HomeMy WebLinkAboutDOWNTOWN HOTEL & CONFERENCE CENTER - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 06-08 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTATTACHMENTS
Zoning exhibits
Request letter
Exhibits:
1. Preliminary site plan
2. Massing model views showing code compliant and proposed project from various
angles
3. Massing model views showing code compliant and proposed project from various
street -level perspectives
4. Building heights chart
5. Shadow studies showing code compliant and proposed project
6. Photo simulations
7. Elevations
Neighborhood Meeting notes from meeting dated February 26, 2008
16
H. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the bulk
reduction standard for which the modifications are requested equally well
or better than would a plan which complies with the standard.
The reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the
standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than
would a proposal which complies is because:
1) the proposal is the result of an expressed need for greater intensity of
development in the Central Business District;
2) the proposal provides a very high level of architectural design in its
building articulation, fenestration and generous mix of materials and
colors that far exceed that which would normally be required:
3) the proposal distributes the large program of the project into three
separate buildings instead of one large building and concentrates most
of the excess height into one slender volume, which allows for a
human -scaled, context sensitive ground plane design Along the public
streets, most of building facades will be perceived by pedestrians as
between 2-4 stories tall. These qualitative efforts would not be
possible in a code compliant building:
4) step backs that exceed the standards where possible; and
5) the proposal's many high -quality streetscape amenities and pedestrian
plazas promote the urban character of the downtown area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of both requests for modification.
15
B. The granting of a modification of the bulk reduction standard would not be
detrimental to the public good.
C. The granting of both modifications would, without impairing the intent and
purpose of the Land Use Code, 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, the Downtown Strategic Plan, the Downtown Plan
and the Civic Center Master Plan.
D. The general purpose of the standard for which the height modification is
requested is to limit building height to 4 stories in order to maintain the
character of the downtown, most of which was two to three stories, as
perceived by pedestrians.
E. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the height
standard for which the modifications are requested equally well or better
than would a plan which complies with the standard.
F. The reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the
standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than
would a proposal which complies is because:
1) the proposal places 100% of its required parking below the structure,
thus preserving the opportunity to provide for other above -ground
features such as retail at the street level.
2) the proposal breaks the large square footage of the project into three
separate buildings with pedestrian plazas between. Along the public
streets, most of building facades will be perceived by pedestrians as
between 2-4 stories tall,
3) the proposal provides high -quality streetscape amenities and
pedestrian plazas which promote the urban character of the downtown
area, and
4) the proposal provides a very high level of architectural design in its
building articulation, fenestration and generous mix of materials and
colors that far exceed that which would normally be required.
G. The general purpose of the standard for which the bulk reduction
modification is requested is to acknowledge and accommodate the need
for more intensity in the Central Business District but to reduce the
appearance of the additional bulk of the building as perceived by
pedestrians on the street to be in keeping with the existing character of the
downtown area, most of which was two to three stories.
Analysis of the `equal to or better than' justification:
Staff finds that the extra mass proposed is successfully mitigated by the
following:
• Distributing the large program of the project into three separate buildings
instead of one large building, which allows for a human -scaled, context
sensitive ground plane design,
■ Concentrating most of the excess height into one slender volume, and
■ Using step backs that exceed the standards where possible.
The majority of the mass visible to a pedestrian along Remington and Olive
streets is 3-4 stories. On Oak Street, it is 7-8 stories. (See Exhibit 6.) The fourth
floor facades (and even second and third stories in many places) are stepped
back substantially from the third floor facades, except in the hotel volume, where
substantial step backs are made at the second story at the comers where the
mass reduction will be most perceptible to the public. Cornices and major
changes in materiality are expressed at the fifth and seventh floors for scale.
The solidity of the top two floors is dissolved with cantilevered, wing -like roofs
and extensive use of glass, which also afford residents with ample views of the
city lights and mountains beyond.
The design is not required to comply with the step back standards of the other
Downtown subdistricts for taller buildings [Section 4.16 (D)(4)(b)(1-3)] or of the
Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone [Section 3.10.5 (in effect only
south of Prospect Street)]. But as a further testament to the sensitivity and
appropriateness of this design, it exemplifies the intent of those standards and
even meets the letter of most of them. A code -compliant building with less
articulation and no useful void spaces or outdoor courtyards would not make as
positive a contribution to the downtown central business district.
