HomeMy WebLinkAbout220 E. OLIVE ST. - MOD. OF STAND. - MOD120005 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTOne Library Park (220 East Olive Street), P.D.P., #34-07
April 17, 2008 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
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 (Olive Street) shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of
any comer lot.
The Board approved the Modification to allow interior side yard (north) to range in
height from 18 to 48 feet at the highest point. And, the Board approved the
Modification to allow the corner side yard setback (Olive Street) to be zero feet.
Sixth - Section 4.9 (D)(6)(e):
Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except for carriage houses and
accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and
one-half (1 %) stories.
The Board approved the Modification to allow the building to be four stories in
height.
5. Compliance with Condition of Approval:
The Board approved the six Modifications of Standard subject to the following:
The Modifications are approved subject to the review and approval of all affected
utilities at the time of review of the Project Development Plan.
The P.D.P. has been reviewed by the affected utilities and there remain no conflicts with
the affected utilities.
6. Compliance with Section N-C-B Dimensional and Development Standards Not
Covered by the Six Modifications:
There remain six applicable dimensional and development standards that were not
covered by the aforementioned six Modifications. These are:
A. Minimum Lot Width
The lot exceeds the required minimum lot width of 50 feet.
B. Building Design — Exterior Walls
One Library Park (220 East Olive Street), P.D.P., #34-07
April 17, 2008 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
4. Summary of the Six Modifications:
As mentioned, six stand-alone Modifications of Standard were approved by the Planning
and Zoning Board on October 18, 2007. These are summarized as follows:
First - 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.
The Board approved the Modification to allow the building (29,212 square feet) to
exceed the lot area (12,600 square feet).
Second - 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.
The Board approved the Modification to allow a FAR of 0.93 on the rear 50% of the
lot.
Third - Section 4.9 (D)(6)(b):
Minimum front yard setback (Mathews Street) shall be fifteen (15) feet.
The Board approved the Modification to allow the building to be setback zero feet
from Mathews Street.
Fourth - Section 4.9 (D)(6)(c):
Minimum rear yard setback (west) shall be five (5) feet from existing alley and
fifteen (15) feet in all other conditions.
The Board approved the Modification to allow the rear yard setback (west) to be 4.5
feet
Fifth - Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d):
Minimum side yard width (north) shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards.
Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height,
220 East Olive Street
PI
Vicinity Map
J E Mountain Ave
St Plaza Park
SITE
c
0
w
rn
c
E
N
lY
i
0
F,
E Oak St
Park
Aerial Site Map
r E Olive St v
m m
� a N
m
a
v
>L
E Magnolia St
1 inch = 300 feet rl F:--
I I I l_
m mqp d6.w,LuaroWSa.n—gwEpW M.IR. CXrmFor.Cumbe wqw wmaFq mot, sm wm oot&g.d« Munaa Iw9.u.e W....
W IM PWk TM LLLY nnNs m nYmwV tln wvaRM'.. p g xavxY.Yma6wv. v mnWlamq. uk In pvWo..lp ac�q / trI IWIR9 aEMWNN Upnaiu'vm. mmcun. IN yyyy���� ��-�
prtp.ryEwMFM.,aP6mnmintreYanWgymepIgggP.seen.TIEC OFFC TCOL M SNOWARRFNTYOFE RCHMTMILITYORWMRF FON City of
FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE. EXPRESSED OR Ia) WRH RESPECT TO THESE PAR PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DoTP. An, mam al M-. m.P �a Collins
'ooNFo. mPgpdWww,wddo, a Ims qnw M ALL.sum.. M. WRH L FnuLTS..ma �rpanm®ry nun uxVowed.mm� l.n. and s aw.n.nu q na.o..to mnlq CityL
NmWn v E
loon Wa ftt Jdm .m>Imb"vLLN Rdn wry uq 0 Mb mq Pogl A to muMaalbn adw CM M.iq madt nk k&nowon waWN. Nbgnawn Wducq a.0 dau
ami�.d nw. ww d. mrgne hqr uw. ard».. Pmm., wandarN:�d aw.Tq cdr awnwm, we analmi a. n.w ten. a.,m.m g a.m.u..Ia.. w mM..q�Iw.m.e. GIS
'wst> an..wiwidal.lor qv. w.wrw+. non war ay wroaa w uw w Frndi W a.r Pwwnu.nay.
s
REVISED 220 East Olive Street, Request for Modification of Standard, #MOD120005
June 21, 2012 P & Z Hearing
Page 10
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Request for Modification of Standard to Section
3.2.2(K)(1)(a), which would allow the pending 220 East Olive Apartment Building Project
Development Plan to have zero parking on -site, subject to the following condition:
At the time of submittal of the application for a Project Development Plan, the
applicant shall provide sufficient documentation and evidence that all
mitigation measures as stated in the application for the Request for
Modification of Standard will be implemented and made a part of the Final
Plan, Any failure to perform such implementation shall constitute a Land Use
Code violation subject to enforcement under Division 2.14 of the Land Use
Code.
r
REVISED 220 East Olive Street, Request for Modification of Standard, #MOD120005
June 21, 2012 P & Z Hearing
Page 9
proposed project would substantially address an important community need
specifically defined in Plan Fort Collins and the Downtown Strategic Plan.
E. This is because the project would provide 40 multi -family dwelling units fulfill the
vision of Plan Fort Collins by promoting the following principles and policies: LIV 5,
6, 7; LIV 32.2 and the Purpose Statement of the Downtown District.
F. In compliance with Section 2.8.2(H)(3), Staff finds that by reason of exceptional
physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the
subject property, including but not limited to, physical conditions such as
exceptional narrowness or shallowness, the strict application of the standard would
result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the
owner, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the actor
omission of the applicant.
G. This is because the location, size and shape of the parcel, platted well before the
adoption of the N-C-B zone district standards, creates practical difficulties in re-
developing the site. As evidence, the existing building already violates two N-C-B
standards and previous re -development scenarios have sought Modifications of N-
CB Standards.
H. Staff finds that the context of the surrounding area and unique attributes associated
with site create a situation where this particular parcel does not fit neatly into the N-
CB or the Downtown zones. The site is well -buffered from the residential area of
the N-C-B by Library Park, 270 feet across two streets from the nearest house,
bordered on three sides by public right-of-way and within three blocks of the Mason
Corridor. But, the development standards of the NCB appear to be overly restrictive
as applied to the subject site. And yet the yet the development parameters allowed
by Downtown zoning appear to be overly generous as applied to this parcel.
Hence, re -development scenarios have proven that a degree of flexibility is required
as afforded by the Modification process. Staff, therefore, finds that the Planning
and Zoning Board should consider re -development of 220 East Olive Street in its
totality and overall. performance and mitigation of impacts.
REVISED 220 East Olive Street, Request for Modification of Standard, #MOD120005
June 21, 2012 P & Z Hearing
Page 8
• LIV 7:A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be
available throughout the Growth Management Area.
• Downtown Purpose Statement: The objective is to embrace the fullest
possible range of human interactions. Diversity means Downtown must
include office, finance, civic, government, and entertainment in addition to
retail shops, services, restaurants and housing.
LIV 32.2: Provide a gradual transition between the more intensive, business -
oriented areas Downtown and adjacent lower intensity, residential
neighborhoods. Land use intensity should decrease as distance from the
center of each Downtown sub -district increases, establishing.a transition
between urban uses and adjacent neighborhoods. In the buffer area, the
principal uses include residential, bed and breakfast inns, low -intensity
professional offices and neighborhood service businesses.
6. Findings of Fact:
In evaluating the request for a Modification to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), which would allow the
pending Library Lofts P.D.P. with 42 dwelling units and zero on -site parking spaces but 40
off -site spaces, Staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. In compliance with Section 2.8.2(H), Staff finds that the granting of the Modification
would not be detrimental to the public good.
B. In compliance with Section 2.8.2(H)(1), Staff finds that as proposed, Modification
and pending P.D.P. 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 the Modification is requested.
C. This is because the proposed P.D.P. would provide a variety of mitigation measures
that compensate for the lack of on -site parking spaces. The primary mitigation is
the long term leasing of 40 off -site parking spaces located directly across the street.
Further, the request includes other measures that have the effect of reducing the
demand for parking. These measures have been identified as trends that allow
cities to enhance their urban core by attracting residents. Such residents form a
critical mass for supporting downtown businesses and services and contribute to
the economic vibrancy of the downtown area in general.
D. In compliance with Section 2.8.2(H)(2), Staff finds that as proposed, the granting of
the Modification would, without impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use
Code, would result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the
REVISED 220 East Olive Street, Request for Modification of Standard, #MOD120005
June 21, 2012 P & Z Hearing
Page 7
assessment has been confirmed by the consultants that have been working with staff on
the Downtown Parking Management Plan.
The six Modifications granted in 2007 speak compellingly as to the site constraints of the
parcel. It appears that the vision of providing multi -family housing near the Downtown is
somewhat thwarted by the existing N-C-B standards. While these standards may be
appropriate on some blocks, they have proven to be a barrier for this particular parcel
given its location, size and shape.
Redevelopment of the site into a multi -family building fulfills the goals associated with
creating a vibrant downtown environment where residents are able to support small locally -
owned businesses and service providers. A downtown that relies solely upon inbound
commuters for economic survival tends to offer fewer economic opportunities and is
typically characterized by minimal economic activity after the close of the business day.
The site contains only 12,600 square feet. Multi -family housing, in close proximity to
employment and transit, would be a valuable asset to the land use mix in the general area.
Redevelopment of this parcel would provide a natural transition between Downtown and
the less dense residential area to the east in the heart of the NCB closer to the Library.
The museum, library and park combine to provide a significant buffer to the less dense
areas of the zone district.
Accordingly, staff finds that development of this parcel for multi -family housing results in
advantages that promote public policies related to downtown economic vibrancy and
culture. The voluntary mitigation measures, while considered innovative by local
standards, have been implemented in other successful cities that enjoy a rebirth in
urbanism.
Spillover parking further east into the neighborhood appears to be minimal. Based on
comparisons with previous users, the available off -site parking exceeds that which was
provided for other non-residential tenants.
In summary, the request is supported by the following Plan Fort Collins Principles and
Policies:
• LIV 5:The City will promote redevelopment and infill in area identified on the
Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map.
• LIV 6:lnfill and redevelopment Within residential areas will be compatible with
the established character of the neighborhood. In areas where the desired
character of the neighborhood is not established, or is not consistent with the
vision of City Plan, infill and redevelopment projects will set an enhanced
standard of quality.
REVISED 220 East Olive Street, Request for Modification of Standard, #MOD120005
June 21, 2012 P & Z Hearing
Page 6
that would add value to the surrounding area. A new residential building would contribute
to the urbanism of the area which, in turn, will support alternative modes of travel such as
the Mason Corridor MAX. Multi -family dwellings would offer a choice of housing for those
who work in the downtown area or for those seeking an urban lifestyle.
K. Exceptional Physical Condition Unique to Property
The applicant asserts that the parcel (90' x 140' = 12,600 square feet) was platted as part
of the original Town Plat and, obviously, before the adoption of,the N-C-B development
standards. N-C-B standards are as follows:
• Maximum overall F.A.R. 1.00
• Maximum F.A.R. on rear one-half of lot 0.33
• 15' Front setback
• 15' Corner side setback
• 5' interior side setback for the first 18' of wall height
•' 1' additional side setback for every 2' of additional wall height
• 5' Rear setback
Three-story height maximum
As mentioned, in October of 2007, six Modifications to N-C-B standards were granted to
allow a multi -family building that exceeded both floor -to -area ratios, four setback standards
and to allow four stories. Further, the existing building already violates the maximum
F.A.R. on the rear one-half of the lot and the minimum rear setback. The applicant
contends that given the size and shape of the parcel, and its location along two public
streets and an alley, that the site is sufficiently constrained to the point of having an .
exceptional physical condition in relationship to the N-C-B development standards.
4. Staff Evaluation and Analysis:
The character of the area is not well-defined. Although zoned N-C-B, the property does
not have a close relationship to the single family homes located further to the east primarily
because of the separation and buffering provided by Library Park. Similarly, the property
is one lot east of the Downtown zone, separated only by an alley, but would not likely
support a floor -to -area ratio and a building height allowed by Downtown zoning standards.
In essence, the site does not fit neatly into either zone district resulting in challenges in
assessing redevelopment scenarios.
Staff has evaluated various redevelopment ideas over the last several years, and has
observed parking patterns in the neighborhood. Basically, parking during the day is used
by downtown. employees and during the night by residents. These observations reveal
that there are a number of available on -street parking spaces during the evening. This
REVISED 220 East Olive Street, Request for Modification of Standard, *MOD120005
June 21, 2012 P & Z Hearing
Page 5
E. Mitigation Measure — Bicycle Locker Secured Storage
The applicant has stated that a bicycle locking storage room will be provided on the first
floor. This storage room will be secured and available to all tenants.
F. Mitigation Measure — Additional On -street Public Parking
Redevelopment of this site would result in a reconfiguration of the current head -in parking
on Olive Street. These spaces would be re -developed into diagonal spaces creating
seven new spaces including handicap parking. Since these spaces are in the public right-
of-way, they cannot be reserved and would be available to the general public.
G. Property Adjoins the Transit Oriented Development District
The applicant points out that the alley along the west property line is the dividing line
between the Downtown and N-C-B zone districts. The alley is also the dividing line for the
Transit Oriented Development District where there is no minimum parking required for
residential projects in order to promote urbanism and minimize the inefficiency and impacts
of surface parking lots in an urban environment. If the project were proposed one lot to the
west, no parking would be required.
H. Office Users — No Parking Required
The applicant owns the building and operated a software company out of this location for a
number of years. During that time, up to 60 employees, vendors, customers, and trainees
occupied the building at any one time. As reported by the applicant, the business
prospered and employees enjoyed the urban environment and parking issues were
minimal. Also, the applicant points out that at no time did any employees take out a permit
to park in the public lot across the street. Other building occupants included the City of
Fort Collins and the Northern Colorado Metropolitan Planning Organization both of which
successfully operated without dedicated off-street parking spaces.
Context
The site is located on a block where the north -south alley divides the Downtown Zone from
the NCB zone. And, the west property line abuts this alley. In contrast, the nearest single
family dwelling in the NCB is located 270 feet to the southeast across two streets.
Therefore, as a transitional land use, the subject site properly relates more closely to the
Downtown zone versus the NCB zone.
J. Redevelopment and Urbanism
The applicant states that the building is partially deconstructed and has been vacant for
four years and is dilapidated. Redevelopment would allow for a new upgraded structure
REVISED 220 East Olive Street, Request for Modification of Standard, #MOD120005
June 21, 2012 P & Z Hearing
Page 4
3. Summary of the Applicant's Justification:
The applicant contends that the pending P.D.P., with zero on -site parking spaces, 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 the
Modification is requested. As justification, the applicant offers the following:
A. Mitigation Measure — 40 Off -Site Parking Spaces
The applicant has entered into a long term lease with the City of Fort Collins Parking
Services Department to lease 40 parking spaces across the street in the public parking lot.
This lot is directly across Olive Street to the south behind the D.M.A. Plaza. The location
is convenient to the prospective tenants.
Leasing history indicates that there is weak demand for these spaces which provides
assurance to the City's Parking Services Manager that there will not be any negative
spillover onto the public streets by reserving these spaces. At 42 proposed dwelling units,
these 40 spaces represent a ratio of 0.9 spaces per unit.
B. Mitigation Measure — Parking Cash Out
The applicant has indicated a commitment to offer a reduction in the rental rate to
prospective tenants who sign an affidavit that they do not own a car. This program is
known as a parking cash out and provides a financial incentive for voluntarily reducing the
demand for parking spaces. The parking cash out is a trend typically found in urban areas
by employers who seek to reduce the cost of providing free parking to employees.
C. Mitigation Measure — Shared Electric Vehicle
The applicant has stated that an electric vehicle will be provided for common use to be
shared by residents needing a car. This vehicle would be available in the same manner
that Zip Car is managed in the larger cities. By providing the opportunity to use a vehicle
when needed, the applicant is creating an incentive to attract tenants who do not own a
car.
D. Mitigation Measure — Annual Transfort Passes
The applicant has indicated that annual Transfort passes will be made available to all
tenants. Since the site is only three blocks from Mason Street, there are opportunities to
use the bus versus driving a personal car. Also, Olive Street is a designated bus stop for
the MAX service providing additional convenience.
