HomeMy WebLinkAboutREMINGTON ANNEX - MOD. OF STANDARDS - MOD120002 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (3)PROML OF BYILON6
PROFILE OF BuR.ON6
PR/JFILE OF MLON6
De516H® N �NCE
ZJp��IWW
DE516NED N 00MPUANOE
PUTH ONSgN 4.401(69d --''/
DE516NeD N COMPUANOe
NnN Dhmom 4-IrDN6)(d) —"'J
�'
yq}H DN1510N 4A(D)(b)(d)
�19 55
ROOF
DORMER I
j /
.
J
I rzoor
_
/
I
i
i
1
i
I
15 t
15-1 I
i
S-1
TO%W SmE-V14LtSa HAVE A 5'-1'
S4% W SmEiW.LLS HAVE A 12-11" OR &REA.
46%d 51DE-NW15 HAVE A 5ETBhGK 6EfWEEN
SETBACX AT 5O FEET ABOVE 6RAOE
SETBA01c AT W RET A80VE 6RADE.
b'd
! 12-11' AT EO FEET ABODE 6R .
WOR5T CASE SIDE YARD SETBACK
°
BEST CASE 51DE YARD 5ETBk K
B
G
TYPICAL EVE YARD 5ETBACK
va° , t, a.,
va° = V-0"
va" ,1.-0..
401 W. Moumeln Ave.. C 8 100
521
Fan ph: 07. CO 80621
ph: sVuctI4.1191
wwNJheenolwneW dlon.com
vwusNr FwTs uwwaN PNMmweb
REMINGTON ANNEX
706-715 REMINGTON STREET
PROFILE OF B',W.DM6
1,07H O E0 M L VOW(d)
YtlTH ON5ON 4.1(OXbNEJ —7r
THEORETIGW BUIUTNb PROFILE' 6ENER By
UNIFOMM Fl PROPdJ® SETpK.Kb INTO ane
UNIFORM FI¢OFILE.
AVEFtASED SIDE YARD 5ETBACKS
1/8" - V0"
SIDE YARD SETBACK SECTIONS
Pmmd number 20114T
Date 01119112I Fig. 3B
Drawn by RJH
Checked byJCL Seale ire"-1'-V'
AVE Z 5M YARD 5Ef K 1 6R !! S-ID'
AVOU6E SmCC YARD 9EiBAGK � 15 e@T At50.'G GRADE: 6'-4'
I
AVC a SCM YARD BGIBIGR • BRADG: W
+y -FZ -rL2�+-.. -_-bra.-�WZ- :.s. w,.-,aaaaaaaa
SVEYARD SETBACK5 0 GRADE B07EYARD SEBAC <5 0 15 FEET ABOVE GRADE
V + 30'-0" 1" - 30'-0"
AVp1A6G 11E)6 YN[O 6GTBKA • 90 RT AGCNE 6RADEr 15b'
AVERAbC 99E YA® SETBACK � 90 FG@T ABODE GRADE 14'-4'
SIDEYARD 5E75AGK5 0 30 FEET ABOVE GRADE
1" + 3a-a.
401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 50521
REMINGTON ANNEX
SIDEYARD SETBACKS
Project 20H4]
ph: 9]0.224.1191
www.ihoartakonaWctlan.eom
Dale
Gala 0,,,Fig. 3A
wua.Y rwv+....... Mrst+
Drawn by RJH
]0b]15 REMINGTON STREET
Cheakae by JCL Scale 1'w00'-0-
14,605 � REEF OF FLOOR A ON FIRST FLOOR
5,5615E N REAR YARD 6]4] 5F M FRONT YARD
64'-11" SSG
REAR YARD FAR LALOULATION5 - 15t FLOOR
1' = Da-0"
401 W. Mounl•In Ave.. SUI0521
Ful ph:
CO 81191
p5: 979324.1191
v9wNT rwvs uwww •nR1N4Re• www.U•Ri6lcon•5udbn.mm
PRONT YARD
REAR YH
RILL LOT
f9,4DA 5F)
(9.94 5F)
(K. 5F
FLOOR FRONT YAIm
FAR
R YARD
FAR
TOTAL ARSA FAR
FFR5T FLOOR
6.2 2 SP
OA5
5.561 5F
O%
14,5055E 0]4
SEOOND FLCOR
5.4T95P
055
T.6115F
0"
15,2905E 0.61
I
TNIRO FLOOR
4.2 SP
043
6,590 SF
0 N
fO.S69 SF O.SS
WLDN TOTAL
15.950 SF
160
=.1125F
2.25
55.6625E 1'.
15,2 S ARE PEST OF FLOOR AREA ON 5F10NO FLOOR
10,569 SOIIARE FEET OP FLOOR AR ON � FLOOR
1,511 SF IN REAR YARD 5,4W 5F M FRONT YARD
6.UO SP IN REAR YARD
4.229 5P N FRONT YARD
6 w 55-0
T'L
1
66.tO
L
95O
m
REMINGTON ANNEX
]W)15 REMINGTON STREET
REAR YARD FAR GALGULATIOV5 - 5rd FLOOR
1" = 50.-0"
REAR 50% FAR CALCULATIONS
)efM number 201147
51R5�112l Fig. 2B
LOMMIMT'CgMm1ERON1, NeISXBLRHLpJ C.ON9ERVATION,_ 1 NEIN•tbNBORNOOD GONbENVATICII
015 DSTRILT 41
dnw
IRI.NBTON FWl
ENDTM6 »T(MY MULL-
- FAM1Y RBID@1nAL BUILDNb
ISODTNb]bTORY .ear n�oaA.aw'A'�w�as��m
.rnodnK
COMMERGK EMLOaab °1'O•'° rurw•wwawro�
•o..0 V•w•..Pm•uelar '.I
I I
.bra r•a. wssn sawerRr _...__. _. _ __ I - A � ml
� I aw•ao:Airsays•an.
ease »:`.s•+d•�rer¢rw'.N �.. - I aro u•�"OO`
.�..°..>e `•• l..^/llE!•L STRCCf I
CxSTINb 13TORY -
RETNL WRDMb
u+•:w w�� mom
EASTINO, »TORY
MINEDLSE BNLDIN6
ww w�furw¢rc aim
a
_MEN _
PLUM 5TREET
—IN& »TcWr WLT-
PAMILY RPL9IDBBTK &IILDM6
giyfx W°A'.adM[.Rf
AI
I a11�°.•p•T •
' 1 aIMN6TON,:f
Hama. FI y ftD "Tty M
FNmLRES�K EUllDN6
I �rur.va. �•e•rm ..e�or
F I � -�. I I �aIDna •a�+e.r
1 • Pill DEL1A TNLTA
P.%15Tmb 9 t/] 9TOfcY
PRATERHIIY BNLDN6
Divlslan 4.q(D) and use 9trrdmd�.
(1) Densdy. Minimum lot lea small be equtvaletlt to the total
Nwr are. oP the Wilding(s). but not less than Plw thpunh i
M.CC*) pule Pee[. For me purpOse , oP "Wining
de ..f 2MJ' 'p r cued' g. mes NK total that Pbsi
area oP Al h WilpR Wl101hgc n eanuretl along that aa•ioe
wells of M,cn WIthe tO, Incwd ass each Nrll.netl he grOu'ded
Nwr Ievel, plus Ease LOLa gran larger
anal O the glround
floor oP my ".&, Fe Wilding brger than one he fleod
of n, (120)d &Wq Feet, pld Elan height oP t l Fwr area
or an, xwnd story having . cellbp neighs or et lent sewn
WI IN wee w Peet Ih to An en tzz las n eGGeeWry
building brand on LM1e lot. (Open be r w-P and bexmmec
cM1MI ha be Cnelt') n Plwr Wesor pRpacee d
calrylrting OarrelLyl.
(5) PtaOr Area Ratio (FART WLs are swei W a maxlmum
PAR of thirty-three hundredths (055) On the rem PIRy (so)
percant of Vie let as It existed an October D. 1Th. The lot
area Y%M as we bash, For the PNL cal wistion "I be
t Onaidered the minlmun lot size within the Tens a nrkt.
IN SUPPORT OF MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS REOUEST ITEMS 1 & 2
e01 W. Mountain Avo-$.he 100 REMINGTON ANNEX DENSITY& FAR CALCULATIONS
Fw C.14ns, CO W521
ph:.70.224.1191 Plaint numbeh 201t<➢
waw.lheadolconsftconoom Date 0111B11T Fig. 2A
...... FFTe Va.aN araniteat°
Drownck by RJR
T05415 REMINGTON STREET Checked by JCL Sale 1'=8D'-0'
m
ea
i
X/
rxrz-
NORTH
®THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
1" = 2a-0-
Mp :T
wt W. A".uite Maun I.. S100
Fon ph: 97 C08041
ph: 9)0121.1191
www,IhearlolWnatruClan.mm
vwuwwr r1.ve uwwoN .mme.m.
L..
PRo scr
NORTN
REMINGTON ANNEX
SOUTH REMINGTON STREET
0
v
N
r
ea
LUC COMPLIANT CONCEPT DESIGN
project numbm 716910
Date WIM7 Fig. 1 B
Drawn by TM
Clrecwby JL S W 1'=30'0-
I
I
I
I
d @ d
ES �' @
r=I csAl
Brtl ♦LOON G 41Lb
2M RGglt 1DS 41ee
bC RGGrt ]GO 49BB
WTAL ' • 1B . 111�.95O PT
m
r,-7 ,-1
10
19
I e
I T
l e
11
12
to
I 14
1B
m 19 tB n 16 /
ATTACHMENT 10
FA
}
N
-�T REMINGTON ANNEX LUC COMPLIANT CONCEPT DESIGN
4 491 W. Moumwn Ave., sous 1
Folt ph: 97 CO 81191
ph: H7H.129.1191 Plged number 716910
wxw.meeM1olconeWdioncom Dew 11/i Fig. 1A
SOUTH REMINGTON STREET O
Chedetl By JL Scale AS lnrllraletl
Other principles of the Fort Collins City Plan that were considered during this conceptual design effort include LIV
16 and LIV 17 which promote the recognition and preservation of historic buildings. It was discovered not all
principles of the City Plan are not necessarily compatible with each other in all instances, particularly in cases
where small scale historic residential structures are in such close proximity to the density that the Fort Collins City
Plan calls for along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2) at College Avenue. Nonetheless, while recognizing these
conflicts, the conceptual design does incorporate the principles of increasing awareness of historic resources (LIV
16.2), utilizing incentives for preserving historic resources (LIV 16.3), integration of historic structures into
redevelopment activities (LIV 16.6) and preserving historic buildings (LIV 17.1).
The results of this conceptual design exercise is a three story, 17,159 square foot residential building with 4,000
square feet of enclosed parking at ground level (20 additional spaces cover the rear portion of the lot). Fourteen
(14) studio apartments, four(4) one -bedroom and two (2)two-bed room units comprise the remaining 13,159
square feet of building area.
Graphically, this conceptual design re-emphasizes the realization that not all principles of the Fort Collins City
Plan are necessarily compatible with each other or with the standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code in all
cases. It should be noted that the scope of this conceptual design focused only on the redevelopment of the
properties involved with the Remington Annex project and does not reflect the redevelopment and infill of the
other properties along College Avenue and Remington Street that will eventually occur when the goals of the Fort
Collins City Plan are fully realized.