Staff, therefore, finds that
the buildings as designed are equal to or better than a
building that would otherwise comply with the standard.
5. Findings of Fact:
In evaluating the request for two stand-alone modifications, one to Section 4.16(D)(2)(a)
and one to Section 4.16(D)(4)(a), Staff makes the following findings of fact:
MENTRe gra
detrimental to the public g
project exceeds our standards in its sensitivity to existing neighborhoods
across public streets from it;
it fosters the use of the Mason Corridor and downtown transit center and
conference center. The proximity of a hotel and conference center and
increased public parking on this site to the planned Mason Corridor and the
Central Business District restaurants, retailers and services will, by design,
reduce vehicle miles traveled, encourage trip consolidation and increase
public access to mass transit and other alternative modes of transportation;
• it will be safe and compliant with adequate public facilities, public utilities
and provision of access to and from the project by all transportation modes;
• it will be designed with innovative and rigorous energy consumption and
demand reduction measures, minimizing the adverse environmental impacts
of the development;
Community Need. This project would substantially address an important
community need specifically and expressly defined and described i city's
compr?,b_ensive plan anti associated long-range planning dg&Wer.
• City Plan 1997,=Plan
hensive pla updated 2004
Downtown StratCouncilado �' PIS9)
• Civic Center Master Plan 1997, � Council -adopted component of City Plan
• Plan for Downtown Development Plan (DDA), in effect from 1981-present
Even as far back as 1989, the Downtown Plan had this to say about a downtown
hotel:
'A good quality, upscale, and competitively priced hotel with
adjacent parking, small meeting facilities, a good restaurant, and
comfortable accommodations is critical to the revitalization of Fort
Collins' downtown... Due to a hotel being a critical element in the
success of the Downtown area, some form of economic
development incentive should be offered to make this an attractive
opportunity for developers."
Project feasibility: A strict application of the height standard would render the
project practically infeasible because the amount of total square footage and the
arrangement of and relationship between the specialized uses in the project
cannot be contained effectively within a building whose upper floors are
successively stepped back at a 35-degree angle from the top of the third floor.
"the play: as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard
for which the modification is requested equally well or better than_would
plan which complies with the standard fi)r which a modification is
requested
The applicant postulates that a taller building with a relatively smaller footprint will
result in less density at the pedestrian level and will have less impact on the
immediate neighborhood than would a lower, broader building. Moving a major
portion of the building up, off of the street level, allows for more open space and
public amenities.
E. Staff Evaluation of Second Modification Request
History of bulk reduction standard The bulk reduction standard for the Old City
Center Subdistrict of the Downtown Zone District originated with the adoption of
the Land Use Code in 1997. The authors of the 35-degree bulk reduction
standard intended it to acknowledge and accommodate the need for more
intensity in the Central Business District but to reduce the appearance of the
additional bulk of the building as perceived by pedestrians on the street to be in
keeping with the existing character of the downtown area, most of which was two
to three stories.
Analysis of the `City-wide need' justification:
- The project is proposed to be located downtown to support and
enhance the vitality of our Central Business District
NWWse U th
ted modifications, would improve and protep health, safety
that:
Majiggglpistent with the ents;
Fcted site is appropriate for development and t .n the developer, the DDA and the City represenic use of the land;
JL the architectural design of the project and the attention paid to the design,
quality and character of the project exceed our standards and set a high
standard for future development in Fort Collins. The hotel and conference
center are uses that have been allowed in this zone district since the
inception of Fort Collins' first zoning ordinance and thus must be presumed
to be a rational pattern of use for this land. This project will develop an
underused property in the Central Business District. The design of this
with an additional 1-6 stories (4-64 feet), are equal to or better than a code -
compliant design. By distributing its mass along the three abutting public
streets with increasing height to the north where impacts on the
surrounding project are minimized, concentrating and stepping back the
taller building portions from the historic facades on College Avenue, and
with pedestrian -scaled plaza and courtyard areas between buildings, the
design mitigates the potential negative impacts that additional height might
otherwise present.
