HomeMy WebLinkAboutREMINGTON ROW (ANNEX) - PDP - PDP110017 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTRemington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
3.2.1(E)(2)(d), Foundation Plantings, equally well or better than a
landscape plan which complies with the standards due to its innovative
design and use of plant materials on a vertical trellis, creating a unique
and complementary aesthetic aspect of the project.
E. Staff finds that the small portions of the north wall of property that are
slightly under the required setback are not detrimental to the public good
and deviates from the standard in a nominal, inconsequential way —when
considered from the perspective of the entire development plan as it
creates virtually no impact on adjacent properties, and will continue to
advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section
1.2.2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Modification of Standard and the
Remington Row, Project Development Plan, #PDP110017.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Site Plan
2. Landscape Plan
3. Architectural Elevations
4. Photometric Plan
5. Traffic Study
6. Modification and Alternative Compliance Requests
7. Shadow Study
8. Minutes from February 13, 2013 Landmark Preservation Commission meeting
and associated Staff Report
9. Notes from the January 2013 Neighborhood Meeting
10. Citizen Comments
Page 14
Remington Row. #PDP110017 March 21 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
provided analysis for a larger project with 42 units and 46 bedrooms.
Since the proposed number of units and bedrooms were reduced to 11
units and 28 bedrooms, it can be extrapolated that the traffic impacts will
be less than the TIS infers.
The TIS shows that the existing single family homes on site generate 28
daily trip ends and the trip generation for Remington Row is estimated to
be around 33 trip ends. Typically, traffic engineers accept a 25 percent
reduction in trips due to the proximity to the CSU campus and utilization of
multi -modal transportation options. With a 25% reduction, Remington Row
is estimated to have an impact of 25 trip ends, which is less that the
existing use.
Overall, the Traffic Study concludes that the level of service for pedestrian,
bicycle and transit modes will be acceptable and Remington Row can be
constructed without street improvements.
5. Compliance with Applicable Article Two, Administration:
A. Section 2.2.2 — Neighborhood Meetings
Three neighborhood meetings were held for this project. Two of those meetings
were held in 2011 for the previous iteration of the project. At that time, discussion
centered on the potential impact upon the Eastside neighborhood in terms of
massing, scale, density and character.
After the project was redesigned, the neighborhood meeting held in January
2013 was supportive in tone and the project generally received positive feedback
from the surrounding affected property owners and neighborhood.
6. Findings of FacttConclusions:
In reviewing the request for Remington Row PDP, Staff makes the following
findings of fact:
A. Multi -family dwelling units are a permitted use in the N-C-B, Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer District.
B. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable provisions of
Article Four, N-C-B District Standards.
C. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable General
Development Standards of Article Three.
D. The Project Development Plan complies with the required review criteria
for alternative compliance in that it accomplishes the purposes of Section
Page 13
Remington Row. #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing
development.
The definition of compatibility is unique as no single element of the
compatibility definition is essentially equivalent to a compatibility litmus
test; rather it is a contextually driven notion and is derived based on
circumstances on a case -by -case basis.
Instead of one large, massive multi -family structure (as initially submitted),
the PDP responds to the existing residential character to the north, south
and east, by breaking up the project into two smaller buildings that are
articulated with dormers, lintels assisting with the project blending in with
the existing streetscape composition.
The architectural character borrows from the vernacular of the area. The
designated residence directly to the north of Building A, at 701 Remington
Street, is a large Foursquare style residence with wood siding, hipped roof
with hipped dormers, columns on the central porch and features a boxed
cornice with brackets and overhanging eaves. The proposed buildings
incorporate similar detailing, materials, roof pitches and overhanding
eaves, further reinforcing the project's compatibility with the Laurel School
National Register Historic District as well as the Eastside Neighborhood.
The primary building material is horizontal lap siding with the inclusion of
stone at the base, similar to the existing Button House at 711 Remington
Street. The Buildings A and C are appropriately articulated, further
breaking up each buildings mass, as they essentially read as large single-
family homes, blending in with the existing streetscape. Detailing features
such as hip and gable roofs, accented window trim and timber brackets
enhance the architectural character and reinforce the compatibility of the
project with the area.
In terms of scale and height, Building C (south building) is proposed to be
approximately 38 feet in height. The existing Button House (Building B) is
approximately 21 and a half feet in height. Building A is proposed to be
approximately 35 and a half feet in height. The residence on the abutting
property to the south at 719 Remington Street is 27 feet tall and the
residence on the abutting property to the north is 37 feet tall. In addition,
many adjacent structures on the 700 block of Remington Street are similar
in scale to the proposed buildings and the project is compatible in regards
to height.