REVISED 220 East Olive Street, Request for Modification of Standard, #MOD120005
June 21, 2012 P & Z Hearing
Page 3
Departments. Most recently, it has been the home of a software engineering company.
The building has now been vacant for four years.
In October of 2007, a stand-alone Request for Six Modifications for a pending multi -family
P.D.P. was approved with conditions. All six Modifications related to development
standards in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B, zone district including density,
floor -to -area ratio, front, side and rear setbacks and building height.
In April of 2008, the One Library Park multi -family apartment building that incorporated the
six modifications was approved. This P.D.P. has since expired.
The alley along the west property line divides the Downtown and N-C-B zone districts.
2. The Standard at Issue:
Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) is as follows:
(K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off -Street Spaces for Type of Use.
(])Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements. Residential and
institutional uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces as
defined by the standards below.
(a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi -family
dwelling there shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the
following table:
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit
Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit*
One or less
1.5
Two
1.75
Three
2.0
Four and above
2.5
The applicant is proposing 28 one -bedroom units and 14 two bedroom unit which would
require a total of 67 spaces. The applicant is proposing zero on -site spaces but 40 off -site
spaces.
REVISED 220 East Olive Street, Request for Modification of Standard, #MOD120005
June 21, 2012 P & Z Hearing
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
220 East Olive Street Apartment Building ("Library Lofts") is a pending residential
development project. A stand-alone Request for Modification of Standard is allowed per
Section 2.8.1 and, if granted, is valid for only one year by which time a Project
Development Plan incorporating the Modification must be filed. The request has been
evaluated by the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H) and found to be in compliance due to the
provision of 40 parking spaces being located across the street and secured with a long
term lease. With this arrangement, along with other mitigation measures, the pending
P.D.P. would be equal to or better than a plan that would have provided 67 on -site parking
spaces. A condition of approval is recommended regarding enforcement of the proposed
mitigation measures.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: N-C-B; Existing three-story multi -family building (Park View Apartments)
S: N-C-B; Existing parking lot for City and D.M.A. Plaza
E: N-C-B; Existing Museum and Library Park
W: D; Existing commercial and residential
The existing one-story structure has been under a variety of zone districts and used for
many different functions over the years. The zoning history is as follows:
1955 —1965 — Employment
1965 — 1991 — High Density Residential
1981 — 1991 — High Density Residential with P.U.D. Option under L.D.G.S.
1991 — 1997 — Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (Pre Land Use Code)
1997 — Present — Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (Post Land Use Code)
It is worth noting that the P.U.D. option under the Land Development Guidance System
was available between 1981 and 1991 regardless of the underlying zoning. This option
allowed for a design -based review process with flexible land use and development
standards, subject to providing impact mitigation where necessary. Modifications to
development standards were not necessary under L.D.G.S. as long as the overall project
performed at a high level of design, and subject to Planning and Zoning Board approval.
At one point, the building was home to Vipont Laboratories, the research arm of Water Pik.
Past tenants also include the City of Fort Collins Stormwater and Transportation
City of
ort Collins
ITEM NO .1
MEETING DATE ii—
STAFF
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
6/15/12 REVISION -- SUPERCEDES ORIGINAL AGENDA PACKET COPY
PROJECT: 220 East Olive Street, Request for Modification of Standard,
#MOD120005
APPLICANT: Mr. Brad Florin
Olive Street Properties, LLC
P.O. Box 270070
Fort Collins, CO 80527
OWNER: Same
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a stand-alone Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) which
establishes the minimum number of parking spaces for multi -family dwellings. The Land
Use Code requires a minimum number of parking spaces to serve the proposed apartment
building. Based on the mix of one and two bedroom units distributed across 42 units, 67
parking spaces would need to be provided on the site. The applicant is requesting zero
parking spaces be provided on the site. As mitigation, the applicant is proposing to
provide 40 parking spaces across Olive Street in the City of Fort Collins public parking lot.
These 40 spaces are available and would be secured with a long term lease in accordance
with the leasing procedures of the Parking Services Department of the City of Fort Collins.
The pending P.D.P. would be a residential project at 220 East Olive Street at the northwest
corner of East Olive Street and Mathews Street. The existing building would be
demolished. The new building would include 42 apartment units. The parcel is zoned N-
CB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Condition
Current Planning 281 N College Av PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/currentplanning 970.221.6750