4. Second Modification — Section 4.16(D)(4)(a) — Building Mass Reduction:
A. Standard
The standard requires that mass at the fourth story or above of a building must
be set back at a thirty -five -degree angle.
B. Proposal
Exhibits 2 and 3 show where the proposed design would not meet this standard.
The applicant proposes upper floor step backs as shown on Exhibits 2, 3 and 6.
C. Extent of Modification
The proposed design would be non -compliant along approximately 40% of the
public streets.
D. Applicant's Justification
In his request for modification letter, the applicant states that a mod
this standard is justified because, as is set forth in Section 2.8.2 H'i
Land Use Code,
..the granting of the modification would n
good, and that the granting of a modffcation from the strict applican
anv standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose.
Use Code, substantialh) alleviate an existing, defined and desc
problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial beng
city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantiaM,
address an important community need specifically and expressly de rued
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 ii ould render the project practicaIN infeasible. "
and that
Analysis of the `equal to or better than' justification:
The applicant has provided exhibits that demonstrate that the concentration of
height in the hotel volume and resulting outdoor space result in a project that is
equal to or better than a building that would comply with the height standard.
The exhibits show that a project with the same square footage concentrated
equally over the site would still not meet the height standard and would be
There would be no
opportunity for outdoor amenities or the creation of pedestrian -scaled amenities
or deep step backs above the streetscape in a code compliant design. A more
code -compliant project with this much square footage, an unusual situation in the
Old City Center, could appear obtrusive, institutional and out of character in the
downtown.
Staff concurs that the proposed building height is designed in a way that protects
the unique scale and character of the historic downtown core. Between the
careful massing and step backs and the architectural materials and detailing, the
proposed plan minimizes negative impacts to the surrounding historic context
quite effectively. Shading on adjacent properties is negligible, especially when
viewed in relation to what would be allowed of a code -compliant building.
Submitted exhibits demonstrate that the historic facades, which represent the
style and technology of their time, will not be visually overwhelmed by the
additional building height of the hotel because of sensitive design measures.
side of College between Oak and Olive, so none of the existing buildings 114
specifically protected from redevelopment. These properties along College <
also zoned D—Downtown, Old City Center Subdistrict, which allows four sto
as on the subject property. To put that in perspective, any property along
College could redevelop their site with a building as tall as the office buildir
proposed with this proje;J
Staff also finds the underground parking to be a superior design versus surface
or even structured parking lots. Surface parking lots in an urban core are an
under -utilization of valuable space that could otherwise be put to more beneficial
use for both private gain and public urban design. Structured parking would add
to the required height of the buildings and could detract from the high -quality
pedestrian -oriented streetscapes proposed throughout the site and which
contribute to the vitality of the downtown.
finds that the project would substantially address the community's
that the project as proposed demonstrates an exceptionally high level of
urban character along all adjacent public streets and that the buildings,
9
underused property in the Central Business District. The design of this
project exceeds our standards in its sensitivity to existing neighborhoods
across public streets from it-,
L.,Jt fosters the use of the Mason Corridor and downtown transit center and
tenfe rence
center. The proximity of a hotel and conference center and
creased public parking on this site to the planned Mason Corridor and the
ntral Business District restaurants, retailers and services will, by design,
reduce vehicle miles traveled, encourage trip consolidation and increase
public access to mass transit and other alternative modes of transportation:
11&0 be safe and compliant with adequate public facilities, public utilities
rovision of access to and from the project by all transportation modes,
Ime designed with innovative and rigorous energy consumption and
and reduction measures, minimizing the adverse environmental impacts
development:
Community Need: This project would substantially address an important
community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's
comprehensive plan and associated long-range planning documents:
• City Plan 1997, W prehens�, updated 2004
MDowntown Strategic Plan 200
• Civic Center Master Plan 1997,
• Plan for Downtown Development Plan (DDA), in effect from 1981-present
Even as far back as 1989, the Downtown Plan had this to say about a downtown
hotel:
"A good quality, upscale, and competitively priced hotel with
adjacent parking, small meeting facilities, a good restaurant, and
comfortable accommodations is critical to the revitalization of Fort
Collins' downtown... Due to a hotel being a critical element in the
success of the Downtown area, some form of economic
development incentive should be offered to make this an attractive
opportunity for developers."
