be done. S.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; "...shall...not have a substantial adverse impact on the 3.5.1(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). i 7 Attachment 10 • y� f r id 1p ,w . ; Taller VL w, � J Buildings y � k. Downtown Issue Background Existing Downtown Plan Steeles Site Example Downtown Strategic Plan Framework Protect and manage downtown core Leverage downtown core through infill Blend infill development with adjacent neighborhoods Solution Overview i • • Block Height Limits PedestrianBase Setbacks ( Ground & upper floors ) Design Considerations ( Pedestrian Surroundings , Downtown Commercial Zone Districts and Maximum Heights Attachment1 % @W 0f W Wrg heghta ASCU$$ on werves+ G W i nuwor K�Ww.• 12 ttorin a 1 r ` sbuke ...v.+..l.w ik'MMAvttws :.,, 12 stod" 2 dj[ . ,. � a 1p dr DIV 10 i W-OLALZ.M � i ' N<•a. • 1 Jam _ t Mulberry Street Lr MIA i 1 Proposed Height Limtts CIWLelAfte, _ ' •r- I50 real . 4 alwws 3 . 4 .. .: •.« a a nwr<s g u _ CmrCmlNaCanyen 1�1 . .. •.roue sueann.,a u,w IT � • ' r ' - r ai.r ra. dnrtn r � WOO • '}s, „aexlaNN ' auxNnn•.a u r 1so5.4 1`I ` 1 _ , , r w am ar • - . .� 3 •4 '=' 18 . 12 K y � WidCt 49 • 1s0 K �e - saasfi w anlrar c •.:waJl• 3 - 4 0r9® �� 7- e ISO '16 116 l Wes 64 a� •ear, , , r Cwrlcn AwnwlCw Cwwr Subd ows - Down Hegm issue Proposed Hef ht Regulations 3 show �- ,.seat t x ran Awl VP 'bias Looking North From Mulberry Street Hypothetical Depiction of Proposed Zoning Accept Downtown Strategic Plan as basis to update Downtown zone ? If so , is proposed Code language OK as drafted ? i Owner • • • • s , 2 Situations IBM= Proposed Height Umfts �% Bar• ... 150 foot 10 . 12 slaw i BCD i'1 O tts ka 7 . 9 sw•s 85 F" s . 8 sm 3 . 4 5 . 6 •:. 45 foot 3 4 stave 45 85 NW'. On blocks wh mWsb lrNN s wtt[ �• W Mason! tmk. 6xs <rnixy e,al M,i6iq s , mnsYp c4nc•gs. na ewu aYr•nsn,n. t Che s 5 6 Is"4 Cork C~i CM264 W� �y �%t - 1� OIMIZw OkYfck Q9 © u:umw ui MAP 2 ADJUST- D - d 10 . 12 MENT as / tw ttf -1 OCATIONS Savings uilding5. 6 ,- 1 M f•1 3 k s t"G - Y �fE 10 . 12 T 41P 3.4 l 46 cX3• 1e - 12 - 6 e 1t4 P i . . . 4 of 7 • , 2 -1 t0- 1245 7 - f 7 . 9 j� 7� 9 /00 Rfl o.A1s tts t , 5 i A _ f _ Bank' k -a+� �•� _ �. �+� • � Calla Larmer Carry � KeyBank �,r1► _ � Rocky Mtn Bldg �l - VacaM ��j ISteNesr 1 . ftp � 'SGr V! Alp:nrair. jog r Alp ItPOP : �r�► lei Olt� < 40 � • - � v � '/jam► ;♦ � .10 14 I , low _ .. Inm r M "9 r 85 S5 Avenue Sub-Districts Other Zone Districts O� - - -- - - - - :laO �y1 //rram� IAPORiE AVE f - �� Ilil G © �1i i F aaur. 5 - 6 ; 85 W 85 — L TRIMBLE LT ql t, �N H � OIJ T"..n GrS D ' FMOUNTAIN AVE E MOUNTAIN AVE y 2 y ' 102 - _ j 1 85 s - 12 15 Ing OAK ST E OAK ST r P warvE ST N _ . 46 c�+�� 10 - 12 118 S g 5 - 6 150 y . •. i86 85 = 8S W MAGNOUA ST E MAGNOLIA ST 1 3 -4 — . 127 0 7 - 9 7 9L10 0 114 �c.115 115 mwmmw �i i. K LLl.< E MULBERRf ST 7 rtVyl AnachmeniI IF 01111111111 12 stories Jr 41 a 11411105.6 CT tr , ft 6J �'+tp1 '�dcC) .re 4 stories ` Y�. l""" L2y1 rr s w S .� w,M sr 12 etOri@i _J 8 �� 1 , " rq� . fit;yi YJ� � •a- « t � ': �.^ . ,'�� ^�' .`kip �� {�' 1•' �M'. . ��. cv• t � Kj 11� •i r .. :s•s . �r a r 9 s �r •jj L r - �,z � � -_•ors _ 1 i r � -AP • �•. Cherry Street - r' 10 �REaT 1 1 Proposed Height Limits - 1 V - - - _ , � - Q +r- 1 so reef. 10 - 12 stories 1 q ' C:j +!- 115 feet, 7 • 9 stories - +!- 85 feet, 5 - 6 stories 1 3 . 4 S • 6 1 +!- 45 feet. 3 - 4 stories ' 45 8S 10 7 Note: On blocks with multiple height 1 ^ ' -IAAPLE ST limits, lines convey general building = 1 - massing concepts. not exact dimensions. 5 - 6 E= Civic Center R Canyon 85 m � �" Avenue Sub-Districts Other Zone Districts L PORTE A, E 6 1 00 2 Alba 8 $ . 6 S U hOGSF 85 _ 85 t TR n.IeIE CT z ryf T�.n •Lt MDVNTAINAVE a EMCUNTAIN AVE i 6'- 6 2 _ - 3 - 4 '� s t 70 - 12 45 � - 1S0 L i 1 OAK ST E OAK ST z / 1 U r" •- 6 �0 - �2 1 1 4 °T W OUVE sT ! Proposed Height Limits f (0 M _ - H- 150 feet. 10 • 12 stories i 4_ +/• 115 feet. 7 - 9 stones 1 +1- 85 feet. 5 - 6 stones 1 1 F5 - 6 S - 6 1 2 +!