HomeMy WebLinkAboutREMINGTON ANNEX - MOD. OF STANDARDS - MOD120002 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTRemington Annex, Modification of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & 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, Modificatiafi 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
E
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, Modificabun 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 (Y-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 modificationis 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).
utJ���
a l u; �T �� SIC u—fil
"
7_�li�l
®� IF7z�
° ® HOT
IF 9 ®� THIS
9
Wncepmai eaapn aampynp wrtn ma amnwNa aOrveron af(oNbl —
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. "
�:.t�11lI�IP,1�':I� I�;►E�I��ll�i���
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 213). 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
0
Remington Annex, Modificatwn of Standard — MOD120002
February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing
Page 8
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
concem 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, Modificatiun 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,
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
5
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
3
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:
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
,�rof
t� Collins
1 EM NO
MEETING DATE b i�-
STAFF dx oM
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
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
Current Planning 281 N College Av PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/currentplanning 1 970.221.6750