Lct
.t feasf y strict application of the height standard would render the
practically infeasible because the amount of total square footage and thhement of and relationship between the specialized uses in the project
be contained effectively within a four-story building.
The applicant asserts that the proposed plan, with 4 to 64 additional feet of
height, will meet a city-wide need by virtue of providing a viable hotel
project The
attractive, articulated buildings utilize creative design solutions to achieve an
attractive streetscape within this downtown setting, which the applicant claims is
better than a code -compliant project.
E. Staff Evaluation of the First Modification Request
History of height standard: The height standard for the Old City Center
Subdistrict of the Downtown Zone District originated at the time of the first
Downtown Plan in 1989. The authors of the four-story height standard intended
it to limit new development to a height that was in keeping with the existing
character of the downtown area, most of which was two to three stories, as
perceived by pedestrian&
Zonij Staff is in agreement that this part of the Old City Center Subdistrict of
the Downtown District is more of a transition area than the Old Town Square
area for which the subdistrict is named. In this transition area there are other
taller buildings such as the DMA plaza across from the site to the southeast.
Heights allowed just to the south of the site, in the Canyon Avenue Subdistrict
are 5-6 and 7-9 stories. Elsewhere in downtown, the Key bank and First National
Bank buildings are each approximately 0 feet tall.
Analysis of the `City-wide need' justification:
® The project is proposed to be located downtown to support and
enhance the vitality of our Central Business District
deWmen a
Intent and F
these reque
• it is cl lb Land
• the ei laropf
between the developer, t y
economic use of the land;
the architectural design of the project and the attention pa'...
quality and character of the project exceed our standards and set a high
standard for future development in Fort Collins. The hotel and - e
center are uses that have been allowed in this zone district since.
inception of Fort Collins' first zoning ordinance and thus must be "
to be a rational pattern of use for this land. This project will d,
"the granting of the modiftcation 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 de
fit:ed
and described in the ci4l 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.
and that
Although the building exceeds the maximum height allowed by 50-114 percent,
the applicant contends that the excess height is a necessary ingredient to fulfill a
city-wide need because of the building functions required by the City and DDA,
the financial viability of the project and the programmatic necessities of each use.
In addition, the manner in which the massing and height of the buildings is
designed achieves other important urban planning goals including underground
parking, and pedestrian scale plazas.
Tl plicant also asserts that the manner in which the massing and jt
the buildings is designed is equal to or better than a design which com
the standard with its underground parking, pedestrian scale plazas, andistinct buildings wit f which m
heiaht of the ,oroie
While the financial arrangement between the public and private partners has not
been finalized yet, it is assumed that the City will own and maintain the public
parking and the conference center and that the developer will control the hotel,
the private parking, the office, retail and residential parts of the project.
The designers have proposed underground parking which is not required. They
have concentrated height in the hotel art of the project just south of Oak Street
in order to stack the hotel functions and to minimize height and
mass elsewhere on the site. They also propose that this massing arrangement
would have the fewest negative impacts to neighbors in terms of unwanted
shading. As a result of this arrangement of the height and mass of the buildings,
they are able to provide a mid -block pedestrian plaza and connection to the
existing passageway from the alley to College.
2
2. Citation of the Standards Relating to the Two Modifications:
Section 4.16 (D)(2)(a):
(2) Building Height.
(a) Buildings in the Old City Center shall not exceed four (4)
stories or fifty-six (56) feet in height.
Section 4.16 (D)(4)(a):
(4) Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over three [3] stories).
(a) Old City Center: The fourth story of a building shall be set
back at a thirty -five -degree angle measured at the intersection of
the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the
public street frontage. See Figure 19.
3. First Modification — Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) — Height:
A. Standard
This standard requires that buildings in the Old City Center be 4 stories or 56 feet
in height or less.