- 45 feet. 3 - 4 stones y 1 m 8S - o Note: On blocks with multiple height I .w limits, lines convey general building Z massing concepts. not exact dimensions. 3 t �� _ 5 6 wCivic Center6 Canyon" 1 _ 85 Avenue Sub-0Istricts it 1� Other Zone Districts z M .APORTEAVE Oe rY 16 3 atssa © 0 5 - 6 S 4'SF�a a75,P 0 85 e • o}` 6S TRraxE CT �t's!H �♦ '/I Ok Tow Gls - o ' 1.1GlRIT.nI ::'E � EMOUNTAIN AVE 4S - 67 - 9 5 - 6 as 11510 - 12 85 10 - 12 15o 150 _ r. z 1 W I lr7 EOAh ST05 - 6 Its - - r7 - 9 u � LCA'' 65 1 1 5 - 6 10 - 12 1 1 F v 1 r t$0 a5 1 1 H 1 r , 1 � N 11 INN per.. . r..1�y _ ; j • --� - -t 47 r t- 12 �I r - �Yr.. 13 ` ` - Proposed Height Limits ' E2p I 150 feet. 10 - 12 stones Gl �' O +!• 115 feet. 7 - 9 stones 1 +/• 85 feet. 5 - 6 stones 1 3 - 4 5 - 6 1 2 +!• 45 feet. 3 - 4 stones ' 45 85 Note: On !Hocks with multiple height I . limits. lines convey general building z MAFLE - T massing concepts. not exact dimensions 5 - 6 7 - 9 S • 6 i i �, Civic Center d Canyon j Avenue Sub-Districts 85 H 115 85 _ Other Zone Districts ; IAPORTEAVE q R W TRMN�R6T D l FWufffAN AVE E MOWITARI AVE N n S - 8 M st1 10 - 12 85 =: 10 - 12 15 150 u 1 M 1 EOAK ST N 05 - 6 115a y 1 1 l. 4 5 - 6 10 - 12 1 1 n 1 85 / 1 N n 1 1 1 P Vl N 1 r i , j, . 14 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 . 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 . T 1 t - 3 — 4 Stories , 45 Feet .1. y,. t' i�'j � "'/• per +, ,, � \\\ ` �`��\� �\ ` V iLl S mill • h I � . . tSTOP� ? . •t Me some loll omms - - - -- I - -A ppp - I � � * c i 4 Stories S , _ � •---:; : :fit '• ',k,.Y; - � ' y Efj . _^ z V . s .ki 5 - 6 Stories , 85 Feet rr i ' I i r , i +1. 111 I I i ! ► idY � , Ila ,. If � ; : ! per.,. 7 pr }. e'. t : I 1 i 1 lot • c , ■ n L4 L GNG off ��.J{ L� 1 ;ij AT food JIM .�- ` w� �•. tit I I -viol. �gi11 . 6 Stories Ilia a <. 00 1 I l . • at a1 . 9 6 Stories kk f � fy �: G; � i:' :�•�i`r. � f III r L 1 fit! . • J • �• ':S •\Ly . 40 '� r 6 Stories n .44 � 1 f L VI �� • 7 —9 Stories , 115 Feet � 1 ee 7 Stories ® ® ' �@0L • 7 Stories � . , wall 1 / / ` 8 Stories _ I �1 .w `JAB 8 Stories ...� ON A C ,,;LM .00- -� 8 Stories a 1 • all I old r� :. iNynn .rrr �► �• .� �J'- iq Led 44 \ .�,. _ ' .ram .�.r iC -^ _ ., 1 4% � � she •• ' .ii . . rr ILeI �r --` %i I/I r 1 ri! : :ci ICI 1 ill 1 t: w • ' ;[ 111 ( f'c . Ili Ism � Ili i 3 i I i -•� to 1 i OIL w F fi 1 �i 'u iii ' iii r ' i i Lolled For do od -1 —• m e tRI _ led ,110 L. Ilk odde- v� \ . .ter �� / '' • Lit o tip a $ 10 +,- , Vy 25 ve 40 � !Sal" d� l %' 040 JAM. 4 VIP / J J .A F 26 s ►I* I � 4 oil • ;: { 401 ' wt tip MIN, T t y r ��C lam• R1� .�` • f� .• 1. ♦^ r � � e 41 _ IrA 1 do Y pp + 1 y 9 stories 10 stories r. 1 r i � 4 ! i J yrt r ••^ J • e e i i a It 2av ,R i st 2 rr 12 Stories Public Process 12 Meetings , Whole Spectrum Walk the Blocks Consultant Staff Work and Other Cities Next step m Attachment 11 Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: October 12, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning FROM: Clark Mapes, City Planner RE: Proposed Adjustments to Downtown Strategic Plan Height Limits Map by Property Owners Two situations have arisen in which property owners contend that the Height Limits Map in the . DSP should be adjusted. The map below shows those two situations, circled in blue. The map is followed by full explanation. 281 N. College " P. O.Box 580 ° Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 ° (970)221-6376 " FAX(970)224-6111 x ` MW Proposed Height Li its buildingMM convey general massing concepts, not exact dimensions. VI Civic Center&Canyon Avenue Sub-Districts Other Zone Districts y �� c� • 1 . V- Olaibiv Center. •ry7 •1,� �� r v.