Q. Section 3.6.4 — Transportation Level of Service Requirements
The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) memorandum was provided in
2011 as part of the initial Project Development Plan submittal. The TIS
Page 12
Remington Row. #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
fixtures that are consistent in character with the architecture proposed.
Public street lighting has been factored into the lighting plan to avoid
redundancy.
N. Section 3.2.5 — Trash and Recycling Enclosures
The proposed trash collection/recycling enclosure satisfies the Land Use
Code requirements. A new trash enclosure is proposed on the west side
of the site and opens to the alley.
O. Section 3.4.7— Historic and Cultural Resources
Remington Row PDP is located within the Laurel School National Register
Historic District and the existing home at 711 Remington Street was
determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. The
home at 711 Remington Street will be preserved and rehabilitated in
place, consistent with the requirements of this Section of the Code.
Additionally, the Code requires new construction to be designed to be in
character with existing historic structures in the area. The abutting home
to the north at 121 East Laurel Street (historically addressed as 701
Remington Street) was recently designated as a Local Landmark, in
addition to the project being surrounded by buildings that contribute to the
Laurel School National Register Historic District. As such, the two new
buildings being constructed were intentionally designed to take the
surrounding historic context into account utilizing appropriate and
historically compatible architectural detailing and materials.
P. Section 3.5.1— Building Project and Compatibility
This standard requires that new projects be compatible with the
established architectural character and context of the general area. The
compatibility standards of this section require that the characteristics of
the proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within
the larger context of the surrounding area. The Land Use Code offers the
following definition of the term "compatibility":
Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or
activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to
each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include
height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics
include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking
impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are
landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does
not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity
Page 11
Remington Row. #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
The site is an infill location surrounded by existing infrastructure including
sidewalks. There are bike lanes along Remington Street and Laurel
Street. The project takes vehicular access of the alley between South
College Avenue and Remington Street.
Section 3.2.2(C)(4) — Bicycle Facilities
This standard requires multi -family residential to provide 1 bike parking
space per bedroom with a minimum of 60% of these spaces enclosed.
The PDP proposes 28 bedrooms and requires 17 enclosed bicycle parking
spaces. As proposed, the project provides 30 bicycle parking spaces total.
Of these spaces, 18 bike parking spaces are located within the building,
and 12 spaces will be distributed among 2 exterior fixed bicycle racks
located to the west of the residence at 711 Remington Street.
J. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) — Parking Lots — Required Number of Spaces
The Code requires a minimum number of parking spaces for two-family
and multi -family projects, based on the number of units proposed. For
every two bedroom unit, 1.75 spaces are required and for every three
bedroom unit, 2 parking spaces are required. The project proposes 5 two -
bedroom units and 6 three -bedroom units. The project is required, and
provides 21 parking spaces and meets the standard.
K. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) — Handicap Parking
The code requires 1 van -accessible handicap parking space for projects
with parking lots that contain less than 26 parking spaces. The Remington
Row PDP provides 1 van -accessible space, meeting the requirement.
L. Section 3.2.4 —Solar Access, Orientation, Shading
This standard provides shading considerations for adjacent properties, to
the maximum extent feasible. Moreover, one of the goals of this Section is
to ensure that site plan elements do not excessively shade adjacent
properties, creating a significant adverse impact upon adjacent property
owners. The applicant provided a shading exhibit with their PDP submittal.
From the shadow study, Staff finds that this shadow does not excessively
shade the adjacent properties, does not inhibit the use of solar collectors
on these homes during the winter solstice, nor does it create a significant
adverse impact on these adjacent properties.
M. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting
The Applicant submitted a photometric plan and the proposed site lighting
complies with the requirements set forth in this Section of the Land Use
Code. Site lighting will feature down -directional, fully shielded, cut-off
Page 10
Remington Row. #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
buildings while introducing a natural element and softening the overall
appearance.
D. Section 3.2.1(E)(3) — Water Conservation Standards
Water conservation techniques and materials are incorporated into the
Remington Row PDP landscape plan by the use of drought tolerant trees
and moderate water use plant materials where practical. An automatic,
underground irrigation system will be designed to address specific needs
of different plan species, soil conditions, as well as the slope and aspect of
the different hydrozones. An irrigation plan will be provided by the
Applicant concurrently with their building permit application. The water
budget chart provided by the Applicant calls out that the average water
usage for the site is 8.72 gallons per square foot, under the maximum 15
gallons per square foot permitted. The project meets the water
conservation standards.
E. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) — Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping
The perimeter of the projects' vehicular use area will be effectively
screened from the residential uses to the north and south with a
combination of plant material and a 6 foot tall wood fence, meeting the
requirements of this standard. The project is also providing three planter
pots separating three parking spaces from the alley, also meeting the
Code requirements.
F. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) — Parking Lot Interior Landscaping
This Section requires that at least 6% of the interior space of a parking lot
be landscaped. The parking lot is 7,721 square feet which requires at least
463 square feet of interior landscaped area to meet the 6% requirement.
As proposed, there is 819 square feet (10.6%) of interior landscaped area,
meeting the 6% requirement.
G. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Protection and Replacement.
This standard requires that existing trees be preserved to the extent
reasonably feasible. For this project, 20 existing trees are proposed to be
removed and 6 trees are proposed to be protected. The City Forester
conducted an on -site meeting with the Applicant and determined a
mitigation schedule. For mitigation of the existing trees to be removed, 23
trees are upsized.
H. Section 3.2.2(B) —Access Circulation and Parking,
Page 9
Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
The PDP complies with the applicable General Development standards as
follows:
A. Section 3.2.1 (D) — Tree Planting Standards
The PDP provides full tree stocking and 75% of the trees provided are
canopy shade trees.
B. Section 3.2.1(D)(3) — Minimum Species Diversity
This standard requires that no one species of tree (deciduous or evergreen)
will exceed the allowable 33 percent of the total number of trees on the
landscape plan. The landscape plan proposes 23 new trees, and no more
than 8 can be of one species. The most of any one species is the Crimson
Spire Oak and Swedish Columnar Aspen, each with 6 trees (26%), complying
with the standard.
C. Section 3.2.1 (E)(2)— Landscape Area Treatment
The Applicant is proposing an Alternative Compliance (3.2.1(N)) method
for satisfying the 5 foot wide foundation plantings requirement on the west
elevations of buildings A and C. The project provides 5 foot wide
foundation plantings around the majority of the building. In order to meet
the historic setback along Remington Street, the buildings were pushed
west providing little room (only about 1 foot 7 inches) for foundation
plantings along the west elevation of Buildings A and C. In order to meet
the intent of the standard, the landscape plan incorporates two vertical
trellises with creeping myrtle or similar plant material.
1. Section 3.2.1(N) -Alternative Compliance
The proposed alternative compliance is considered based on
"whether the alternative preserves and incorporates existing
vegetation in excess of minimum standards, protects natural
areas and features, maximizes tree canopy cover, enhances
neighborhood continuity and connectivity, fosters nonvehicular
access, or demonstrates innovative design and use of plant
materials and other landscape elements."
Staff finds that the proposal for alternative compliance accomplishes the
purposes of Section 3.2.1(E)(2) equally well or better than would a
landscape plan which complies with the standards of the section. It
complies with previously mentioned review criteria, in that the landscape
trellis demonstrates innovative design by adding an architectural element
featuring plant material, adding visual interest to the west elevations of the
Page 8
Remington Row. #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
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
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).
4. Compliance with Applicable Article 3 - General Development Standards:
As illustrated by the previous section, the N-C-B zone contains numerous
specific standards. Where N-C-B Zone District standards of Article Four are in
conflict with the General Development standards of Article Thee, the N-C-B
standards prevail (as noted in Section 3.1.2 of the Land Use Code).
Page 7
Remington Row. #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
C. Summary of Applicant's Justification
In the request for Modification letter, the Applicant states that a modification of
this standard is justified as set forth in Section 2.8.2.(H)(4) of the Land Use Code.
'In our previous submittal we proposed a building with three main building
masses that defined the three wall planes facing the north and south side yards
for the Remington Row project, two stories of apartments on the east side, three
stories of apartments on the west side and a vestibule for an exterior stair tower
that connects them. It was the stair tower mass that was not compliant with
Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) for which we were requesting the modification of standards.
Through discussions with City Staff we decided to move the exterior door to the
exit stair so that the entire stair could be un-enclosed and thereby eliminating the
non -compliant mass of the stair tower. However, a clarification of the standard of
Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) revealed that tallest of the remaining walls on both the north
and south property lines were also non -compliant.