B. Proposal
The proposed predominant height of the office building is 56 feet, though the
tallest point is 68 feet. The proposed predominant height of the conference
center is 38 feet, though the tallest point is 60 feet. The proposed predominant
height of the hotel and residences is 84 feet, though the tallest volume is 120 feet
(9 stories). (See Exhibits 2 and 4)
C. Extent of the Modification
The first modification would allow the proposed hotel building to have an
additional 28 to 64 feet of height in excess of the 4 stories or 56 feet of height
that would otherwise be allowed per the standard.
D. Applicant's Justification
In his request formdow.01MVIRWor, the applicant states that a
is standard is justified because, as is set forth in Section 2.8.2 (H)(2) of the
is
Use Code,
"The hotel and other mixed uses are intended to accomplish a variety of goals in the
downtown setting. These include:
• Providing rooms for visitors attending the cultural programming as well as visitors to
Colorado State University, conference and convention attendees, business travelers
and tourists in general.
• Creating a 24-hour downtown.
• Providing hotel and office space within the downtown employment center, thereby
reducing traffic and air pollution.
• Returning under -developed property to a higher use, with increased public revenues
• Reinvigorating older public investments
• Bringing more disposable income to the downtown to support retail, especially stores
and restaurants that cater to frequent visitor needs and interests."
"The City's strong support for hotel development is set forth in the Downtown Civic
Center Master Plan, the Downtown Strategic Plan Update, the Downtown Plan and the
Downtown Development Authority's cultural program initiative."
From an addendum: "This project will be expected to utilize real (as in real stone, not
cast materials) building materials wherever feasible, have a pedestrian -friendly street
orientation, designed with the expectation that the building will be a community -
appreciated asset for many generations, and incorporate green building principles."
Five responses were received for various sites in the downtown area.
highest of the teams in the written and oral evaluations of the RFP rc
awarded an exclusive neaotiatina contract
Corporex scored
;ess and was
. Corporex subsequently held
an architecture competition and chose OZ Architecture to design the project. Local firm
BHA Design was chosen for site planning, landscape planning and engineering and
local firm ELB Engineering was selected for transportation engineering.
The DDA offered a purchase option to the Elks Lodge on their property across Oak
Street to the north of the Remington parking lot. The DDA is in the process of
completing the option to acquire the Elks parcels, which have been added to the subject
site.
A neighborhood meeting was held on this project on February 26th, 2008.
Approximately 80 people were in attendance. Notes from the meeting are attached.
4
The Remington parking lot originally contained a row of single family homes dating as
far back as the 1870s, including at least one substantial brick and frame home at the
southwest corner of Oak and Remington. At some point before 1955, this home was
replaced with a filling station, likely associated with the tire and battery store located
adjacent to it at 113 E. Oak. The City purchased the parcels south of Oak Street in
1977 for the Remington Parking Lot. By the time of the explosion, the site of the
Remington lot apparently was already empty of buildings, and was being used for
downtown parking.
Hotels, conference centers, offices, parking structures, retail and residential uses have
been allowable, or at least not prohibited uses on this property all the way back to the
first zoning map in 1929. For most of its history, there were no height regulations in the
zoning code for these zone districts. In 1981, an amendment was made to the Code
that stipulated that a proposal could not exceed 40 feet tall without a Planned Unit
Development.
The PUD option under the Land Development Guidance System was available between
1981 and 1997 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 the LDGS as long as the overall project performed at a high
level of design, and subject to Planning and Zoning Board approval.
In June of 2006 the City and DDA prepared and issued a Request For Proposals (RFP)
for "a multi -tenant project to include a significant full -service urban hotel, parking
garage, street -facing retail, and offices to be located on 1.67 acres (72,576 square feet;
dimensions are 144' x 504') of Block 122 in the City's Downtown Civic Center District
(the subject property) or on any other downtown site selected by the development
team."
The following are pertinent excerpts from the RFP:
"The Downtown Strategic Plan identifies several strengths and weaknesses of the
downtown in an attempt to help the City clarify how to protect, manage, leverage and
blend the economic and cultural vitality created by the core retail and entertainment
district. One of the shortages identified by the Plan is the lack of hotel rooms in and
adjacent to the Downtown core and the attendant service -oriented businesses that a
hotel brings. This shortage will become more acute as the DDA's year-round cultural
program "Beet Street" becomes active. The Downtown Development Authority has
committed $3 million toward the development of a unified cultural program that is
intended to eventually draw as many as 10,000 visitors to the central business district
24 times a year and who will stay downtown from five to 14 days (this program is
modeled on Chautauqua, New York."