��1 , Ss, INN � r�n"��,.a+�•n- ��n lix r7 MILL .,, . u � A7 � RM ffCB ■ u SO •J D : MR M■11i'�1 ® �Ia'1� MCICNJ�iM3�� r Downtown Building Heights Discussion Page 3 The first situation involves two half-blocks with Savings Building ownership (Key Bank tower and its parking lots, two ovals on the map.) This situation was explained in an August 30 memo to Council. The owners' concern is that the DSP proposed height limits would unduly devalue the subject properties by reducing the potential for new building development. Owners contend that buildings taller than the DSP limits could be appropriate and acceptable in the surrounding context, and that the limits should be adjusted on the two half-blocks. One of the half-blocks is bounded by Oak, Howes, and Meldrum Streets, and the south edge of the vacant Steele's Market property; and contains the Savings Building and its parking lot. The DSP shows three"steps"of allowable height categories on this half-block, decreasing from east to west. The"steps"mainly reflect sensitivity of residential and historic houses along Mountain Avenue. Upon further consideration, staff recommends adjustment of the map on this half-block, to simply show the highest designation of+/- 150 feet, 10-12 stories, eliminating the"steps". Staff finds that this half-block: • does not need to be limited based on the context of Mountain Avenue; • is appropriate for the highest designation, +/-150 feet, 10-12 stories; and • is appropriate to allow for any stepping of building mass to be determined in a development plan, the same as all the other blocks which are shown without"steps" (i.e., simply color this half-block red on the map—Attachment 5 and 6 show this.) The other half-block is bounded by Mountain Avenue, Oak and Meldrum Streets, and a north-south alley; and contains a parking lot owned by the Savings Building owners. It also contains the newer mixed-use building on the SW corner of Mountain and Meldrum, the Ulrich Blueprint Building, and a house facing Mountain Avenue. The DSP shows 3-4 stories, 45 feet +/-, for this half-block. The other half of the block—that is, the west half across the alley—contains 1 and 2-story houses. Owners contend that the east half of the block, or at least the parking lot portion, is appropriate for the next-higher designation of 5-6 stories, 85 feet+/-. Owners cite the following considerations: • most of the houses on the west half of the block are used as offices not residences; • mature trees are taller than the DSP proposed height limits, and would mitigate scale of a taller building; • first-rank building design, e.g. at Cortina level, could mitigate the height of a taller building; • each additional floor that would have potentially been built without height limits could have had a value of about $1 M, thus reducing potential land price After further consideration, staff expects to make a recommendation of no adjustment to the map on this half-block. Staff contends that the DSP recommendation: • already allows a much larger building than the surroundings,reaching the limits of compatibility; • fits the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer height transition to the intact neighborhood on the west half of the subject block, which is in the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density zoning district with a height limit of two stories; Downtown Building Heights Discussion Page 4 • avoids a drastic disparity in scale where the Downtown zone abuts the adjacent neighborhood zoning and a physically intact neighborhood. Staff contends that the Modification of Standards process would be the appropriate way to evaluate a potential taller building proposal at this location. This half-block was originally proposed for inclusion in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer(NCB) zone which has a 3-story height limit. Due to owners' concerns about existing commercial land uses, this half-block was notched out of the NCB zone and placed in the Downtown zone. The reason was land use, not building height or scale. The physical situation of this half block,right at the neighborhood edge, suggests a height limit consistent with the NCB zone in staff opinion. Three Cortina buildings would fit this