An illustration of the relationship between these two remaining wall planes as
currently proposed is shown on the attached Fig. 1. This illustration also lists the
maximum height of each wall plane, the required setback as prescribed by
Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) and the actual setback that is being provided by this
proposed design. As it can be seen, efforts have been made to reduce the length
and height of this section of wall as much as possible including not enclosing the
stair as described above so that the diversion from the standard set in Division
4.9(D)(6)(d) becomes nominal and inconsequential. Therefore, the Remington
Row project should be granted this modification of standards based on the
provisions of Division 2.8.2(H) (4). "
D. Staff Evaluation of Modification Request
The purpose and intent of this standard is one of impact mitigation. The step -
back standard assists with regulating the magnitude of construction in the N-C-B
district. This standard also recognizes that there are impacts to abutting, existing
homes and that these impacts can sometimes be onerous, detracting from the
quality of life for adjacent residents. When taken in context of the entire
development plan, the small portions of wall that slightly deviate from the
standard dG R9t Greate a Gi@RifiGapt have very little, if any, impact on the
adjacent properties.
Staff finds that the small portions of the walls that are slightly under the required
setback deviates from the standard in a nominal, inconsequential way when
considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, as it creates
virtually no impact on adjacent properties and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
A. Review Criteria
Page 6
Remington Row. #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
The entrances of the buildings are oriented to Remington Street. The
entrances are enhanced by overhangs.
The proposed primary roof pitches for the buildings are 5:12, meeting the
minimum roof pitch of 2:12 and within the maximum roof pitch of 12:12.
The front elevation features a variety of treatments creating a well -
articulated appearance.
E. Section 4.9(E)(4) — Landscape/Hardscape Material
The Code requires that a maximum of 40 percent of the front yard of a lot
may be covered with inorganic material. The front yard area is 3,207
square feet in size, thus no more than 1,283 square feet could be
inorganic material. As proposed, the project has 616 square feet (19%) of
paving and sidewalk in the front yard and meets the standard.
3. Modification of Standards Request:
The Applicant is requesting a Modification of Standards to Section 4-89(D)(6)(d),
regarding the N-C-B dimensional standards as it relates to the side setback
requirements.
A. Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d) reads as follows:
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.
B. Description of the Modification
The north wall on the east portion of Building A (containing the two bedroom
units) is 18 feet 4 inches tall and is set back 5 feet 11 inches from the north
property line. The standard requires the wall to be set back 6 feet because the
wall is over 18 feet in height.
The north wall on the west portion of Building A (containing the three bedroom
units) is 32 feet 6 inches in height and is set back 12 feet 3 inches from the north
property line. The standard requires the setback to be 13 feet.
The south wall on the west portion of Building C (containing the 3 bedroom units)
is 36 feet 10 inches in height and is set back 14 feet 8 inches from the south
property line. The standard requires the setback to be 15 feet.
Page 5
Remington Row. #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
B. Section 4.9(D) - Density
The N-C-B zone district permits a building to contain an amount of square
footage that equals the lot area, which in this case is 19,897 square feet.
The proposed square footage total is 12,143 square feet, thus complying
with the standard.
Additionally, the Land Use Code requires there to be a maximum Floor
Area Ratio of .33 on the rear 50 percent of the lot. The rear half of the lot
is 9,948 square feet in size. To meet the rear Floor Area Ratio of .33 the
project could have no more than 3,283 square feet in the rear 50 percent
of the lot. The project proposes 720 square feet in the rear 50 percent of
the lot for a rear Floor Area Ratio of .07, meeting the standard.
C. Section 4.9(D)(6) - Dimensional Standards
If a project has more than one principal building constructed side by side
on the same lot, then each building must have at least 40 feet of street
frontage for two-family dwellings and at least 50 feet of frontage for multi-
family buildings. The PDP proposes to combine the three subject lots, for
a lot width of 142 feet. The residence at 711 Remington Street has one 2
bedroom unit, thus needing 40 feet of frontage. The two new buildings are
required to have 50 feet of frontage. As proposed, the project is required
to provide 140 feet of frontage and the lot width is 142 feet, meeting the
standard.
The minimum front setback from Remington Street is 15 feet. The two new
buildings are set back 19 feet 9 inches from Remington Street.
The proposed buildings are setback approximately 60 feet from the rear
alley to the west, meeting the minimum requirement of a 5 foot setback
from the alley.
The two new buildings are three stories in height thus not exceeding the
maximum allowed height of three stories.
Additionally, the project is requesting a modification of standards to the
side setback requirements of Section 4.9(D)(6)(d). This modification
request is outlined below (page 5).