Per the criteria of Division 2.8.2(H)(2), in the best interest of the individually eligible historic structure at 711
Remington Street and to encourage the full implementation of the Fort Collins City Plan a modification to Division
3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code is being requested so that the structure at 711 Remington Street can be
considered for relocation under the provisions of Division 3.4.7(E) to a location that will remain contextually
appropriate to the scale and historic character of the house while Fort Collins continues to develop according the
vision of the City Plan.
We thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our request for these four modifications to the Land Use Code
of the City of Fort Collins.
Sincerely,
Jeff Hansen
VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects
401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 10011 Fort Collins, CO 80521 11 tel. 970.224.1191 o fax 970.224.1662 13 www.theartofconstruction.com
then increasing at a rate of one foot for every two foot increase in wall height to equal eleven feet at the point
where the majority of the third floor walls intersect the roof structure, which in the case of the Remington Annex
project is thirty feet above grade. This profile is represented by the dashed lone in each of the illustrations on
figure 3B. In order to comply with the various subsections of Division 3.4.7(F) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code
the north and south walls of the proposed project have been designed to reflect the character of historical
buildings in the area. This includes an articulated facade, varying roof heights and dormers all which encroach
into the specified side yard setback at various points. These features also create areas where the side yard
setback exceeds the requirements of the Land Use Code for the NCB District. When averaged, the side yard
setbacks for the proposed Remington Annex project are as follows:
• Average setback at grade equals five feet and nine inches (5-9"). This exceeds the code requirement by
nine inches (9").
• Average setback at eighteen feet above grade equals six feet and five inches (6-5"). This exceeds the
code requirement by one foot and five inches (1'-5").
• Average setback at thirty feet above grade equals fourteen feet and zero inches (14'-0"). This exceeds
the code requirement by three feet (T-0").
These averaged side yard setbacks exceed the requirements Division 4.9(D)(6)(d). Furthermore, the portions of
the sidewalls with the greatest encroachment into the required setback is limited to only twenty -percent of the
combined total length of the north and south walls (see attached figures 3A and 3B).
Figure 3A provides plan views at grade level, eighteen feet above grade and thirty feet above grade which
illustrate the articulation of the facade as the building height increases. Figure 3B provides section views at a
selection of representative conditions along the north and south walls as well as a section view illustrating the
averaged side yard setbacks. Both these figures visually describe the nominal and inconsequential nature of the
diversion from the standard set in Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) when the building is viewed as a whole, therefore, the
Remington Annex project should be granted this modification of standards based on the provisions of Division
2.8.2(H)(4).
4. Modification to Division 3.4.7(B) in regards to the preservation and adaptive reuse of the individually eligible
structure at 711 Remington Street.
Code Langua-ge: Standard. If the project contains a site, structure or object that...
(1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the
State or National Registers of Historic Places... ... then to the maximum extent feasible, the development
plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure.
A Land Use Code compliant conceptual design was developed (see attached figures 1A & 1 B) which follows a
strict application of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, including Division 3.4.7(B), preserving the original portion of
the existing house at 711 Remington Street. This concept includes the demolition of the various additions made to
the structure and restoring the building as closely as possible to its original 1888 configuration.
This design also strives to fulfill the principles of the Fort Collins City Plan which encourages, among other things,
targeted redevelopment and Infill (LIV 5.1), public investment along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2), expansion or
redevelopment of properties in residential areas (LIV 6.1), providing a variety of housing types and locations (LIV
7.1), and maximizing land for residential development (LIV 7.4).
VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects
401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 0 Fort Collins, CO 80521 0 tel. 970.224.1191 a fax 970.224.1662 ® www.theartofconstruction.com
The Fort Collins Land Use Code Division 4.9 (A) states that the purpose of the Neighborhood Conservation,
Buffer District (NCB) is to "...provide a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive
commercial -use areas or high traffic zones... "
In the particular area in which the proposed Remington Annex project is located this transition occurs over the
span of only four -hundred feet with the Community Commercial District (CC) to the west and the Neighborhood
Conservation, Medium Density District (NCM) to the east (refer to attached figure 2A). The properties adjacent to
the west side of the proposed project have been identified in the -Fort Collins City Plan as a Targeted
Redevelopment Area. According to Policy LIV 5.1 the purpose of this designation is to promote higher density
redevelopment and infill. The attached figure 2A illustrates that, for the most part, this redevelopment and infill has
yet to take place. Division 4.18(E): Development Standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code does not prescribe
any requirements or limitations on the overall density of these properties when they are redeveloped.
The Collegio development, which is just across the alley from the proposed project, is one of the few examples in
the immediate area of what might be expected from these infill redevelopment projects when they are
constructed. The lot density of the Collegio project is 2.54. This high density development is in stark contrast to
the lot density of 0.50 that Division 4.8(D): Land Use Standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code prescribes for
the NCM District that abuts the east side of the NCB District where the proposed Remington Annex Project is
located.
Because of the narrow nature of the NCB District in this area, residential expansion and redevelopment projects
(which are encouraged through Principle LIV 6.1 of the Fort Collins City Plan), with lot densities higher than
prescribed by Division 4.9(D)(1) would provide a more effective transition between the highly contrasting densities
of the CC and NCM Districts. This transition could be made even more effective by promoting higher densities on
the west side of Remington Street than on the east side.
The nearby Kensington Place apartments to the north-east of the proposed project and the Phi Delta Theta
fraternity to the south-east (see attached figure 2A) are examples of existing buildings with a lot densities
exceeding 1.00 which successfully work to facilitate this transition. The balance of the existing structures along
this portion of Remington Street do comply with the maximum lot density defined in Division 4.9(D)(1) yet are
ineffective in defining a transition between the medium density NCM District and the higher density CC District.
Granting a modification of this standard for the Remington Annex project under the criteria of Division 2.8.2(H)(2)
will enable implementation of the various portions of the Fort Collins City Plan as described above and also help
this area of the NCB District to begin to function as more effective transitional zone.
3. Modification to Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) in regards to the increase of the 5' side yard setback an additional 1' for
every 2' wall height in excess to 18'.
Code Language: Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yams. Whenever any portion of
a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from
the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction
thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be
fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any comer lot. Notwithstanding. the foregoing, minimum side yard width for
school and place of worship uses shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides).
Strict application of the minimum side yard setback standard would prescribe the entirety of the north and south
walls of the Remington Annex project to be set back five feet from grade up to eighteen feet above grade and
VAUGHT FRYE LARSON arthi#6ctS
401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 E Fort Collins, CO 80521 E tel. 970.224.1191 E fax 970.224.1662 E www.theartofconstruGtion.com
As previously described in the illustration from the Land Use Code above, the intent of Division 4.9(D)(5) is to
promote patterns along a block face that appear more like the proposed design rather than the Land Use Code
compliant conceptual design (see figures below).
THIS
Proposed design for the Remington Annex Project
Conceptual design complying with the standards of Dlvtsion 4.9(DNS)
Granting a modification of this standard for the Remington Annex project under the criteria of Division 2.8.2(H)(1)
will promote the general purpose of the standard, which encourages buildings to address and align with other
buildings on the block face, and provide for better compliance with Division 3.4.7(F) of the Fort Collins Land Use
Code.
2. Modification to Division 4.9(D)(1) in regards to the total gross floor area in relation to the lot size.
Code Language: Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not
less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area"shall mean
the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings, including
each finished or unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building
larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a
ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7%) feet located within any such accessory building located on the
lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density).
The allowable total gross floor area per this Division of the Land Use Code is 19,897 square -feet, which can be
represented as a ratio of total building floor area to lot size, or lot density, of 1.00. The gross floor area of the
proposed design calculated per the requirements of this section is 38,662 square -feet (a lot density of 1.94)
exceeding the standard of Division 4.9(D)(1) by ninety-four percent. This includes 11,433 sq ft of enclosed parking
at ground level. This building footprint will provide for 65 covered parking spaces fully on the site which will help
relieve pressure from the limited parking situation in this part of Fort Collins. If this parking was not enclosed the
proposed lot density would be 1.37 (refer to figure 2B for illustrations and calculations).
VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects
401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 v Fort Collins, CO 80521 r, tel. 970.224.1191 ■ fax 970.224.1662 0 www.theartofconstruction.com
And paragraph 2 states:
"New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures...
...and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to
the maximum extent feasible. See Figure 6."
Cl �j
NOT 7HIS
Division 3.4.7(F)(2) Figure 6
Building Patterns
In the illustration from the Fort Collins Land Use Code above, the major mass of the new building in the preferred
example has been pushed away from the street towards the rear portion of the lot to help maintain the established
building patterns on the block face. This is contrary to the literal interpretation of Division 4.9(D)(5) yet is a better
solution in a historic neighborhood setting.
A Land Use Code compliant conceptual design was developed (see attached figures 1A & 1B) which followed a
strict application of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, including Division 4.9(D)(5) limiting the FAR of the rear fifty -
percent of the lot to 0.33. This concept included the demolition of the various additions made to the existing
structure at 711 Remington Street restoring it to its original 1888 configuration.
This compliant conceptual design, as well as the proposed Remington Annex design, also strives to fulfill the
principles of the Fort Collins City Plan which encourages, among other things, targeted redevelopment and Infill
(LIV 5.1), public investment along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2), expansion or redevelopment of properties in
residential areas (LIV 6.1), providing a variety of housing types and locations (LIV 7.1), and maximizing land for
residential development (LIV 7.4).
Other principles of the Fort Collins City Plan that were considered during this conceptual design effort include LIV
16 and LIV 17 which promote the recognition and preservation of historic buildings. It was discovered all
principles of the City Plan are not necessarily compatible with each other in all instances, particularly in cases
where small scale historic residential structures are in such close proximity to the density that the Fort Collins City
Plan calls for along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2) at College Avenue. Nonetheless, while recognizing these
conflicts, the conceptual design does incorporate the principles of increasing awareness of historic resources (LIV
16.2), utilizing incentives for preserving historic resources (LIV 16.3), integration of historic structures into
redevelopment activities (LIV 16.6) and preserving historic buildings (LIV 17.1).
The results of this conceptual design exercise is a three story, 17,159 square foot residential building with 4,000
square feet of enclosed parking at ground level (20 additional spaces cover the rear portion of the lot). Fourteen
(14) studio apartments, four(4) one -bedroom and two (2)two-bed room units comprise the remaining 13,159
square feet of building area.
VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architbcts
401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 0 Fort Collins, CO 80521 0 tel. 970.224.1191® fax 970.224.1662 0 www.theartofconstruction.com
Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community.
January 30, 2012
City of Fort Collins
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Attention: Courtney Levingston
Re: Modification to Standards for the Remington Annex project
Dear Courtney:
VFLA is respectfully requesting Modification of the following Standards of the City's Planning Code for the Remington
Annex project:
1. Modification to Division 4.9(D)(5) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code in regards to Floor Area Ratio in the
NCB District.
Code Lan-guage: Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on
the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR
calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district.
The proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the rear fifty -percent of the lot is 2.28 (refer to figure 2B for illustrations
and calculations)
Generally, compliance with the maximum rear yard FAR encourages smaller single family homes and duplexes to
be constructed closer to the front of the lot so they become more aligned with other buildings along the street.