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Section 4.16(D) contains two standards relating to building height and bulk reduction
which the applicant is unable to meet in their proposal for the downtown hotel and
conference center. A downtown hotel and conference center has been a goal of the
City's in planning documents for over 25 years. Due to high -quality building massing
and design and underaround oarkina. W modifications are'iusti led because they
plan is equal to or better than a ply
that would comply with each of the standards.
COMMENTS:
Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: D—Downtown, Old City Center Subdistrict (existing commercial businesses with
Old Town Square beyond);
S: D—Downtown, Old City Center Subdistrict (existing commercial businesses and
DMA Plaza residential tower);
E: D—Downtown, Old City Center Subdistrict (existing single-family and multi -family
residential, residential buildings converted to commercial uses, and a church)
with NCB —Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (two proposed multi -family
residential projects and existing multi -family residential projects) and NCM—
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density District (Library Park with Fort
Collins Museum and Fort Collins Public Library) beyond;
W: D—Downtown, Old City Center; Existing commercial and mixed -use
properties
The subject property has been in few different zone districts over the years. The zoning
history is as follows:
1929 — 1965 — E—Commercial
1965 — 1997 (pre -Land Use Code adoption) — BG—General Business
1997 — present (post -Land Use Code adoption) — D, Downtown, Old City Center
Subdistrict
The Elks Lodge was originally constructed in 1908 as Fort Collins' YMCA. The Elks
purchased the building in 1937, and extensively remodeled it. On April 26, 1977, an
explosion occurred, centered under the buildings at the Flowers and Things shop at 116
and 120 East Oak just to the west of the Elks building. A natural gas leak was the
suspected cause. The newly remodeled Elks Building was severely damaged.
Reconstruction took another year and brought the building to its current appearance.
I
Revies
PROJECT: Downtown Hotel and Conference Center — Request for two
Modifications of Standards, #6-08
APPLICANT: Darrin Jensen
OZ Architecture
1805 29th Street, Suite 2054
Boulder, CO 80301
OWNER: Kim Koehn
Corporex Colorado, LLC
1125 17th Street, Suite 2300
Denver, CO 80202
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for two stand-alone
— related to a future Project Development Plan for a hotel and conference center
with retail and office space, residential units and structured parking. The project is
proposed for the lots that are currently the public surface parking lot on Remington
between Oak and Olive Streets plus the Elks Lodge lots north of Oak Street. The
parcels are zoned D—Downtown, Old City Center Subdistrict. The approval of these
modifications is critical to project viability; that is why this request precedes the project
development plan. If approved, a standalone modification is valid for one year.
Upon approval of this request, the applicant intends to submit a Type II (Planning and
Zoning Board Review) Project Development Plan and provide more detailed plans for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
�t Collins
Planning & Zoning Board
Staff Report
Item No. 3
Meeting Date 3/20/08
Staff Anne Aspen
PROJECT: Downtown Hotel and Conference Center — Request for two
Modifications of Standards, #6-08
APPLICANT: Darrin Jensen
OZ Architecture
1805 29t' Street, Suite 2054
Boulder, CO 80301
OWNER: Kim Koehn
Corporex Colorado, LLC
1125 17"' Street, Suite 2300
Denver, CO 80202
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for two stand-alone building height and massing modifications related to a
future Project Development Plan for a hotel and conference center with retail and office
space, residential units and structured parking. The project is proposed for the lots that
are currently the public surface parking lot on Remington between Oak and Olive Streets
plus the Elks Lodge lots north of Oak Street. The parcels are zoned D—Downtown, Old
City Center Subdistrict. The approval of these modifications is critical to project viability;
that is why this request precedes the project development plan. If approved, a standalone
modification is valid for one year.
Upon approval of this request, the applicant intends to submit a Type II (Planning and
Zoning Board Review) Project Development Plan and provide more detailed plans for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval