Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAX FLATS - PDP - PDP120034 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (10)TOP PARPE. T� LE V� FrL4 132.8 1 LAP SUNG WALL BEYOND M- IL41 s TOPPIm I& _T Ls B - — 01 — - - -it�r-4 4_ r 6 LEVEL4 STUCCO WALL BEYOND STUCCO WALL BEYOND IofYo'roi I BALLONY �rl¢al�rvorrt�. Ir I I .. LEVEl7A iii711 �f LEVEL LEVELI — s`EVE`ar LEV2 z.EL S mom _ I e --- PABIUNO PARIfINO ��r 10B T B !•--��� Oor E}'� --1LE�vEi' � ^i n WALL SECTION 6 - PDP WALL SECTION 5 - PDP WALL SECTION 4 - PDP SOUTH ELEVATION � AC.Yd � S1S.fo � m.t'd � 1•. qd Cl WEST RNnrplf W}gyy rM O�i'�emMMWWM fe W WMMYIIH p,IRMe•MMNIT 1 eWtY6'Q°gIRWe '� WrRGMw CW WLL 4 6 Oa MtN ecT@In16 °ei v.uruw"0"u e,e uuvnw.mmruvnimecuemm 180529th So-eee T oxeexe.Mooe wrwRe SI t W54 1 u�NGOwo°iuuee`mlv"n030Yluirn` B°WdeT, Colundu 80301 �e nM+oniRwe °AOiCAOY i� ph..303419.9900 Rwcowrxnnvu grTiQL _ _.. _ _ OMY _ R(ICP � I.n MrtN VPLLMM6 T6f.-R'-� °Ilµ e.yMWttMMR'.wr�M1erz� uMMV.A—^ e C MMRe ]R.4I1 ... .- uwr ' ii rvw�e"uYWWjy°q�IMOTV� W9 _I � ` NOTE STAHL - - — — _ _ — 1lyEL� •, UEVELOPRIENT N euTMYCMy r.w w°e`wgy°na „ y - I T LE w pe ~ ( SOUTH ELEVATION - ui tl Y..¢ g Z J O LL ' a I I RCO� W. d 7eG�1� IE F 1 _ -I - ]9 M� AM. OI I _ P. C rcw _.. 1 —I ��� '{ 1 � L@ � r M OFiE fY11f1p11 1� CO' - MA%MTB ] �\ WEST ELEVATION PRWECT OEVELO MRNT uSUWMAL r.4a _ P EMff HE S%ETARCHTIE I EIEVF1pN8 d p 6CNc 1'•Idb ii 9NEEi MM891 6 PDP 5 0 In conclusion, the argument which has been used of economic hardship and site difficulty is unacceptable. Most planners, architects, and designers understand that no site is without restrictions and limitations. The intent should be to create an exemplary project. We were hoping for a project that we can consider a positive addition to a high -profile, important city-wide effort in the development of the Mason Street corridor spine. Fort Collins is a desirable community revered nation- wide because of planning efforts and citizens who do care about our environment on all levels and are not willing to make a compromise with regard to quality development. Respectfully Syb ed, C G :x, ,. Bruce Froseth and Susan Kreul-Froseth • districts, the development standards specifically state other uses are required. This project fails to demonstrate compliance and compatibility on these grounds as well as the many others sited. Section 3.5.1 B concerning architectural character of new developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of the L.U.C., the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality of future projects or redevelopment in the area. The overarching question remains, it this the type of future development vocabulary that we, as citizens, want to see along the new Mason Street Corridor? Buffers, drainage, safety: The project request is for (4) modifications of standards which are detrimental to the public good upon the following grounds. Compact parking is difficult to police and when vehicles, (trucks or longer standard cars), are parked extending into the drive lane this can result in detrimental life/safety issues having to do with visibility, accessibility and emergency access. Bicycle parking in the right of way is also a life/safety issue. The space for the bicycle parking appears inadequate and extends into the pedestrian path potentially causing accessibility and pedestrian safety concerns. The use- intensive on grade parking must provide a buffer of a minimum of a 5 foot landscaped strip in any proposed parking. This is important to neighbors and it is not nominal or inconsequential. Landscaping is also required to provide some permeable surface. The intensive use of the parking area makes it all the more critical to adhere to required standards. The project is deficient in interior landscaping. This is not nominal or inconsequential, it is extremely critical to provide adequate space for canopy trees and other landscape screening. Elements of the landscape are important to meet privacy and compatibility standards. Parking will be a major issue for this project. Prior to re -zoning, sparking standards would have required a total of 89 spaces. Parking indeed remains an issue with regard to compatibility with the existing neighborhood. A project can hardly be pedestrian -friendly when competition for space exists from bike and vehicle parking extending into right-of-ways and encroaching upon pedestrian paths. This project does not demonstrate compatibility with surrounding uses and their design characteristics. It fails to promote an active, pedestrian -friendly environment. Unlike the Campus West area which demonstrates the melding of retail, services, restaurants and housing as it relates to human scale, this project takes on a dorm -like use quality. This project is poorly conceived with the major ground -floor pedestrian areas given up to surface parking instead of a pedestrian oriented accessible environment. The area for pedestrians and bicyclists are secondary and appear to promote congestion, are in conflict with auto access and lack a positive identity, character, comfort and safety. Shading: The applicant has stated that the overall building height is 56'. The shading studies show significant shading to neighboring structures to the west, the scale of the proposed project visually dwarfs and looms over the neighboring single family homes and townhomes. Access to sunlight is not nominal and inconsequential and should be considered in cases of extreme scale shift as this project demonstrates. It should also be considered in conditions as it shades the surrounding streets and plazas. Compatibility Issues The proposed building seems to take on the qualities of repetitive, incompatible design qualities due to lack of detailing, use of lower quality materials and the overwhelming scale