This works in tandem with Division 3.4.7(F)(1) & (2) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code to maintain the established
building patterns on a block face. However, when higher density residential expansion and redevelopment
projects are constructed, which are promoted under Principle LIV 6.d of the Fort Collins City Plan, compliance
with Division 4.9(D)(5) creates a conflict with the provisions of Division 3.4.7 when constructed in historic
neighborhoods. With specific relevance to the rear -yard FAR for these projects, Division 3.4.7, Section F,
paragraph 1 states in part:
To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and/or width of new structures shall
be similar to those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new
structure is located ...... Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to
the site... "
VAUGHT FRYE LARSO'iN ar'.0 9h0dt§
401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 10093 Fort Collins, CO 8052113 tel. 970.224.1191 o fax 970.224.1662 13 www.theartofconstruction.com
No Text
��-
IMOYOC P1MwmM ^ �
', ',I
- - I REMINGTON
ANNEX
• 1
A*LA
LOT,-
g I 111.5M 50FT
pj 0.45-1 ACRES
11 �I
I - 1
1 9RE PLAN
REMINOTON ?ANNEX
PDP SUBMITTAL: DEGEM5ER 'ith• 2011
p l
I=TI
Y
�
I
�i
_- _
L J-
1
- --
-
I
WIO
Landmark Preservation Commission
October 12, 2011 - 6 -
slight purple appearance; the replacement glass is clear. Several Commission members
commented that the two samples appeared very similar.
Mr. Albright moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept the
proposed glass replacement for the transoms. Ms. Hax seconded the motion.
Motion passed: (9-0).
DEMOLTIONIALTERATION REVIEW, PRELIMINARY HEARING- 604 WEST
MAGNOLIA STREET — NATE HOFFMAN: Ms. Rippy reviewed the Staff Report. The
property was reviewed in September of 2011, and determined to be individually eligible,
and that the proposed demolition/alteration would impact its eligibility.
Ms. Rippy stated the home was built between 1905 and 1910, and has had no
significance exterior alterations since that time. It can be described as either a Denver
Box or Classic Cottage. It features several defining elements of a Classic Cottage
including a central front dormer with a unique diamond fish -scale shingle pattern, hipped
roof, boxed eaves, original thin wood siding, and central porch with shed roof and
classical turned spindle posts. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing roof
structure and add a full second story.
Nate Hoffman introduced himself and his brother, Ted Hoffman. Nate Hoffman
stated the roof is dilapidated and is pushing in on itself. Dormers could be added, but it
seemed more in keeping with future plans to build an addition and new roof. Mr.
Hoffman wants to have several bedrooms in the proposed second floor. They would
change the direction of the roof line, from a hip roof to a side gable. The finished house
would be 30'Y2 feet.
Ted Hoffman said the roof pitch would be changed to a 6 and 12 pitch roof. The
gable would be turned the opposite direction because there is more space on the sides
of the lot. They are able to meet zoning requirements. Small dormers would be added
with some windows in the front and back.
Ms. McWilliams asked if they had considered meeting their additional space
requirements by extending the existing hip roof back as a gable, and adding on to the
rear. This type of addition is often readily approved, and the building can still retain its
ability to receive the financial benefits. Mr. Hoffman said if the addition comes off the
back, it will only provide half of the space that their plan would provide. Nate Hoffman
said there is no alley, and a house is close to them in the back. They are already close
to the 50% rule.
Mr. Frick suggested that the back side of the house could be expanded by 14'
and still meet the 5' side yard setback requirements. Ted Hoffman said that with the
current foundation (floor plan), that would only make the existing rooms larger.
Nate Hoffman stated he would like to add a new porch because the current porch
is not anchored properly on the front. He might also want to widen it.
Mr. Albright asked about the height of the adjacent structures. Nate Hoffman
replied that the houses on either side are one story; there are two story houses several
houses over from his house.
Mr. Sladek stated that the proposal violates some of the criteria that the
Commission must follow and it could not be approved as is.
Discussed ensued regarding the Design Assistance Program. Ms. McWilliams
will provide the list of Design Assistance Professionals to Nate Hoffman. '
Since an agreement preserving the individual eligibility of the historic building had
not been arrived at, the project will need to complete the Demolition Alteration review
Process before a permit is issued. The Commission recommended that the applicant
consider the suggestions made tonight, and take advantage of the Design Assistance
Landmark Preservation commission
October 12, 2011 - 5 -
CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL DESIGN REVIEW, AVERY BLOCK — APPROVAL OF
MATERIALS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERMEDIATE CORNICE
AND FOR THE PRISMATIC TRANSOM GLASS —CASIE RADFORD, SLATERPAULL
ARCHITECTS; BYRON MCGOUGH, WATTLE AND DAUB CONTRACTORS: Ms.
McWilliams introduced Casie Radford, Project Manager, with SlaterPaull Architects.
She stated this was a continuation of discussion from last month's meeting. Two items
need to be discussed: (1) The substitute material proposed for reconstruction of the
building's intermediate cornice; and (2) replacement of prismatic glass in areas where
there is none with appropriate replacement material.
Discussion ensued regarding the polystyrene cornice. Mr. Frick asked if this
material will tend to lock moisture behind the wall. Ms. Radford stated that she didn't
think so.
Chris Wolfe with Nostalgic Stone was introduced: He stated a barrier of some
type would probably be put behind the cornice. Also, the wall is somewhat wavy so the
cornice will not fit tightly up against the wall. Mr. Frick suggested that some type of
flashing material be used, maybe an Inca drain. Ms. Carson asked if they have used a
drain board on other old buildings. Mr. Wolfe stated that they have not.
Mr. Sladek said he was not in favor of the polystyrene cornice at the last meeting,
but after reading Preservation Brief No. 16, Use of Substitute Materials, and State
Historic Fund grant manager Anne McCleave's letter, he is more comfortable with its
use.
Mr. Ernest asked if approval of the polyurea-coated polystyrene could set
precedence, and, if it is approved for this project, is the Commission saying in all
instances or just in this instance for particular reasons. Mr. Sladek said it has to be
approved on a case -by -case basis. Ms. McWilliams stated that it was possible to use a
building as a test case, and if a problem is later identified, that material will not be used
in the future.
Ms. Carson stated she is more comfortable with the use of a non -historic
substitute material after reading Preservation Brief No. 16. She stated that she hoped
moisture concerns will be appropriately addressed with the mitigation efforts discussed
above.
Ms. Hax questioned the polystyrene's durability. Mr. Wolfe said that it is
inappropriate to finish it with colors that are too dark. Because it is a Styrofoam product,
it will melt at 240 degrees.
Mr. Frick stated that two motions are needed: one for the comice material and
one for the transom glass, which will be discussed next.
Mr. Sladek moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the
installation of the polyurea-coated polystyrene for the intermediate cornices on
the Avery Block and the use of this material be considered on a case -by -case
basis. A drain mat board or other such device must be used that will prevent
accumulation of moisture behind the cornices. Mr. Albright seconded the motion.
Motion passed. (9-0).
Ms. Radford displayed a piece of the historic transom glass that was located over
the Olive Oil Company. She stated that while some of the panes are intact, there are
several broken or missing .pieces. The proposal is to consolidate panes of the historic
glass into a few of the transoms, to create transoms with uniform appearance and
historic material. The remaining transoms would contain substitute glass. Ms. Radford'
also displayed a sample of the proposed glass that will replace the missing or broken
glass panels. Both samples had ribs on one side of the glass and were smooth on the
other. The replacement glass was slightly thicker, with a slightly different rib. The
original glass was also coated with manganese, which after time, has given it a very
Landmark Preservation Commission
October 12, 2011 - 4 -
proposed to be set in among a series of single story homes. It changes the block face
character on Remington, affects other designated historic buildings, and affects the
defining character of the neighborhood.
Ms. McWilliams suggested that the Commission suggest alternatives to the
applicant's plans that still protect the individual eligibility of 711 Remington as required
by code. Mr. Hoaglund stated that this could only be accomplished by retaining the
existing structure and building sensitively around it. Ms. Bachelet stated these
properties are rentals, and it too costly to put that money into the property and expect
that it will be a single family residence. It was pointed out that these properties all
already qualify for the 20% State Tax Credits and 20% Federal Tax Credits for
rehabilitation work. Ms. Hax pointed out that many of the homes in this neighborhood
were built originally to be rental properties, and that several of the homes on the block
are owner -occupied.
Mr. Frick offered several ideas for ways that the plans could be modified and that
would potentially retain the individual eligibility of the historic dwelling, and so comply
with the code. He noted that one of the significant characteristic of the block pattern is
the distance between each of the homes, and that the Bachelets should keep this
pattern through deep articulation. They would need to reduce the massing and reduce
the height of their proposed project to be compatible. This could be done while keeping
the same number of units by building the first level as an in -ground level, with day lighted
windows and wells. Mr. Larson said the building has a subterranean design but the
space will be used entirely for parking. That was viewed as necessary to enhance the
neighborhood and alleviate parking issues. To financially afford the underground
parking, a certain amount of mass is required.
Mr. Frick also noted that the Button house is one story, and that the mass around
it would need to start as a one story and then rise to a two story level. The scale of the
project would need to change to be compatible with the historic buildings around it.
Mr. Sladek asked the Commission members how they would feel about the new
construction wrapping around the house at 711 Remington. The Commission would
consider this approach, as long as the design retains the building's individual eligibility.
Mr. Larson asked if the Commission had opinions about deconstructing 711 Remington
and reconstructing it on top of the parking garage. Commission members agreed with
this approach, and noted that it would not need to be deconstructed, but merely
supported while excavation occurred underneath, or moved to the side and then moved
back. Mr. Frick noted that any repairs and upgrades could be done when it is moved
back. Mr. Larson also asked if 711 Remington would then need to be a free standing
building or could it attach to the structures around it. Mr. Frick stated it probably could
be attached, but the attachment would have to be in the back. Mr. Sladek, Ms. Carson,
Ms. Tvede, and Ms. Hax disagreed, stating that this would change the eligibility.
Public Input: Jim Palmer spoke. He said he works in commercial real estate.
There is a lack of student housing and a lot of public feedback and discontent with
certain projects. He stated he felt this would be a great transition and would address
needs. He stated it would be a great improvement to the area and CSU and that it fits
into the City Plan.
Mr. Larson asked about next steps. Mr. Eckman suggested that, since an
agreement preserving the individual eligibility of the historic building had not been
arrived at, the Commission communicate to the applicants what it would like to see at
the next meeting, such as drawings reflecting the suggestions made. The Commission
decided that this Preliminary Hearing would be continued, and asked the applicants to
return with drawings reflecting the suggestions and comments they received tonight.
Landmark Preservation Commission
October 12, 2011 - 3 -
permit, including, for example, the feasibility of modifying their plans and alternative
public or private use of the structure which would substantially preserve the original
character.
Mr. Larson explained that the Remington Annex Project would encompass the
property addresses of 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, and would provide 42 units
of housing within walking and biking distance of the CSU campus and downtown Fort
Collins. The development includes an onsite alley -accessed parking structure off of
College Avenue to accommodate the increased parking needs. Mr. Larson stated that
they view this as an opportunity to preserve some of the historic features of 711
Remington. One of the standards in the Land Use Code is to make sure, to the
maximum extent feasible, that the project does take into consideration historical
preservation. That standard says "to the maximum extent feasible" and the Preliminary
Hearing is for the purpose of exploring alternatives to the building's demolition. It is the
applicant's position that this project can be viewed as a prudent preservation effort.
Mr. Larson discussed the 711 Remington Street property. Their goal would be to
move forward with a development that is an effective use for this neighborhood. He felt
that it is a challenge to determine what alterations could be made to the structure. He
discussed two approaches that could be taken. The first would be to repair the building,
which he stated might potentially result in damaging the structure. The second would be
to take out the windows, and maybe a few other elements like the columns and stone,
and add them onto a new structure. The Commission asked if this would be a single
family residence. Mr. Larson said no, a new multi -unit housing building. He asked about
grafting the first 6 to 8 feet of the fagade onto a new building. Mr. Sladek referred to this
as a "fagade-ectomy," and pointed out that this would certainly not retain the building's
eligibility.
Mr. Larson stated the structure has been deemed substandard and unfit for
human occupancy. Ms. Tvede asked if the City's Building Department has found the
property unsound. Mr. Larson stated no. Ms. Carson asked if people are renting there
currently. Mr. Larson said yes. Ms. Carson asked how it could be deemed unfit by the
developers if people are living there. Mr. Larson referenced an October 5, 2011 memo
submitted by VFL Architects. A response to this memo, prepared by Mike Gebo, Chief
Building Official, was referenced. In Mr. Gebo's response, 'he noted that only he, as the
City's Building Official, has the authority to declare a building substandard, unfit for
human occupancy, unlawful, or dangerous, and that he has not done so for any of these
properties.
Mr. Sladek stated he had a problem with this being discussed as a preservation
project. What the applicant is proposing has nothing to do with historic preservation. It
deals with tearing a building down, one that is designated on the National Register, and
is also a contribution to this National Register District, and he did not see any merit to
tearing the building down. This proposal is not a preservation project. Mr. Sladek is also
concerned about the process of attrition within the National Register District, and the
erosion of the edges that leads to eventual loss of a district. He expressed concern
whether approval of this or a similar project will open the door to the eroding into the
National Register District, by one block, and then two blocks, and compromising the
District.
Mr. Frick noted several concerns with the project. He referenced the block faces
on both sides of Remington Street, and noted other adjacent buildings that are already
designated Fort Collins Landmarks, as well as many that would be individually eligible
for Fort Collins Landmark designation. There are Individual one or two story houses on
the block, but none that are three and a half stories tall. Additionally, the contextual
setback of the project is not in keeping with the block face. It is a massive project,
Landmark Preservation Commission
October 12, 2011 - 2 -
last week. There were several interesting session. Mr. Sladek and will provide an
update at a future meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The August 10, 2011 minutes were approved with
corrections. Ms. Hax moved for approval of the August 10, 2011 Landmark Preservation
Commission minutes. Mr. Ernest seconded the motion. Motion passed: (9-0). The
September 14, 2011 minutes were approved as submitted.
PUBLIC INPUT: None.
DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW, PRELIMINARY HEARING — 711 REMINGTON
STREET — JUSTIN LARSON, VFL ARCHITECTS, CHRISTIAN AND ROBIN
BACHELET, OWNERS: Justin Larson with VFL Architects introduced Christian and
Robin Bachelet, owners of the property. Ms. Bachelet stated they still own everything
they have built and feel they are the right developers for this project. Mr. Larson also
introduced Jeff Johnson, a real estate attorney in Fort Collins. He stated that the owners
hope to improve this block of Remington Street.
Ms. McWilliams reviewed the Staff Report. The Bachelets, owners of the property
at 711 Remington Street, are proposing to demolish the buildings and structures on
three adjacent lots, at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, to construct the Remington
Street Annex Multi -Family Housing project. Two of the properties proposed for
demolition, 705 and 711 Remington, contain buildings that are 50 years old or older and
therefore are subject to Chapter 14, Article 4, of the Municipal Code, commonly called
the Demolition/Alteration Review Process. The house at 715 Remington is not 50 years
old and so is not subject to the Demolition/Alteration Review Process.
The first property, at 705 Remington Street was reviewed under the Demolition/
Alteration Review Process in 2008, and was determined to not be eligible for individual
Fort Collins Landmark designation. The second property at 711 Remington Street was
reviewed in August 2011, at which time CDNS Director, Steve Dush, and the Chair of
the Landmark Preservation Commission's designee, Ron Sladek, both independently
determined that this house does qualify for recognition as an individual Fort Collins
Landmark under Standard 3, Architecture.
Additionally, all three properties are located within the boundaries of the National
Register designated Laurel School Historic District, established in 1980. At the time the
.District was established, two of the properties at 705 and 715 Remington were less than
50 years old (the minimum age for listing without special consideration), and were
identified as intrusions to the District. The middle property at 711 Remington Street, is
designated on the National Register as a contributing element of the National Register
District. Properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places are also designated
on the State Register of Historic Properties,
Larimer County Assessor's records show that the dwelling at 711 Remington
Street was constructed in 1888. The one-story dwelling has a distinctive facade
consisting of a hipped central mass with symmetrical projecting hipped end -wings,
flanking an open central front porch. Other notable features include a central bell -cast
hipped dormer and its unusual 15-light window, the front porch shed roof with squared
posts and noteworthy curved braces, and the striking carved rafter tails under the eaves.
The front elevation contains a pair of large windows with very unusual 10 over 1 lights in
curved surrounds.
Ms. McWilliams reviewed the Demolition/Alteration Review process, and stated
that at tonight's meeting, the applicants are meeting with the Commission to explore all
means for substantially preserving the structure which would be affected by the required
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
October 12, 2011 Minutes
Council Liaison: Mr. Wade Troxell (219-8940)
Staff Liaison: Mr. Steve Dush (221-6765)
Commission Chairperson: Bud Frick
SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission conducted a Demolition/Alteration
Review Preliminary Hearing for 711 Remington Street, part of the Remington
Annex Multi -Family Project, which was continued. The Commission conducted a
Conceptual and Final Design Review of the Avery Block, and approved cornice
material and transom glass replacement. The Commission also held Demolition/
Alteration Review Preliminary Hearings for 604 West Magnolia Street and 121
West Olive Street.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission was called to order by Chair Frick
with a quorum present at 5:39 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. Bud
Frick, John Albright, Sondra Carson, Doug Ernest, Laura Hax, Terence Hoaglund,
Jerome Johnson, Ron Sladek, and Pat Tvede were present. Karen McWilliams, Historic
Preservation Planner, and Courtney Rippy, Planning Technician, and Paul Eckman,
Deputy City Attorney, represented city staff.
AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. McWilliams stated there were no changes to the agenda.
GUESTS: Jeanne Ramsay, Historic Preservation Assistant with the Aurora Preservation
Program; Justin Larson, VFL Architects, Christian and Robin Bachelet, owners, and Jeff
Johnson, attorney, for 711 Remington; Casie Radford, SlaterPaull Architects, Spiro and
Jim Palmer, owners, Greg Wolfe, Cathedral Stone, and Byron McGough, Wattle and
Daub Contractors, for the Avery Block; Nate Hoffman and Ted Hoffman, for 604 West
Magnolia Street; and Gary and Kristin Bohlender, for 121 West Olive Street.
STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams invited the Commission to attend the Urban Design
Awards presentation tomorrow night, October 13. The Boards and Commissions
recognition event will be held on November 3rd. RSVPs are due by October 18t'. A
bricks and masonry training session, sponsored by the Rocky Mountain Masonry
Institute will be conducted on Tuesday, October 18"' in Plattville. The City has been
offered a discounted rate which will allow funding for Commission members who wish to
attend. Ms. McWilliams also introduced Jeanne Ramsey, Historic Preservation Assistant
with the Aurora Preservation Program.
COMMISSION MEMBER'S REPORTS: Ms. Tvede reported on the CLG Historic
Preservation Commission Training Workshop, held in Central City on October 7, 2011,
and attended by Pat Tvede, Laura Hax, and Doug Ernest. The courses were very
valuable, especially for new commission members. Leslie Giles, History Colorado
Architectural Survey Coordinator, singled out Fort Collins as having "saved a fabulous
amount of resources." She also praised Fort Collins for its active preservation program,
and gave kudos to Karen McWilliams.
Mr. Sladek stated that he and Ms. McWilliams attended a conference on Cultural
Landscapes, presented by the National Park Service and History Colorado, in Denver
City of
ofts
11 �
significance associated with the building, "the house also provides a unique architectural flavour to the
block." The property was re -recorded in January 1998, as part of the Eastside Neighborhood Survey's re-
evaluation of the National Register district. Jason Marmor, principal of the professional historic
preservation consulting firm Retrospect, noted that this property had a "very unusual and attractive
vernacular house design combining symmetry and rustic qualities," and felt that the property was possibly
eligible for individual recognition on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as being clearly
eligible as a contributing structure to the National Register district. LPC member Ron Sladek, a
professional historic preservationist, served as the LPC Chair's designee when the house was evaluated
for Fort Collins Landmark eligibility this past August. In his determination, Mr. Sladek stated that the
building is both an excellent and a rare example of the Craftsman Cottage style in Fort Collins.
The Demolition/Alteration Review Process:
Whenever a permit or development application is sought for a building or structure that is 50 years old or
older, the application is reviewed under Chapterl4, Article 4 of the Municipal Code, commonly called the
Demolition/Alteration Review Process. This process was designed to help prevent the loss of Fort
Collins' historic resources and to help preserve historic character.
The property is first reviewed for its eligibility as an individual Fort Collins Landmark, which as noted
above, has already occurred for these properties. If a property is determined to be eligible for individual
Fort Collins Landmark designation, and if the proposed work would adversely affect this eligibility, then
the application is referred to the Commission for consideration.
Commission Review: I -
The Landmark Preservation Commission's review occurs in two phases: a Preliminary Hearing, followed
by a Final Hearing. At the Preliminary Hearing the applicants meet with the Commission to explore all
means for substantially preserving the structure which would be affected by the required permit,
including, for example, the feasibility of modifying the plans, and alternative public or private use of the
structure which would substantially preserve the original character. If a solution is found that complies
with the criteria specified in Section 14-72(b)(1)(b) is agreed upon, then no further historic preservation
review is needed. If not, the application proceeds to a Final Hearing. The Commission will determine if a
solution is found or not.
Section 14-72(b)(1)(b): In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of
acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria:
(1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the
structure and adjacent properties;
(2) The architectural style, design, construction, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and
proposed structures;
(3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics
of the structure upon which such work is to be done;
(4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the
structure;
(5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States
Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or
rehabilitation of historic resources.
City of _.
Advance Planning
281 North College Avenue
Po Box 580
Fort Collins 9Fort Collins, C
0.221.6378080522
970.224.6111 - fax
fcgov. coma dvanceplanning
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 12, 2011
STAFF REPORT
,PROJECT: Demolition/Alteration Review, the Button House, 711 Remington Street, Fort Collins
CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
APPLICANT: Justin Larson, VFL Architects; Christian and Robin Bachelet, Owners
REQUEST: Preliminary Hearing, Pursuant to Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code, on the Proposed
Demolition of the Button House, 711 Remington Street
BACKGROUND: The Bachelets, owners of the subject property at 711 Remington Street, are proposing
to demolish the buildings and structures on three adjacent lots, at 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street, to
construct the Remington Street Multi -Family Housing project. Two of the properties proposed for
demolition, at 705 and 711 Remington, contain buildings that are fifty years old or older, and therefore are
subject to Chapter14, Article 4, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the Demolition/Alteration
Review Process. One property is less than fifty years old, and so does not go through this process.
Determination of Eligibility
The first of these properties, at 705 Remington Street, was reviewed under the Demolition/Alteration
Review Process in 2008, and was determined to not be eligible for individual Fort Collins Landmark
designation. The second property is located at 711 Remington Street. The eligibility of this property was
reviewed in August 2011. Steve Dush, the Director of CDNS, and the Chair of the Landmark
Preservation Commission's designee, Ron Sladek, both independently determined that this house would
qualify as an individual Fort Collins Landmark under Standard 3, Architecture. The house on the third
property, at 715 Remington, is not yet fifty years old, and so is not subject to the Demolition/Alteration
Review Process.
All three properties are located within the boundaries of the Laurel School National Register District,
established in 1980. At the time the District was established, two of the properties, at 705 and 715
Remington, were less than fifty years old (the minimum age for listing, without special consideration),
and were identified as intrusions to the District. The middle property, the Button House at 711
Remington Street, was found to contribute to the district, and was listed on the National Register as a
contributing element of the National Register District. Properties listed on the National Register of
Historic Places are also designated on the State Register of Historic Properties.
711 Remington Street
Larimer County Assessor's records show that the dwelling located at 711 Remington Street was
constructed in 1888. The house is a one-story dwelling, with a distinctive fagade consisting of a hipped
central mass with symmetrical projecting hipped end -wings, flanking an open central front porch. Other
notable features include a central bell -cast hipped dormer, containing an unusual 15-light window; the
front porch shed roof, with squared posts and notable curved braces; and the striking carved rafter tails
under the eaves. The front elevation contains large windows with very unusual 10 over 1 lights, in curved
surrounds. Circa 1980, student researchers noted that, while they felt that there was little historical
A: A higher end project attracts higher quality students and graduate students. Additionally
we anticipate international students or CSU workers possibly renting in this project.
Q: I am concerned with the guest parking seeing that there are 60,parking spaces to 44
units.
A: In our opinion, our parking is ample to accommodate tenants and visitors.
Q: Will the management company monitor parking? Existing properties have very little
parking and most students have a car, even if they use a bike.
A: There will be a parking lot attendant from Sam -5pm.
Q: Does the applicant think that 60 parking spaces are sufficient? This parking amount
covers tenants, but does not account for the impact on Remington Street and neighbors.
Could the developers provide restricted guest parking? Would the Planning and Zoning
Board consider adding a condition of approval regarding the maximum occupancy be 44 -
50 people?
Q: Is the applicant willing to pay for the relocation of the historic home at 711 Remington?
A: Potentially we would consider relocating 711 Remington. The foundation of 711
Remington may be compromised which will pose significant challenges. The building is
wood with stone over it so it could be moved with effort.
Q: 711 Remington is a wonderful example of architecture and it needs to be saved. The
home features bellcast dormers and carved rafter tails. The proposed project does not have
adequate reproduction of dormers and other architectural details exhibited in 711
Remington.
Q: I am concerned about preserving historic landmark homes. These properties have been
rentals for 40 years. Each historic building is unique and the proposed buildings are similar
to each other. The project should incorporate differences to each "section" of the project as
to add visual interest and add to the unique, historic character of Remington Street.
A: Will look at incorporating different architectural styles into this project. Thank you.
Q: The proposed project does not have enough roof line variation and it doesn't look like it
fits in with this neighborhood because of its contemporary architecture and character. I
would recommend modeling project after downtown historic infill projects and to add more
character.
Q: 1 am concerned about the level of safety for bicyclists, especially at the intersection of
Laurel Street and College Avenue. When cars exit through alley, as proposed, that could
potentially cause big problems.
A: A traffic study is required and will take that into consideration.
Q: Currently, there are no bike lanes on Laurel Street and the alley intersection on Laurel
Street is dangerous.
need to be demolished.
Q: The neighbors expressed to the applicant the need to match high -quality materials on
Remington and incorporate design elements with nods to historic architecture.
Q: A building has character or it doesn't. This neighborhood has character and this
proposal will further perpetuate the loss of character of this neighborhood.
Q: Applicant should add drawings showing homes on right and left of the development to
show scale and architecture.
Q: Neighborhood believes the applicant should save the old houses and spend the money
it would cost to relocate the historic structures on restoring them. This project could be a
model for designing new developments that incorporate historic single family residential.
Q: Could the City add designated properties onto future maps of development?
A: We will contact our GIS department and look into that request.
Q: I am concerned about the "feel" of the neighborhood and how this proposal may change
that "feel".
A: The properties purchased by the applicant in December 2009. The plan proposed
1 and 2 bedroom units around an open courtyard over a partially underground parking
structure with the alley serving as buffer. Bike storage is proposed within the building and
primary access from alley.
Q: Does building in back match the front?
A: Yes, it does match
Q: Is the third story behind being used?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: How many parking spaces will be in the structure?
A: There will be 56-60 parking spaces.
Q: How many units in this project?
A: Approximately 44 or fewer.
Q: How many bedrooms in each unit?'
A: As currently proposed there are no three bedroom units. The applicant is proposing 2
two bedroom units, 18 studio units and 20 one bedroom units.
Q: What is the occupancy of the three existing units?
A: In 705 Remington there are 3 units (7 people on lease). In 711 Remington there are 2
units (3 people on lease), and in 715 Remington there are 3 units (7 people on lease).
how this proposal, and associated pedestrian traffic and on street parking, may further
exacerbate the issue.
A: Isn't pedestrian flow and jay walking issues a common problem of all Laurel by the
university?
Q: Would you consider putting speed bumps in alley?
Q: Would you consider installing flashing crossing lights?
Q: Would you consider additional street striping?
Q: I believe there are ingress and egress challenges associated with this site and design as
it currently stands.
A: The public would access the proposal off of college through the existing Collegio access.
Other access points are from Plum Street and Laurel Street.
Q: Would there be way finding signs directing traffic flow associated with this site?
Q: Is the Enter through alley- issue with CDOT?
A: (City Staff) This proposal uses existing College Avenue curb cut, so it may not be a big
CDOT issue. I will check with one of our engineers, Sheri Langenberger.
A: With this proposal the alley is improved all the way to Plum Street.
Q: Is there only one entrance to the parking garage proposed?
Q: I am concerned with adding more people and cars along College Avenue. The increase
in traffic will result in short stops and quick turns. There may be some vehicle conflict
regarding the thought that a car will be turning onto Laurel Street and then they turn more
suddenly.
A: (City Staff) I would urge the neighbors stay involved in process. In terms of notification,
only residents within an 800 foot radius from site were notified, which is standard per the
Land Use Code.
Q: A neighbor is concerned about the 800 foot radius in terms of the percentage of those
properties being rentals and the overall notification size.
Q: If a large number of people are opposed to this project, does the city take that into
consideration?
A: (City Staff) The Planning and Zoning board does not use "popular vote" or petitions as
criteria to base a Land Use decision upon.
Q: Neighbors are jaded in terms of the City process on Whedbee Street and Laurel Street.
All the citizens did not want that project and it still was approved.
Q: How does this density and mass fit into this neighborhood? This neighborhood does
have rentals and could be profitable for the applicant, but it would affect the whole old town
neighborhood by potentially setting a precedent.
A: Applicant(s) think this is the right project and believes the historic properties in question
A. Keeping the existing structures is not an economically feasible solution in terms
of our return on investment.
Q: A neighbor gave an account regarding two properties purchased on Remington and
rehabilitated. The neighbor expressed the beauty and value to the neighborhood in
preserving the existing building stock.
Q: On the applicants' visual aid, neighbor was confused regarding what the white
property represents.
A: The all white property represents rental housing.
A: The proposal illustrates one large, connected apartment complex.
Q: What is the max number of occupants per the fire code? How are the maximum
occupancy determined?
A We don't know what the max occupancy, per fire code is yet for this design.
Q: What happens if this project is sold and the next owners don't limit the number of
occupants?
A: (City Staff) Occasionally, Planning and Zoning Board, which are the decision makers,
can put a condition of approval on a project. However, conditions of approval are somewhat
rare.
A: The applicant noted that, in their opinion, supply and demand dictates that, students
aren't bunking with friends, (like they were in the 80's).
Q: I would like to see 50 people maximum in the project.
Q: I am concerned about the total occupancy of this project. A one bedroom unit may have
roommate.
Q: What are the proposed sizes, in square feet, of the bedrooms?
A: 1 bed room unit is approximately 480 square feet.
A studio unit is approximately 420 square feet.
Q: When does the City not allow any more rentals and require the neighborhood to return
to completely owner occupied?
A: (City Staff) The City does not discern between rental and owner -occupied units.
Individual Home Owners Association covenants may dictate rental policies, however the
City is not involved with HOA covenants, nor does the City enforce individual HOA
covenants.
Q: Pedestrians parking on Laurel Street do not utilized the cross walks and other identified
pedestrian paths. Neighbor is concerned with pedestrian safety in this regard and wonders
3
Q: Neighbor asked, "What does "do a traffic study" mean?
A: (City Staff) A traffic study is a professionally prepared document that assesses the
impacts of a proposed development on the existing and future transportation network.
Q: What if the result of the traffic study is that there is not enough room for the
development as proposed?
Q: Is the proposed alley paved?
A: Yes, the alley will be paved.
Q: Could the alley be widened as to accommodate the flow of traffic?
A: Not sure.
Q: Could residents and guests utilize Plum Street as an access point?
A: Not sure.
Q: Will the applicant explore solutions for current problems such as traffic, lighting,
character, massing?
Q: Could there be additional lighting in the alley?
Q: What is the applicant's definition of "adding value" to the neighborhood?
A: The proposed development could help increase the neighboring property values
while removing detrimental properties to the neighborhood. Additionally, the properties
in question do not currently meet the energy standards.
Q: Neighbor expressed the sustainability in retaining historic buildings.
A. With the current proposal, the number of occupants must make the project profitable.
Due to land cost and other aspects, the project is not profitable till year 5.
Q: What about the quality of the neighborhood?
Q: Neighbor is concerned with the longevity and community commitment level of future
tenants of this proposal. The neighbor expressed that she does not foresee the future
project tenants becoming long-term Fort Collins citizens or caring about the city of Fort
Collins. Most would be short term tenants (1 year).
A: Our other project, Collegio, has a long term tenant.
Q: This is student housing.
Q: Why do we need to knock down these three existing buildings?
Q: Why not build just two new houses and keep the individually eligible home?
2
Attachment 4
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY
PROJECT: 705-715 Remington Street Multifamily Development
DATE: November 7, 2011
APPLICANT: Christian and Robin Bachelet
APPLICANT DESIGN FIRM: Justin Larsen, Vaught Frye Larson Architects
CITY PLANNER: Courtney Levingston
Community Development and Neighborhood Services
In order to facilitate citizen participation early in the development review process, the city
requires a neighborhood and citizens are urged to attend and actively participate in these
meetings. The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is for development applications to be
presented to the neighborhood and for the citizens to identify, list and discuss issues
related to the development proposal. Working jointly with staff and the applicant, citizens
help seek solutions for these issues. Neighborhood meetings are held during the
conceptual planning stage of the proposal so that neighborhoods may give input on the
proposal before time and effort have been expended by the applicant to submit a formal
development application to the city. Additionally, a written summary of the neighborhood
meeting is included in the staff report provided to the Planning and Zoning Board at the
time of the public hearing.
As currently proposed, the project consists of demolishing three existing single family
residences located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street and replacing them with a 3 to 4
story student apartment building. Per the proposal, the project would consist of
approximately 44 units, with a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms. Moreover, while a development
plan has not yet been formally submitted to the City, the Applicant is considering including
an on -site parking structure. '
All responses are from the applicants or the applicants design firm, unless otherwise
indicated.
................. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS, RESPONSES .................
1
�''..vinG illltl� 'T a MINE
Illlnt Ilnrll
- _ ' I1r10 ®9l0 �� Illilll� '�Ils IIIC� .
•'�`•MAI
-
-—
T I dip ,plat Irtllt Illiillt Illlllli>il® B�IIIuiIIN HIM
aillic 1111 iIIIIIIII.1IIIIL ,IIHI91 11
UA
11 Mill
11 N: IIIIIID 14=
-
o .
IR
Is ME IMMOR
>_ � � .� � �II6 � n6 , ■I�i/0 ' olio �i0 , Olio � -.U-
Yq.Y�.I � �11P. �—A.•. �� asits."•M = T f" of fa• flblsRl+Iat'ifgiWw•a. veen.a•QSI"..�i..itwi-.:-.i�� � _� /-
_ • ifi1C Ilrr v 01R�!!NI� liln ��� �1►.
I
ATTACHMENT 2 - Zoning Map
E LAUREL ST
S
— NCB NCM
e
OLD MAIN OR
CSU N u,
2 E PLUM ST z
O
H �
O w
Z
� g a
w
i
........ „�Xr .... ..�..�.. �i_
City of
�. �- , Fit Collins
.. ...,.,.�..'° o 12� 240 Leo eeo %o � cis
F"t
0 W 120 240 350 mo 000 TA
ATTACHMENT 1 - Site Map
Fort Collins
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning 8 Zoning Hearing
Page 21
individually eligible adjacent structures and the Laurel School National
Register District would not result in a substantial benefit to the city.
Moreover, the proposed project does not substantially address any
important community need specifically and expressly defined and
described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy,
ordinance or resolution of the City Council.
F. The granting of a modification to Section 3.4.7 (E) to not require the
preservation individually eligible structure at 711 Remington Street to the
maximum extent feasible in accordance with the standards of Section
3.4.7 would not result in a substantial benefit to the city nor would it
substantially address any important community need specifically and
expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an
adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council.
Staff concludes that the individual and cumulative effects of the modifications are
incompatible with the N-C-B District and the neighborhood context.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of all five Requests for Modification.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Map of Laurel School National Register Historic District
4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes
5. LPC Staff Report, 711 Remington Street
6. Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Minutes, October 2011
7. Proposed Project Development Plan Site Plan (PDP-1 and PDP-2)
8. Proposed Project Development Elevations (PDP-3).
9. Applicant Modification Request Narrative dated January 30, 2012
10. Applicant Modification Supporting Graphics:
Fig. 1A—Concept Design
Fig. 1 B —Concept Design
Fig. 2A — Density and FAR
Fig. 2B — Rear half FAR
Fig. 3A — Side setback
Fig. 3B — Side setback
21
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 20
and south but also in the alley between the existing Collegio
development.
d. A modification to Section 3.4.7(B) to not require the preservation of the
historic structure at 711 Remington Street and to not protect and
enhance the designated and individually eligible adjacent structures
and the Laurel School National Register District holistically, is
detrimental to the public good in so much that that it would weaken the
sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School Historic District and
overall neighborhood context.
e. A modification to Section 3.4.7 (E) to not preserve the individually
eligible home at 711 Remington Street, to the maximum extent
feasible, is detrimental to the public good in terms of weakening the
sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School Historic District and
overall neighborhood context.
B. The granting of a modification to Section 4.9(D)(1) would not result in a
substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed
project would substantially address an important community need
specifically and expressly defined and described in City Plan or in an
adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council.
a. The project does not provide substantial, compatible infill and
redevelopment as it related to the block face. The N-C-B standards are
appropriate and tailored for the residential area and the context.
C. The granting of a modification to Section 4.9(D)(5) to allow a rear FAR of
2.32 would not result in a project that is equal to or better than a project
that has a rear FAR of .33 due to the large mass of the structure in the
rear half of the lot.
D. The granting of a modification to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) to not require the
structure to step back 1 foot for every 2 feet over 18 feet in height is not
nominal nor inconsequential.
a. The standard would require to project, starting at approximately 2 feet
after the second floor to step back one foot for every two feet of height.
This would result in an additional 9 feet of stepping back the two side
walls. A zero step back for the entire height of the two side walls is not
nominal and would have a negative impact on the abutting properties
and the design as a whole.
E. The granting of a modification to Section 3.4.7 (B) to a modification to
Section 3.4.7(B) to not require the preservation of the historic structure at
711 Remington Street and to not protect and enhance the designated and
20
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 19
Intent and Purpose of Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use
Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to "improve and protect the public health,
safety and welfare by: ... (M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to
the character of existing neighborhoods."
The proposed project, if approved with this requested modifications, would impair
the intent and purpose in that it would lack sensitivity and undermine the
established character of the existing neighborhood as stated in Section 1.2.2(M)
of the Land Use Code.
Substantial Community Need: The granting of two modifications, one to Section
3.4.7 (B) and one to 3.4.7 (E), would not result in a substantial benefit to the city.
Moreover, the proposed project does not substantially address any important
community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's
Comprehensive Plan.
7. Findings of Fact
In evaluating the request for five (5) stand-alone modifications: Section 4.9
(D)(1), Section 4.9(D)(5), Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d), Section 3.4.7(B) and
Section3.4.7(E), Staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The granting of modifications to Section 4.9 (D)(1), Section 4.9(D)(5),
Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d), Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) would be
detrimental to the public good.
a. A modification to Section 4.9.(D)(1) to allow a substantial divergence
from the 1:1 lot coverage maximum would be detrimental to the public
good due to the deterioration to the established neighborhood pattern,
street rhythm and defined 700 Remington Block historic context as well
as weakening the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School
Historic District.
b. A modification to Section 4.9(D)(5) to allow a substantial divergence
from the .33 rear FAR maximum would be detrimental to the public
good due to the deterioration to the established neighborhood pattern
of the 700 Remington Block and the imposition of an excessive amount
of mass and bulk on the enjoyment of the two abutting properties.
c. A modification to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) to not require the structure to
step back 1 foot for every 2 feet over 18 feet in height would be
contrary to the public good in that the volume of the proposed structure
creates a looming presence with potential safety implications. The lack
of articulation vertically creates a tunnel or cave -like atmosphere at the
pedestrian level, not only between the existing structures to the north
19
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 18
Additionally, neither the proposed nor the hypothetical conceptual design
appropriately protects and enhances the historical and architectural value of the
historic property at 711 Remington Street or the other properties in the Laurel
School National Register Historic District.
Relationship to City Plan Policies: The project site is not located in the targeted
redevelopment area as the applicant asserts. Moreover, the policy cited, LIV 5.2,
does not apply because:
1) the project is not in the targeted redevelopment area; and
2) the policy is referring to public investment, such as streetscape
improvements, not a privately developed multifamily project.
Analysis of the 'City-wide need' justification:
Code Citation for Modification
The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds
that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public
good, and that:
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard
would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code,
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-
wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason
of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an
important community need specifically and expressly defined and
described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy,
ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of
such a standard would render the project practically infeasible.
Public Good: The concept of the public good is a broad and inclusive notion in so
much that the values it represents are not only physical and fiscally related, but
also aesthetic and culturally related. The root of the public good lies within a
delicate balance of these values and is inextricably linked to the identity and
heritage of an area and its people.
Modifications to Sections 3.4.7 (B) and (E) to not require the preservation of the
individually eligible and National and State Register designated structure at 711
Remington Street is detrimental to the public good in so much that it would
weaken the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School National Register
Historic District and overall neighborhood context.
18
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 17
into redevelopment activities (LIV 16.6) and preserving historic buildings
(LIV 17.1).
The results of this conceptual design exercise is a three story, 17,171
square foot residential building with 4,000 square feet of enclosed parking
at ground level (20 additional spaces cover the rear portion of the lot).
Fourteen (14) studio apartments, four(4) one -bedroom and two (2)two-bed
room units comprise the remaining 13,171 square feet of building area.
Graphically, this conceptual design re-emphasizes the realization that not
all principles of the Fort Collins City Plan are necessarily compatible with
each other or with the standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code in all
cases. It should be noted that the scope of this conceptual design focused
only on the redevelopment of the properties involved with the Remington
Annex project and does not reflect the redevelopment and infill of the
other properties along College Avenue and Remington Street that will
eventually occur when the goals of the Fort Collins City Plan are fully
realized.
Per the criteria of Division 2.8.2(H)(2), in the best interest of the
individually eligible historic structure at 711 Remington Street and to
encourage the full implementation of the Fort Collins City Plan a
modification to Division 3.4.7(8) of the Land Use Code is being requested
so that the structure at 711 Remington Street can be considered for
relocation under the provisions of Division 3.4.7(E) to a location that
remain contextually appropriate to the scale and historic character of the
house while Fort Collins continues to develop according the vision of the
City Plan.
E. Staff Evaluation of the Fourth and Fifth Modification Requests
The two standards in question require the individually eligible building located
within the Laurel School National Register District to be preserved and
incorporated into the project's design to the maximum extent feasible. The
maximum extent feasible clause puts the burden on the applicant to show that:
...no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts (by
the applicant) to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or
adverse impacts have been undertaken.
The applicant has not demonstrated a willing to consider the "prudent
alternatives" to demolition or relocation, including retaining and rehabilitating the
historic building at 711 Remington and adding stand-alone dwellings (duplex or
4-plex dwellings) on either side; or, to retaining the historic structure and build a
compatible multi -unit property around it, in such a manner as to meet the LUC
requirements.
17
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 16
D. Applicant's Request
In the request for modification letter, the applicant states that a modification of
this standard is justified because, as is set forth in Section 2.8.2 (H) (2) of the
Land Use Code,
The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard
would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code,
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-
wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason
of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an
important community need specifically and expressly defined and
described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy,
ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of
such a standard would render the project practically infeasible.
The applicant's narrative for the first modification request is as follows:
A conceptual design was developed (see attached figures 1A & 18) which
apply a strict application of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, including
Division 3.4.7(8), preserving the original portion of the existing house at
711 Remington Street. This concept included the demolition of the various
additions made to the structure beginning in the 1960's and restoring the
building as closely as possible to its original 1888 configuration.
This design also strives to fulfill the principles of the Fort Collins City Plan
which encourages, among other things, targeted redevelopment and Infill
(LIV 5.1), public investment along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2),
expansion or redevelopment of properties in residential areas (LIV 6.1),
providing a variety of housing types and locations (LIV 7.1), and
maximizing land for residential development (LIV 7.4).
Other principles of the Fort Collins City Plan that were considered during
this conceptual design effort include LIV 16 and LIV 17. It was discovered
not all principles of the City Plan are not necessarily compatible with each
other in all instances, particularly in this case where small scale historic
residential structures are in such close proximity to the density that the
Fort Collins City Plan calls for along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2) along
College Avenue. Nonetheless, while recognizing these conflicts, the
conceptual design does incorporate the principles of increasing
awareness of historic resources (LIV 16.2), utilizing incentives for
preserving historic resources (LIV 16.3), integration of historic structures
16
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 15
Staff Analysis
Public Good. A divergence from N-C-B dimensional "setback" standard, in this
instance, may be contrary to the public good in so much that the volume of this
structure, as proposed, creates a looming presence with potential safety
implications. The lack of articulation vertically creates a tunnel or cave -like
atmosphere at the pedestrian level, not only between the existing structures to
the north and south but also in the alley between the existing Collegio
development. This results in excessive mass too close to the property line.
Intent and Purpose of Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use
Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to "improve and protect the public health,
safety and welfare by:... (J) Improving the design, quality and character of new
development.
The proposed project, if approved with this requested modification, could impair
the intent and purpose in that it would lack in important design considerations as
stated in Section 1.2.2(J) of the Land Use Code.
Nominal and Inconsequential: In this instance, the zero step back is not nominal
nor inconsequential when looking at the design impact it has on the project as a
whole. As proposed, the two side walls of the structure would cause a significant
negative impact by looming over the two existing historic structures to the north
and south and would negatively impact safety and solar access.
6. Fourth and Fifth Modification — Section 3.4.7(B) and (E)
A. Standards
These standards require designated or individually eligible structure to be
preserved and incorporated into the project's design to the maximum extent
feasible.
B. Proposal
As proposed, the project would not incorporate nor preserve the individually
eligible structure into the design.
C. Extent of the Modification
The fourth and fifth modifications would allow the proposed multifamily
development to not incorporate the structure. The Landmark Preservation
Commission, in their January 12, 2012 meeting, said they would not support the
proposed relocation of the home at 711 Remington Street due to the new
locations contextual incompatibility.
15
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard - MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 14
Average setback at eighteen feet above grade equals six feet and five
inches (6'5')
Average setback at thirty feet above grade equals fourteen feet and zero
inches (14'-0')
These averaged side yard setbacks exceed the requirements Division
4.9(D)(6)(d). Furthermore, the portions of the sidewalls with the greatest
encroachment into the required setback is limited to only twenty -percent of
the combined length of the north and south walls (see attached figures 3A
and 3B).
Figure 3A provides plan views at grade level, eighteen feet above grade
and thirty feet above grade which illustrate the articulation of the facade as
the building height increases. Figure 3B provides section views at a
selection of specific conditions along the north and south walls as well as
a section view illustrating the averaged side yard setbacks. Both these
figures visually describe the nominal and inconsequential nature of the
diversion from the standard set in Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) when the building
is viewed as a whole, therefore, the Remington Annex project should be
granted this modification of standards based on the provisions of Division
2.8.2(H)(4).
E. Staff Evaluation of the Third Modification Request
Intent of the dimensional 'step -back' standard: The purpose of this standard is
one of impact mitigation. The step -back standard is considered key in regulating
the magnitude of construction in the N-C-B district. This standard also recognizes
that there are direct impacts to abutting, existing homes and that these impacts
can be onerous, detracting from the quality of life for adjacent residents.
Additionally, consideration should be given to the impact this structure has on
solar access in terms of the shading of adjacent properties and the enjoyment of
sunshine.
Code Citation for Modification
The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use
Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use
Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
14
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 13
5. Third Modification — Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) — Dimensional Standards:
A. Standard
This standard requires that buildings taller than 18 feet step back the height in
excess of 18 feet 1 foot for every 2 feet beyond 18 feet in height.
B. Proposal
As proposed, the structure is 36 feet tall and is not stepped back at any point
from the interior side lot lines. (See attachment 7 and 8)
C. Extent of the Modification
At 36 feet tall, the standard requires project to have the top of the structure be an
additional 9 feet from the lot line, instead as proposed, there would be a zero
step back.
D. Applicant's Request
In the request for modification letter, the applicant states that a modification of
this standard is justified because, as is set forth in Section 2.8.2 (H) (4) of the
Land Use Code, the divergence from the standard and what is proposed is
nominal and inconsequential.
The applicant's narrative for the first modification request is as follows:
Strict application of the minimum side yard setback standard would
prescribe The entirety of the north and south walls of the Remington
Annex project to be set back five feet from grade up to eighteen feet
above grade and then increasing at a rate of one foot for every two foot
increase in wall height to equal eleven feet at the point where the majority
of the third floor walls intersect the roof structure or thirty feet above
grade. In order to comply with the various subsections of Division 3.4.7(F)
of the Fort Collins Land Use Code the north. and south walls of the building
have been designed to reflect the character of historical buildings in the
area. This includes an articulated facade, varying roof heights and
dormers all which encroach into the specified side yard setback at various
points. These features also create areas where the side yard setback
exceeds the requirements of the Land Use Code for the NCB District.
When averaged, the side yard setbacks for the proposed Remington
Annex project are as follows:
Average setback at grade equals five feet and nine inches (5'-9')
13
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 12
the established residential nature of the zone and to reduce the amount and
massing of additional structures in the rear of a lot, in keeping with the existing
character of the area. Currently, 86% of the properties on the 700 block of
Remington comply with the .33 rear FAR standard.
Code Citation for Modifications
The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that.
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard
for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a
plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is
requested, -
Staff Analysis
Public Good. The public good, in this application, lies within a balancing act of
established values, aesthetics, culture, the built environment and economics,
with the caveat that one should not be at the expense of the other. A modification
to the N-C-B rear FAR standard to allow a substantial divergence from the .33
rear FAR maximum could be interpreted as detrimental to the public good due to
the deterioration to the established neighborhood pattern of the 700 Remington
Block.
Intent and Purpose of Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use
Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to "improve and protect the public health,
safety and welfare by: ... (M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to
the character of existing neighborhoods." The proposed project, if approved with
this requested modification, would impair the intent and purpose in that it would
lack sensitivity and undermine the established character of the existing
neighborhood as stated in Section 1.2.2(M) of the Land Use Code.
`Equal to or better than' justification. The applicant prepared a hypothetical
conceptual design illustrating a project that would comply with the rear FAR
requirement (see attachment 10, Fig. 1A and 1B). The applicant asserts their
proposed plan (attachment 7) is equal to or better than the hypothetical plan in
attachment 10 as it relates to meeting the rear FAR requirement; however, this is
not the case in Staffs opinion. The hypothetical plan is lacking other mandatory
design elements, such as the required block face articulation, compatibility, and
sensitive design, required by Section 3.5.1 and 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. The
proposed plan is not equal to or better than a project that would comply with the
rear FAR because the massing and bulk of the proposed plan is too impactful
and the divergence between the proposed 19,823 square feet and the 3,283
square foot code maximum is severe.
12
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 11
Other principles of the Fort Collins City Plan that were considered during this
conceptual design effort include LIV 16 and LIV 17. It was discovered all
principles of the City Plan are not necessarily compatible with each other in all
instances, particularly in this case where small scale historic residential
structures are in such close proximity to the density that the Fort Collins City Plan
calls for along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2) at College Avenue. Nonetheless,
while recognizing these conflicts, the conceptual design does incorporate the
principles of increasing awareness of historic resources (LIV 16.2), utilizing
incentives for preserving historic resources (LIV 16.3), integration of historic
structures into redevelopment activities (LIV 16.6) and preserving historic
buildings (LIV 17.1).
The results of this conceptual design exercise is a three story, 17,171 square foot
residential building with 4, 000 square feet of enclosed parking at ground level (20
additional spaces cover the rear portion of the lot). Fourteen (14) studio
apartments, four(4) one -bedroom and two (2)two-bed room units comprise the
remaining 13,171 square feet of building area.
As previously described in the illustration from the Land Use Code above, the
intent of Division 4.9(D)(5) is to promote patterns along a block face that appear
more like the proposed design (see figures below).
``.0
� NOT
GAII
THIS
BB9 6
�P�N�wMM+Y Mm M,OMMN°M4n AMMI.... _
Granting a modification of this standard for the Remington Annex project under
the criteria of Division 2.8.2(H)(1) will promote the general purpose of the
standard, which encourages buildings to address and align with other buildings
on the block face, and provide for better compliance with Division 3.4.7(F) of the
Fort Collins Land Use Code.
E. Staff Evaluation of Second Modification Request
Intent rear FAR standard: The NCB district standards are tailored to reflect the
value placed on the established neighborhood character, with the rear FAR
standard being one of those standards. The intent of the standard is to ensure
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 10
works in tandem with Division 3.4.7(F)(1) & (2) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code
to maintain the established building patterns on a block face. The higher density
residential expansion and redevelopment projects which are promoted under
Principle LIV 6.d of the Fort Collins City Plan are also subject to the provisions of
Division 3.4.7 when constructed in historic neighborhoods. With specific
relevance to the rear -yard FAR for these projects, Section F, paragraph 1 states
in part:
" To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and/or width of new
structures shall be similar to those of existing historic structures on any block
face on which the new structure is located...... Taller structures or portions of
structures shall be located interior to the site... "
And paragraph 2 states:
"New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic
structures ... ... and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street
shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. See Figure 6. "
IN 77- 7777Mal
��.� i�Illl�li,1i.��1..l
In the illustration from the Fort Collins Land Use Code above, the major mass of
the new building in the preferred example has been pushed away from the street
towards the rear portion of the lot to help maintain the established building
patterns on the block face. This is contrary to the literal interpretation of Division
4.9(D)(5) yet is a better solution in a historic neighborhood setting.
A conceptual design was developed (see attached figures 1A & 18) which
followed a strict application of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, including Division
4.9(D)(5) limiting the FAR of the rear fifty -percent of the lot to 0.33. This concept
included the demolition of the various additions made to the structure at 711
Remington Street, restoring its original 1888 configuration.
This compliant conceptual design, as well as the proposed Remington Annex
design, also strives to fulfill the principles of the Fort Collins City Plan which
encourages, among other things, targeted redevelopment and Infill (LIV 5.1),
public investment along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2), expansion or
redevelopment of properties in residential areas (LIV 6.1), providing a variety of
housing types and locations (LIV 7.1), and maximizing land for residential
development (LIV 7.4).
10
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 9
The proposed project, if approved with this requested modification, would impair
the intent and purpose in that it would lack sensitivity and undermine the
established character of the existing neighborhood as stated in Section 1.2.2(M)
of the Land Use Code.
Substantial Community Need: The applicant fails to provide a compelling
substantial community need and the logic behind the request does not follow;
therefore, the granting of the a modification to Section 4.9(D)(1) does not
substantially address an important and defined community need as described in
the city's Comprehensive Plan resulting in a substantial benefit to the city of Fort
Collins.
4. Second Modification — Section 4.9(D)(5) — Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
A. Standard
The standard requires that in the rear one-half of the lots, no more than 33% of
the land area can be devoted to the gross floor area of buildings and garages
combined.
B. Proposal
The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) on the rear half of the site is 2.28
(attachment 10, Fig. 2A and 2B). The total lot area is 19,897 square feet and the
rear half of the lot contains 9,948 square feet.
C. Extent of Modification
The second modification would permit the proposed multifamily development to
have 22,712 square feet of floor area in the rear 50% of the lot. This equates to
19,429 square feet of floor area in excess of the 3,283 square feet allowable in
the rear half of the lot per the standard, for an increase of 16,146 square feet
over standard. This is representative of a 2.28 rear FAR and exceeds the .33
standard by 195%.
D. Applicant's Justification
In the request for modification letter, the applicant states that a modification of
Section 4.9(D)(5) is justified because the proposed Remington Annex plan is
equal to or better than a plan that would comply with the standard.
The applicant's narrative for the second modification request is as follows:
Generally, compliance with the maximum rear yard FAR encourages smaller
single family homes and duplexes to be constructed closer to the street and
.7
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 8
t
Zoning: Staff is in agreement that the N-C-B District was intended to provide a
"transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial -
use areas or high traffic zones" as stated in the purpose statement of the N-C-B
District. In this N-C-B specific context, the character is primarily two story single-
family homes, with substantial backyards. As the name suggests, the purpose of
this zone district is to provide a buffer area, allowing for commercial uses and
traffic while keeping the existing character and residential aspect of the
neighborhood. While the Community Commercial (C-C) district is indeed to the
west and part of the targeted redevelopment areas as stated in City Plan, that is
not to say that the C-C requirements and standards are appropriate for the N-C-B
district. The applicant's justification for the modification, citing standards in a
different zone district (C-C), is inapplicable and does not satisfy the criteria for
the granting of a modification.
Code Citation for Modification
The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard
would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code,
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide
concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact
that the proposed project would substantially address an important community
need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's
Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City
Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project
practically infeasible.
Staff Analysis
Public Good: The concept of the public good is a broad and inclusive notion in so
much that the values it represents are not only physical and fiscally related, but
also aesthetic and culturally related. The root of the public good lies within a
delicate balance of these values and is inextricably linked to the identity and
heritage of an area and its people. A modification to the N-C-B density standard
to allow a substantial divergence from the 1:1 lot coverage maximum could be
seen as detrimental to the public good via the propagation of the deterioration to
the established neighborhood pattern, street rhythm and defined 700 Remington
Block neighborhood context as well as weakening the sense of identity and
heritage of the Laurel School National Register Historic District.
Intent and Purpose of Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use
Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to "improve and protect the public health,
safety and welfare by: ... (M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to
the character of existing neighborhoods."
8
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 7
Medium Density District (NCM) to the east (refer to attached figure 2A). The
properties adjacent to the west side of the proposed project have been identified
in the Fort Collins City Plan as a Targeted Redevelopment Area. According to
Policy LIV 5.1 the purpose of this designation is to promote higher density
redevelopment and infill. The attached figure 2A illustrates that, for the most part,
this redevelopment and infill has yet to take place. Division 4.18(E): Development
Standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code does not prescribe any
requirements or limitations on the overall density of these properties when they
are redeveloped.
The Collegio development, which is just across the alley from the proposed
project, is one of the few examples in the immediate area of what might be
expected from these infill redevelopment projects when they are constructed.
The lot density of the Collegio project is 2.54. This high density development is in
stark contrast to the lot density of 0.50 that Division 4.8(D): Land Use Standards
of the Fort Collins Land Use Code prescribes for the NCM District that abuts the
east side of the NCB District where the proposed Remington Annex Project is
located.
Because of the narrow nature of the NCB District in this area, residential
expansion and redevelopment projects (which are encouraged through Principle
LIV 6.1 of the Fort Collins City Plan), with lot densities higher than prescribed by
Division 4.9(D)(1) would provide a more effective transition between the highly
contrasting densities of the CC and NCM Districts. This transition could be made
even more effective by promoting higher densities on the west side of Remington
Street than on the east side.
The nearby Kensington Place apartments to the north-east of the proposed
project and the Phi Delta Theta fraternity to the south-east (see attached figure
2A) are examples of existing buildings with a lot densities exceeding 1.00 which
successfully work to facilitate this transition. The balance of the existing
structures along this portion of Remington Street do comply with the maximum lot
density defined in Division 4.9(D)(1) yet are ineffective in defining a transition
between the medium density NCM District and the higher density CC District.
Granting a modification of this standard for the Remington Annex project under
the criteria of Division 2.8.2(H)(2) will enable implementation of the various
portions of the Fort Collins City Plan as described above and also help this area
of the NCB District to begin to function as more effective transitional zone.
E. Staff Evaluation of the First Modification Request
Intent of density standard: The density standard is intended to limit new
development to an overall massing that keeps with the existing character of the
neighborhood, single family homes and a predominant pattern of narrow, deep
lots.
7
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 6
• the second floor contains 13,290 square feet and
• the third floor contains 10, 569 square feet of floor area.
(See attachment 10. Fig. 2A)
C. Extent of the Modification
The first modification would permit the proposed multifamily development to have
an additional 18,765 square feet of floor area in excess of the 19,897 square feet
allowable per the standard. This is representative of a 1.94 overall lot density
exceeding the standard by 94% or practically almost twice as much as would
otherwise be permitted.
D. Applicant's Request
In the request for modification letter, the applicant states that a modification of
this standard is justified because, as is set forth in Section 2.8.2 (H) (2) of the
Land Use Code,
the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and
that the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard
would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code,
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide
concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact
that the proposed project would substantially address an important community
need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's .
Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City
Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project
practically infeasible.
Although the building exceeds the maximum floor area allowed by 94%, the
applicant contends that, "the granting of the modification will enable
implementation of the various portions of the Fort Collins City Plan... and also
help this area of the NCB District to begin to function as more effective
transitional zone."
The applicant's narrative for the first modification request is as follows:
The Fort Collins Land Use Code Division 4.9 (A) states that the purpose of the
Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (NCB) is to "...provide a transition
between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial -use areas or
high traffic zones... "
In the particular area in which the proposed Remington Annex project is located
this transition occurs over the span of only four -hundred feet with the Community
Commercial District (CC) to the west and the Neighborhood Conservation,
6
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 5
corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for school
and place of worship uses shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and
street sides).
Section 3.4.7(B):
General Standard. If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is
determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for
individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is
officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic
district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and
building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic
structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance
the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved
and adaptively used on the development site, or (b) is located on property
adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New
structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic
property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.
Section 3.4.7 (E):
Relocation or Demolition. A site, structure or object that is determined to be
individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the
State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished
only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum
extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance
with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or
object is not feasible.
3. First Modification — Section 4.9(D) (1) — Density:
A. Standard
This standard requires that buildings in the N-C-B District have a total lot area
equal to the total floor area of the project (1:1 ratio). That is to say that a 19,897
square foot lot is allowed a maximum of 19,897 square feet of floor area.
B. Proposal
The proposed total floor area of the project is 38,662 square feet. The lot is a
total of 19,897 square feet. As proposed:
• the first floor contains 14,803 square feet
0 3,973 square feet of residential floor area
0 10,830 square feet of at grade parking garage floor area
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 4
in. unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship
upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are
not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or
(4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use
Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal,
inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use
Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be
supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the
requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4).
B. Citation of the Standards Relating to the Five Modifications:
Section 4.9 (D)(1):
Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the
building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. For the purposes
of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all
principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings,
including each finished or unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor area of
the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120)
square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a
ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7%) feet located within any such
accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not
be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density).
Section 4.9(D)(5):
Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three
hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October
25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be
considered the minimum lot size within the zone district.
Section 4.9(D) (6)(d):
(6) Dimensional Standards.
Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards.
Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height,
such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line
an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or
fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in
height. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any
4
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 3
In October 2011, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) held a Preliminary
Hearing on the individually eligible property to explore all means of substantial
preservation and moved to continue the meeting. The meeting was continued to
January 2012 and the applicant and LPC did not agree upon a means to substantially
preserve the structure. The Commission found that the proposed demolition of the
Button House, at 711 Remington Street, does not meet the criteria contained in Section
14-72(b) (1) (b) of the Municipal Code, and the Commission moved to recommend that
the application proceed to the LPC Final Hearing. A final LPC hearing can only take
place after the receipt of the submittal requirements, of which include approved from the
Planning and Zoning Board plans (in this instance). The plans, as proposed, do not
meet Land Use Code requirements and the applicant is asking for modifications to the
specific standards in which they do not meet.
A neighborhood meeting was held regarding this project on November 7, 2011.
Approximately 25 people were in attendance. The notes from this meeting are
attached.
2. Review Criteria
A. Land Use Code Section 2.8.2 — Modification of Standards:
(H) Step 8 (Standards). The decision maker may grant a modification of standard
only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the
public good, and that.
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for
which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which
complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard
would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code,
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide
concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact
that the proposed project would substantially address an important community
need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's
Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City
Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project
practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to,
physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography,
or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy
system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result
Remington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Section 4.9 (D) contains three standards relating to density and bulk that the applicant is
unable to meet in their proposal for a 42 unit multifamily project. Additionally, the
applicant is unable to meet two standards contained in Section 3.4.7 regarding the
preservation of an individually eligible local landmark structure that is located within the
National and State Register District, to the maximum extent feasible. Due to the scale,
massing and the overall divergence from the character of the Laurel School National
Register District, as well as the neighborhood at large, staff is recommending denial of
the proposed plan because is not equal to or better than a plan that would comply with
each of the standards nor does it substantially alleviate a City-wide need or substantially
further other cited City Plan policies.
COMMENTS:
1. Background
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: NCB —Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family
residential converted to commercial use with Kensington Apartments to
the northeast);
S: NCB —Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family
residential);
E: NCB —Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family
residential) with NCM—Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density
District (existing single-family residential) beyond;
W: CC —Community Commercial District (existing commercial and mixed -use
properties) with Colorado State University beyond.
All three subject properties, 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, are located within the
boundaries of the Laurel School National Register Historic District, established in 1980
(see attachment 2). Two of the properties, 705 and 715 Remington Street, were
determined to be National and State Register "intrusions" when it was established in
1980. Ten additional properties on the 700 Block of Remington Street are also listed on
the National and State Register as contributing to the district. The properties at 705 and
715 Remington Street were determined not to be individually eligible for local landmark
designation.
Additionally, the property at 711 Remington Street, also known as the Button House,
was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation in August,
2011. Constructed in 1888, the Button House has unique and distinct architectural
features that add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and neighborhood
context. The properties at 705 and 715 Remington Street were determined not to be
eligible for individual local landmark designation.
2
PROJECT: Remington Annex —Modifications of Standards Request, MOD120002
APPLICANT: Jeff Hansen and Justin Larson
Vaught Frye Larson Architects
401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNER: Christian and Robin Bachelet
Remington Annex, LLC
706 South College Avenue, Suite 202
Fort Collins, CO 80524
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for five stand-alone modifications; one regarding Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) District density standards, one for N-C-B rear -lot floor area
ratio (FAR), one regarding the N-C-B dimensional standards and two relating to historic
preservation standards. As proposed, the project would demolish the existing structures
and combine the lots at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, constructing one
multifamily building with 30 studio units, 8 one bedroom units, and 4 two bedroom units
for a total of 42 units. Additionally, to meet their parking requirement, the applicant is
proposing a bi-level parking garage, with one level at grade and one below grade
providing a total of 65 parking spaces.
The parcels are located in the N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. The
approval of these modifications is critical to project viability; that is why this request
precedes the project development plan. If approved, the stand-alone modifications are
valid for one year. Upon approval of this request, the applicant intends to continue to
move forward with their previous Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board Review) Project
Development Plan submittal and provide additional plans for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial
r
ATTACHMENT
Staff Report
(with attachments)
Provided to the Planning and
Zoning Board
February 16, 2012