site. Even with Cortina's quality of architecture, such massing would create a wall against the neighborhood which would be drastically out of scale with houses on this block and surrounding blocks n two other sides. The Height Limits Map expresses civic intention, and the DSP intends to more carefully and gracefully blend Downtown commercial areas with Downtown neighborhoods. The following page shows the situation graphically. Downtown Building Heights Discussion Page 5 P 1. - v E:{ Graphic depiction of half-blocks noted in the text above. Red lines outline the two half-blocks associated with the Savings Building(a.k.a.Key Bank Tower). Buildings within and adjacent to the Downtown zone district are shown as 3-d blocks superimposed onto an aerial photograph. White boundary lines are Downtown Zoning District boundaries. Detail from # K hypothetical °4. artists'concept ' :z• sir,- of proposed height limits and massing standards in the DSP. Qi�' Downtown Buildinq Heiqhts Discussion Paqe 7 E: Ali z 'an 4n � rt pq. Cherry Street FIX z. h Graphic depiction of the block noted in text above(red outline.) White blocky objects represent existing buildings;brown semi-transparent objects represent hypothetical new building height and mass consistent with the DSP. White lines are Downtown zoning district and subdistrict boundary lines. Maps Comparing Proposed Alternatives and Adjustments Attachments 4, 5, and 6 are a series of three alternative Height Limits Maps showing the alternative proposals before Council: • the DSP-recommended map; • a staff-recommended map with adjustment of the half-block containing the Savings Building; and • an owner-proposed map with proposed adjustments in the two situations explained above. Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE : August 30, 2006 TO : Mayor and City Council THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning FROM : Clark Mapes, City Planner RE : Economic Assessment of Proposed Downtown Zone District Standards For Building Height At the July 11 Work Session on proposed standards for building height in the Downtown zone district, Council asked staff to provide some wide-angle perspective on economic effects of the proposed standards . The direction was for staff to use readily available information and conversations with affected interests . This memo offers perspective on the proposed standards relative to three topics : 1 ) Growth projections 2) Financial feasibility of development projects 3 ) Specific Concerns of Property Owners/Investors In summary, the results of this analysis indicate : • The proposed building heights allow ample capacity for growth to fully accommodate demand for office and residential growth through 2025 and beyond. • Feedback from developers has primarily emphasized the importance of "predictability" that would result from clarification of current standards. • The second most prominent message from developers is that the proposed standards appear reasonable for the area and the market. • Staff heard concerns from two property owners, involving specific circumstances in two situations . Discussion among staff and the property owners is continuing with regard to these blocks. Staff expects to present recommendations and options to Council at their October 3 hearing on this matter. 281 N. College ° P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221 -6376 FAX (970) 224-6111 Downtown Building Heights Discussion Page 2 1) Growth Projections Staff finds that the proposed standards allow ample capacity for growth to fully accommodate demand for office and residential growth through 2025 and beyond. At least 6. 5 million square feet of future new floor area is allowed by the proposed zone district standards . This calculation is based upon a hypothetical illustration of new buildings in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Subdistricts . Hypothetical illustration of the 2 Downtown Subdistricts , , • . ' ~ which are the main subject area of building height '" - 4 . _ clarification (area within white line.) Looking northeast from Mulberry and Canyon; diagonal ►+r`^ '' y`' r street in background is Old Town Square/Linden Street. Colored masses represent potential new buildings. This shows over 6.5 million square feet of new floor area. �0 There is a total of 6 million square feet of existing floor area in the entire Downtown, as defined by the Downtown Strategic Plan (blue boundary on map below.) This includes the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Subdistricts plus the Old City Center and surrounding neighborhoods . Downtown Commercial Zone Districts and Maximum Heights Map of Downtown per the Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP). 0 area of build irq heights discussion Blue boundary is the limit of Downtown as defined in the DSP. The three subdistricts of the Downtown Zone District are shown : . .m„ within the green boundary. w Shaded green area is the two fC[.frY,6- subdistricts which are the main subject of building heights discussion. '�;r�> "" ` isuort.: �`"' "' a � Brown boundary is the Neighborhood qz Conservation Buffer Zone District, 1 % which forms a transition to residential neighborhoods. s61 DVY 0MULV, , Entire area within the blue boundary 4 stories currently contains 6 million square feet of existing building floor area. The two subdistricts shaded green is •n .r r..� nnn E correspond to the hypothetical illustration (top), which shows 12stories xu` €_ £ potential for 6.5 million square feet of new floor area. Downtown Building Heights Discussion Page 3 The Downtown Strategic Plan includes land use projections . Through 2025 , Office Use increase city-wide is projected at 2,038 ,300 square feet of floor area. Downtown is assumed to maintain 38 % of Fort Collins total; therefore, Downtown ' s share is 774,000 square feet of projected office growth. 2025 projection of potential Residential use Downtown is 1 , 100 additional units . At a generous assumption of an average 2,000 square feet of building space per unit, this projection would total 2 .2 million square feet of new building space. Therefore, combining Residential and Office projections through 2025 yields approximately 3 million square feet of new growth. Adding another million square feet for other potential uses such as Hotel, Library, Performing Arts, and Other, the total projected growth would total 4 million additional square feet, representing 62 % of the capacity illustrated in the proposed height standards. These projections equal about five new buildings in the Downtown area the size of the new County Office building over the next 20 years . The hypothetical illustration of proposed standards shows 15 buildings of that size or larger, plus numerous additional smaller buildings at the scale of the Cortina and 215 Mason buildings. These projections for potential future growth far outpace any historical trends in past downtown construction. Over the past decade, the total floor area of all the civic and "loft" buildings built Downtown is slightly greater than 600,000 square feet in floor area. The capacity allowed by the proposed standards even further outpaces any past growth trends. 2) Financial Feasibility of Development Projects Staff contacted five developers with an interest in downtown to discuss this issue, following the July Council Work Session. In addition, staff has discussed this issue in the past with the Downtown Development Authority, most recently in June . Also, the Downtown Strategic Plan process involved very extensive outreach, including discussion of this topic . Feedback has primarily emphasized the importance of "predictability" that would result from clarification of current standards . Predictability for residents, property owners, and developers about what is allowable appears to be the number one development issue . Predictability has two beneficial aspects . First, it helps with the question "What