and building massing as it relates to street and neighborhood. The developer has repeatedly stated that the reason for the lack of use of higher quality materials, the inability to step back massing and top floors, the change from the initial design to delete the balconies on the west elevation and the lack of general detailing are all due to budget constraints. Economic hardship is simply not an acceptable reason to fail to comply with the standards requiring a project to be compatible with the neighborhood. The intent of the L.U.C. with respect to compatibility is to encourage design that complements and extends the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity, use, style, proportions, shapes, relationship to the street, patterns of buildings and yards, fenestration, projections and recesses. This proposed building would better fit on a campus as a dorm. It does not contribute to the local distinctive district, corridor or neighborhood. It fails the test of compatibility on most levels. This project detracts from the existing neighborhood character by setting up a physical visual barrier in the block -type form and fails to "knit together" the surroundings but succeeds in destroying the rhythms of the established street pattern. Clearly, it ignores how mass and form and scale promote compatibility. Compatibility entails gradual transitions in building height and mass so that new structures located within commercial districts have a scale that is comparable to and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. This should occur along shared lot lines or street frontage. This project does not reflect the excellence and high quality we expect in a precedent setting location, this, the first proposed high -intensity large scale housing project along the new Mason Street Corridor. It demonstrates extreme neighborhood incompatibility. Staff Comment Summary Staff has endeavored to work with the applicant and since January, met with concerned neighbors. The applicant has reached out; however, the fact remains that little has changed in the overall design. Few if any suggestions have been implemented as a result of individual meetings or at the required neighborhood meeting last week. Specific current planning comment summaries demonstrate the point. Staff has tried to address the base level of the building to encourage the use of stone, brick and a higher level of detail. The vertical prominent elements of stairwells have been questioned as a feature. The west and south elevations lack articulation. The building in general lacks adequate articulation (3.5.3 (C &D). It is a mirror image when cut down the center. The design has not changed to a significant degree to address the concerns. The balconies shown on the west elevation which provided some articulation at one point are now gone. (see encl. drawings A and B). The reinstatement of balconies was suggested upon multiple occasions by staff and neighbors during the meeting process. Compatibility Requirements Staff has repeatedly written of the LUC requirement: The ground level is required to provide a clear base element, 3.5.3 (D). 6) 50% of which is required to be retail and other uses (3.10.4(D). Further, it is clearly stated that the applicant must request a modification of standards and is required if the standards cannot be met. It is felt that parking is not what is intended here. Applying to T.O.D and CC April 12, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, Co. 80524 Re: Max Flats Development Plan Precedent Setting Proiect This project is, without question, one of a precedent setting nature within the community, the new Mason Street Corridor and the neighborhood. Illustrating this is the choice by the developer to take the name of the first major transportation project the City of Fort Collins has ever undertaken. It is the first increased density, high visibility student -oriented intensive residential complex proposed along the new Mason Street Corridor north of Laurel Street. This project is one of very high visibility due to the timing of the development and conversations involving the Student Housing Action Plan as well as City Plan. The emphasis of these plans is upon appropriate infill and redevelopment of strategic areas. The site represents an important cornerstone. All eyes are on the Mason Street Corridor and how this project succeeds or fails to add to the neighborhood livability and the future of the area. It is our contention that this project fails to reinforce the identity of the district, fails to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and remains insensitive to the ramifications of the extremely negative precedent setting effects. Good Examples Brinkman Partners has developed examples of very positive projects of a similar type in the past. The Flats at the Oval is one. The consultant, Oz Architects, has also completed many positive examples of mixed use development. On their web site under mixed use we can see such projects as Littleton Station (light rail proximity), 1155 Canyon in Boulder, Co., Gateway Station and a project called Iron Flats among others. What is Proposed for this Site It is called "mixed use" by the applicant, but is it truly? Some believe it is a token mixed use project as it is comprised of 97% residential and 3% commercial in terms of square footage allocation. The grade level is primarily parking with a small plaza partially fulfilling the city requirement. Indeed, it is more block -like, devoid of quality and character reminiscent of the affordable housing projects shown on Oz Architects' web site such as Brunetti Lofts and Silver Gardens. It not only could be considered a token mixed -use project, it exhibits extreme insensitivity and is wholly incompatible with the neighborhood and district.