D. Section 4.9(E)(1) - Building Design
Since the buildings are rectilinear, all exterior walls are constructed
parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines.
Page 4
Remington Row. #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
Applicant appealed the decision to City Council in April, 2012. The City Council upheld
the Board's denial decision.
In the summer of 2012, the Applicant utilized the City's Design Assistance Program.
Instituted by City Council in 2011, the Design Assistance Program aims to help property
owners with setting, massing, and overall design composition to ensure compatibility
with adjacent properties and minimize the impacts of new construction on contextually
sensitive, and often historic, areas. Through this program, a local architect
collaboratively redesigned the project, working towards envisioning a multi -family infill
redevelopment project that both meets the needs of the Owners and complies with the
Land Use Code and Historic Preservation criteria, including the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
This project was resubmitted to the Community Development and Neighborhood
Services department in fall of 2012, with the reduced number of units, massing, scale as
well as the preservation and rehabilitation of the Button House at 711 Remington Street.
Additionally, the project was presented to the Landmark Preservation Commission on
September 26, 2012 for a complementary review and again on February 13, 2013,
requesting feedback prior to the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing.
2.
As previously mentioned, the site is located within the Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B). The purpose of the N-C-B Zone District is:
"...intended for areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and
more intensive commercial -use areas or high traffic zones that have been given
this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan. "
To the west of the site is a commercial area, South College Avenue and
Colorado State University; to the east is primarily single family residential. The
proposed project fits the intent and purpose of the N-C-B Zone District.
A. Section 4.9(B) — Permitted Uses
In the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer zone district, the review and
decision making body for multi -family housing projects are governed by
the number of dwelling units and the residential net density. The proposed
land use is considered multi -family and is permitted in the N-C-B zone
district. The site is .457 acres. As 11 units are proposed, the density is
24.07 dwelling units per net acre. Since the PDP contains more than four
dwelling units in one building, at a density of more than 24 dwelling units
per acre, the land use is permitted, subject to review and a public hearing
by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Page 3
Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21. 2013 Planning & Zoning Board
of the Laurel School National Register district by utilizing a complementary design
featuring historically appropriate architectural detailing, roof pitches and overhanging
eaves. This complementary design, in tandem with the reduced massing and scale,
reinforces the compatibility with the overall neighborhood context.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family
residential, with Kensington Apartments to the northeast);
S: N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family
residential);
E: N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family
residential) with NCM—Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density
District (existing single-family residential) beyond;
W: C-C—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.
Two of the properties, 705 and 715 Remington Street, were determined to be National
and State Register district "intrusions" and not eligible for local landmark designation.
Ten additional properties on the 700 Block of Remington Street are also listed on the
National and State Register as contributing to the district.
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.
This project was initially submitted in 2011 under the name Remington Annex. The
previous iteration proposed to demolish all existing structures at 705, 711 and 715
Remington Street and construct one large multi -family building with 30 studio units, 8
one bedroom units and 4 two bedroom units for a total of 42 units with a bi-level parking
garage with 65 spaces. The previous project struggled to meet the N-C-B density and
dimensional standards as well as the historic preservation standards contained in Article
Three of the Land Use Code.
In February 2012, the Applicant elected to request five stand-alone Modification of
Standards requests in connection with the previous Remington Annex PDP. The
Planning and Zoning Board denied the stand-alone modification requests and the
Page 2
Fort Collins
ITEM NO
MEETING DATE =r �
STAFF
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
PROJECT: Remington Row, Project Development Plan, #PDP110017
APPLICANT: Jeff Hansen
Vaught Frye Larson Architects
401 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 an eleven unit multi -family infill redevelopment project. As
proposed, the two existing homes located at 705 and 715 Remington Street would be
demolished and replaced with two multi -family buildings. The historic home at 711
Remington Street would remain and be rehabilitated, containing a two bedroom unit.
The project proposes 5 two -bedroom units and 6 three -bedroom units for a total of 11
units and 28 bedrooms. Parking would be in the rear with 21 spaces gaining access off
of the alley to the west. The site is located within the Neighborhood Conservation,
Buffer Zone District.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Multi -family is permitted in the N-C-B zone district. The Project Development Plan
(PDP) complies with development standards of the N-C-B Zone District and with the
applicable General Development Standards of the Land Use Code with the exception of
the submitted Modification of Standard requests, which Staff recommends approval.
The project, with its' two new, three story multi -family buildings were reviewed under the
Code's compatibility standards and found to be compatible with the surrounding context
Current Planning 281 N College Ave - PO Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/currentplanning 970.221.6750