can I do to further develop my property"; and second, "What can my neighbors do that would affect my investment?" The next most prominent messages from developers are : • the proposed standards appear reasonable for the area and the market • cities change, in terms of markets for taller buildings and community acceptance of them, so be cautious about setting artificial limits Additional considerations in financial feasibility of development involve the general principle that increments of greater height can allow a developer to spread fixed costs over more leasable floor area, theoretically increasing feasibility and profitability along with total value. Especially in the case of redevelopment, additional building stories often create the economic incentive for development after the owner is compensated for existing development to be replaced. Downtown Building Heights Discussion Page 4 However, this principle is offset by increased pricing of land zoned for greater height, natural market limitations on size of new buildings, increased development costs (structural systems, elevators, structured parking etc .), and public opposition. 3) Specific Concerns of Property Owners/Investors Staff has heard particular concerns regarding property associated with the Savings Building, also known as the Key Bank tower. The property involves two half-blocks . A map and graphics follow, on pages 5 and 6 . The owners ' concern is that the proposed height limits would unduly devalue the property. Owners contend that buildings taller than the proposed limits could be appropriate and acceptable in the surrounding context, and limits should be adjusted on the two half-blocks. One of the half-blocks is bounded by Oak, Howes, and Meldrum Streets, and the south edge of the vacant Steele ' s Market property. This half-block contains the Savings Building and its parking lot. The proposed height limits map shows three "steps" of allowable height categories on this half- block, with decreasing height from east to west. The "steps" reflect sensitivity of residential and historic houses nearby, particularly along Mountain Avenue . Property owners suggest that this half- block: • should not be subject to limitations based on the context of Mountain Avenue, • should not be shown stepped, • is appropriate for the highest designation, +/- 150 feet, 10- 12 stories, and • should allow for any stepping of building mass to be determined in a development plan, the same as all the other blocks which are shown without "steps" — that is, simply color this half-block red on the map (see DSP map on following page.) The second half-block is bounded by Mountain Avenue, Oak and Meldrum Streets, and a north- south alley. It contains an overflow parking lot for the Savings Building, along with the newer mixed-use 401 West Mountain building at the SW corner of Mountain and Meldrum, and the Ulrich Blueprint Building. The proposed height limits map shows 3 -4 stories, 45 feet +/-, for this half-block. The other half of this block - the west half - contains 1 and 2-story houses. Owners suggest that the half-block in question is appropriate for the next-higher designation of 5 -6 stories, 85 feet +/- . Detailed discussion among staff and property owners is continuing with regard to these two half- blocks . Staff will bring recommendations and options to the City Council hearing on the proposed Land Use Code revision item, scheduled for October 3 , 2006 . y` cs IProposed Height ,� ■= �•• 011111ILM ice„ I 2 5 stones C , �F 1 feet, 1 - 12 storie rMI MEN L�1 ■ i � - - I ■ li�I, ; ■ L� :S� ,� ' ilklimits blocks with multiple height , lines convey general building � 1 �10 � + i r, � ■ massing concepts, not DI.oil "Rill Civic Center & Canyon 1i�r, Q.yl © I I I ■ Ll� d�l �� - ■ Avenue Sub-Districts rMaisrLit � � ��. - I s � ■ 1�M„ NtCIB _ ' i Il_ ANN M Other Zone Districts p . ■ ■ . - 1 �.1 ■ ■ Old; i Ity Center �. WN Ilk — � it III � o ►� ..��a� .��I:� • ; !II@N = °� v III F7 `''�`�' � • . �*� _: Al 11L1151110 NOISOMENESS �O�CGI�C • [7 L41�9 B, a —� _ ' 1�7 ' ■ - 9 • lrl� ■ A]ii nyffma • oilIN JEN WE sr] t I ■ � i � � FII = Wo am EVE ■ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iti T. �� :, :. IY . ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ � A N C B 3 stones � H � s;oi ,es •�� i stones HE Downtown Building Heights Discussion Page 6 I y4db — ' •� - .f =: Graphic depiction of half-blocks noted in the text above. Red lines outline the two half-blocks associated with the Savings Building (a.k.a. Key Bank Tower). Buildings within and adjacent to the Downtown zone district are shown as 3-d blocks superimposed onto an aerial photograph. White boundary lines are Downtown Zone District boundaries. Detail from hypothetical artists ' concept of proposed _ height limits and massing standards on the two half- blocks in question. ATTACHMENT 13 Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning MEMORANDUM DATE: September 25, 2006 TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Joe Frank, Director of Advance Planning FROM: Clark Mapes, City Planner ITEM: Taller Buildings Issue, Downtown Zone District- Public Outreach Staff received a request for a summary of public outreach in the Downtown Strategic Plan process. Pages 17 and 18 from the DSP are attached, showing a log of public meetings. Asterisks are added to note meetings where Taller Buildings were a topic of discussion. The number of such meetings is in the mid-twenties. Twelve meetings were solely on Taller Buildings. Two "meetings"involved walking the area with the Landmark Preservation Commission and members of the Planning and Zoning Board. Various meetings had different types of public notification. Several meetings involved mass mailings to all property owners of record in the subject area and surrounding neighborhood to the west. Two of the letters are attached. The current Land Use Code Update item has had the following public outreach in 2006: May 16 Chamber Local Legislative Affairs Committee May 18 Planning and Zoning Board Work Session May 22 Letter to all owners in subject area June 1 DDA June 6 Council Hearing June 12 Landmark Preservation Commission July 13 Council Work Session Aug. 7 Mixed Group Meeting Aug./Sep. Phone calls, emails, meetings with two concerned owners of three blocks SECTION I - project summary Figure 1.6 Meeting and Event Log (excerpt from Downtown Strategic Plan, pgs 17-18) Date Event Location Prima Topic(s) 8/01 Council Growth Management 281 N. College Project Initiation' C*Mltbee 9101 Downtown Development Author! Home State Bank Project Initiation 9 Oi Downtown Business Association Home State Bank Projelct Initiation' 2/02 Council Growth Management 281 N. College Project Initiation Committee 3—6'02 Selection of Citizen Adviso Grou N A N A { 3/02 Gibbs Planning Group Presentation Various Issue Definition and Assessment #1 Retail Assessment 5 02 Consultant Team Selected — .N LA NIA 5/02 Gibbs Planning Group Presentation Various Issue Definition and Assessment #2 Retail Assessment 5 15 02 Pro ect Kick-off Meeti 215 N. Mason Kick-Off 6/02 Consultant Retail Assessment Various Retail Stakeholder Interviews& Commercial Audit 6 26 02 Citizens Adviso Grou 281 N.Colt a Pro ect Start-U 7 1702 Citizens Adviso Grou 281 N. Colle a Market Issues 7 42 Downtown Develo men+Author! Home State'Bank Pro ect U ate 702 Downtown Business Association Home State Bank Project U ate 902 Citizen Planners ' Home State+Bank Pro ect,U ate 9 18 02 Citizens Adviso Grou 215 N. Mason Parkin Issues 9 18 02' Public'Meetin Lincoln Center Issues'Identificatlon and Definition 10 16 02 Technical Ad''viso[y Committee 215 N. Mason Issues Identification and Definition 10 02 Citizens pdviso Group 215 N. Mason Ma in ExerUse 11/20/02 Citizens Advisory Group 215 N. Mason Transportation Issues Des 11 OZ Natural Re urceAdvl� Board ate 281 N. Coil a Pro ect'iUa orks 11/02 Downtown Development 215 N. Mason Project Update Authority/Downtown Business Association 11/02 Transportation Board 215 N. Mason Project Update 11/02 Council Member Bertschy District Lesher JH School Neighborhood Input Public Meeting 12 1 02 Technical Advisory Committee 2Y5 N. Mason Framework Plan 12/02 Planning and Zoning Board 281 N. College Project Update Worksession 1Z/02 Ft.Collins Chamber of Commerce The Group Project Update LLAC ' 1/8/03 Landmark Preservation Comm. 281 N. Coll a Project U ate 1/15/03< Neighborhood Workshop Lincoln Center Framework Plan &[Neighbor hood 1 16 03 KCOL Talk Show Issues Silver Grill Project Information &A 1 22 03 Citizens Adviso -Grou 215 N. Masan Frame Worlds' Pa 1 22 03 Commune Worksho Lincoln Center Framework Workin Pa r 12 03 DD DBA Subcomn H+— 215 N. Masian O aniz'tion Issues 1 31 03 Planning and Zonln Board 281 N. Coll a Framework Dia ram 2 403 Growth Mana ent I—A Team 281 N. Coll `"' Ave Process Dues 2 1203 DBA Board Meetin Home State Bank On-Street Pa Parkin 1403 Planning -4-7 sin Board 281 N. Coll "e Date Event Location Prima Tc is s 2 190,3 Tran station Board 215 N. Mason an station Pollefes 2 19 03 Natural Resources Adviso Board 281 N. Colle a General u ate 2403 r Cl Marta er Meetin City Hall On-Street Pa Parkin 2 25 03 DD DBA Joint Boards Meetin Ci Hall I Framework Working Paper; SECTION I - project summary 25 U3 Merchants Meetin Or anization Issues Cache Bark frame rk ftdft:Paver 2 25 03 Ci Council Study Session Cl Hall U date• Framework Working Pa r 2 803 Pl Ina and ZAni Board 281 N. Coll e ' Trans rtafron artd Parkin 5 1 03 DDA Board Meeting Home State Bank Parkin 5 5 03, Staf#cpnsultanfChdrrette Civitas Denver Recpminendatiotts 5 1603 Chamber LLAC Chamber of Commerce Framework Plan 5 2i 03 CI "ns Advlsp Grou 215 N. Mason R ommendations 5 21 03 Trans rtation Board 215 N. Mason Parkin 5 27 03 Cl Cgun¢il qhie4v Session' C Hall Parklrt 6503 DDA Board Meetin Home State Bank Parkin 611 03 DBA Board hl e ,11, Home Stake Bank Recommendatons 6 11 03 Landmark Pres. Commission 281 N. Coll a Recommendations 6 13 03 Plannin and Zonin Board wk 281 N. Coll Recommendation- 6 1803 LPC P&Z Worksession #1 281 N. Colle a Taller Buildin s 6 18 03 Trans nation Board 215 N. Masoh Recpmmendatlpns 6 1803 Air uali Adviso Board 215 N. Mason Parkin 6 24 Q3 P&Z Worksession #2 Z81 N. Colle Taller Buildin 6 26 03 Citizens Adviso Grou O ra Galleria Recommendations 6/26/03 Public,Open House Opera Galleria Recommendations (Includes mercikant/nelghborhoods s2edftc 2resentations 6 26 03 DID DBA Joint Boards 0 era Galleria Recommendations s 6 27 03 Plamtl and Zorn Board; wk 281 N; Call a Ave Recammendatlbn$ 7 903 LPC P&Z Worksession #3 281 N. Coll a I Taller Buildin s 7 11 03' . Annrn and UnIn Board> wk 381 N Cdl' Final `lan reWew 7 1803 Chamber LLAC Chamber of Commerce Taller Buildings 7 2 03 Owner elp r Meetin 215 N. Mason Taller;Buildm s 728 03 Architects Meetin 215 N. Mason Taller Buildin s 7 28 03 Nei` hbprhood Meetin 215 N. Mason Taller'Buildings 8 1 03 Plannin and ZoningBoard wk 281 N. Coll a Taller Buildin s 8 7 03 DDA rd Meetin Home State Bank Taller Buildin gs 8/13/03 Landmark Preservation 281 N. College Taller Buildings Commission 8 15 03 Plannn♦ and Zonin Beard wk 281 N.'ColleQe Final plan review 8 2503 Joint Board ME ting 281 N. Colle a Taller Buildin s 9/10/03 Landmark Preservation 281 N. College Taller Buildings mi�ipn 9 17 03 Natural Resources Adviso Board 281 N. Colle a Final Ian review 9 26 03 nnin and-Zonirig Board wk 281 N. Call""e Final Ian review 10 1003 Planningand Zonin Board IN 281 N. Colle a Final Ian review 10 16 03 pburininn and Zottiirt Board hr C Hall final 'Ian review 11 6 03 DDA Board Meetin Home State Bank Final an review 11 12 03', DBA Board Mppfinn Hame State Bank Final Ian review 12 17 03 Trans ortation Board 215 N. Mason Final Ian review 1/0 ' 04'- DDA Biaard ee Mtin 281 N. College Final plan review - r 2 17 04 I City Council Hearing I City Hall Final Ian review Wk= W0/*5ession, hrg=Hearing *Taller Buildings Discussed