Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDOWNTOWN HOTEL & CONFERENCE CENTER - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 06-08 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board March 20, 2008 Page 12 guidelines and goals for urban infill and redevelopment in a better way than a compliant design as demonstrated by the applicant. And because of what Is shown in the Staff Report Findings of Fact beginning on page 13 including paragraphs A, B, E, F, H, and I. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. Member Stockover asked if language should be added that asks for opportunity to view additional architectural options. His concern is the excess height and the tong -term affect on the community. Should they ask for additional public outreach on the design? Eckman noted that with the approval of the modifications the next opportunity for the board's review would be the review of the Planned Unit Development (PDP). Gloss agreed. Architectural standards would be reviewed under the PDP with neighborhood outreach and Board review. Chair Schmidt asked for confirmation that with the height modification being approved, what's to say that if obstacles are discovered later (such as a physical limitation to the construction of two stories of underground parking) would the Board have input. Eckman said the condition she described is not a part of this motion —this is an equal to or better than motion not a community need motion (where the proposed underground parking part of the project could be linked.) Member Lingle said these modification requests are based on this specific proposal. Gloss agreed. Essentially what you see is what you get except for additional architectural and site design review. Lingle said the staff report renderings provide enough information as to why the height and mass modifications are needed and alludes to the residential floors need for balconies resulting in the impression of setbacks on the upper levels (the concern that Chair Schmidt had previously raised.) Code provisions would still apply. Member Smith said that he'd not be supporting the motion because he does not believe the height modification supports the standard equally well or better than in the Old City Center district. Eckman recommended the motion be revised to refer to the staff reports findings of fact —eliminating those that refer to community need. Lingle agreed to amend the motion to include "as shown in the Staff Report Findings of Fact beginning on page 13 include paragraphs A, B, E, F, H, and I." Wetzler agreed to the changes in his second. The motion shown above is the revised version. Motion was approved 4:2 with Chair Schmidt and Member Smith dissenting. Eckman noted the motion just approved granted the modifications on the equal to or better than basis Did the Board want to make any further motions (including one that spoke to substantial community need?) Member Stockover said no he believes the Board does not want to overthrow what they just did and any further action would just be muddying the water. Other Business: None Meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. ameron Gloss, i e or Brigitte SJhmidt, Chair L o Planning & Zoning Board March 20, 2008 Page 11 Member Smith in reviewing the modification requests and the rationale by which the Board can grant approval believes that modification requests do impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code with regard to the downtown sub -district height limits. He thinks those limits were set taking into account the impact on the neighborhood. He's conflicted in that the project as proposed is one of the best urban design proposals he's seen for Northern Colorado. He believes that modifications should be minor in nature and he cannot support the project as proposed. At the end of the day, he was not able to justify the height modification given the Code language the Board is limited to. Member Stockover agreed with Member Smith. He thinks the Board is here, however, to make the difficult decisions. The upper stories are a very small portion of the whole. It will draw your eye as you come down College Avenue and they are putting it on Oak Street Plaza creating a visual continuity looking west toward the First National Bank building and the Key Bank tower. It is good planning and not detrimental to the public good. Also, the project would be more successful in the core and not on the fringes of downtown. Something of this importance should be more in the center. He did not see a lot of opposition —if one resident had noted negative impact, he would have looked at it differently. Member Lingle noted, in his opinion, to take pieces of the program and place them in the void they ve created —making it a more compliant plan would be far worse. To pull the height down and pull into a "massy, 'blocky" thing is not a better solution. Member Rollins asked if, for example other hotels had been built and the community need already been met, would he still support it solely from a design perspective? Lingle responded yes. It could be any mixed used project approved on an equal to or better than scenario. Chair Schmidt has faith in architects to come up with endless possibilities for making a good project short of just bringing the height down and spreading it out. A revised plan might not need a large height modification to the standard. Member Rollins said she would be supporting speck motions —equal to or better than from a simply design perspective. Her fear, however, is that we're "opening it up" to more tall buildings in the downtown area —she thinks they need to take the community wide argument out of the equation. Member Lingle asked if there was anything the Land Use Code that defines a modification relative to what percentage change would be allowed ... 20%, 40%, and 100%? Director Glass said there is no metric that's been applied to calculate the extent of a modification. Lingle did not think that each member drawing a line in the sand as to what an appropriate modification should be is a slippery slope. Chair Schmidt thought that the specifics of a modification speak to the compatibility of the project. Eckman recommended the Board start with whether they agree the modification requests meet the equal to or better than criteria. If the majority approve, they could then stop making motions. Chair Schmidt suggests they start and see what the Board's prerogative goes from there. Member Lingle moved to approve both modification requests for the Downtown Hotel and Conference Center, # 06-08 for the following reasons: ft is not detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modifications are requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested because he believe the design as proposed is more sensitive and appropriate urban design fulfilling the Land Use Code Planning & Zoning Board March 20, 2008 Page 10 Chair Schmidt said general guidelines are the Board cannot be arbitrary and capricious in their decisions. All things being equal, they should come to the same basic decision. The reality, however, is that not all projects are exactly the same. All should be considered on a case -by -case basis. Chair Schmidt asked if the current proposal meets community need with regard to convention center; would documents such as City Plan and the Downtown Strategic Plan be updated. Eckman responded that yes, if a community need is met; it would be appropriate for the Planning Department to bring a recommendation for an update to the Planning & Zoning Board for their consideration. Member Wetzler said he was particularly drawn to this project. He believes it fills what is an empty hole in that part of downtown. He likes the increased parking being offered by the project and supports the project 100%. Member Rollins said she had no doubt that the project is meeting a community need. Her reservations, however, come with regard to whether the additional 1-6 stories are critical to meeting that need. She thinks we need to look at this very carefully with regard to upcoming projects also meeting community need. She could support an equal to or better than justification but would give pause to a community need justification. Member Lingle noted his earlier line of questions relate to not wanting to make any technical mistakes with regard to consideration/justifications for approval. He does have reservations with regard to Page 14, paragraph C of the staff report with regard to both modifications would substantially address an important community need. He agrees with what Davis (OZ) proposes for using the allowable area to build within Code —he thinks it makes perfect sense and meets the equal to or better than point of view. He is not a proponent of arbitrary height requirements. Where he has problems, however, in saying that two extra floors for housing is meeting a community need. If we can separate that or if advised by legal counsel that he's making more out of that than needs to be met, he'd be fine. Eckman advised that four motions could be considered (one for height modification with equal to or better, one for height modification with substantial community wide need, one for mass modification with equal to or better than, and one for mass modification with substantial community wide need) with members discussing their support, or lack thereof, for each. Member Stockover asked what would happen if both modifications were approved with only the equal to or better than criteria. Eckman said then the project could move forward —only one is needed (albeit not as strong as if approved under both criteria.) Stockover asked if the modification approvals could be conditioned. Eckman said the Land Use Code allows for conditioned modification approvals. Stockover mentioned he might not want to go there because he doesn't want to design the project. The top two stories is that part of the project he struggles with the most. Chair Schmidt doesn't think they should design the project but they could define their comfort level with the modification. A modification as defined by Webster is a minor change —it's not doubling height. This is a zone that permits 4 stories and we're going up more than 4 stories. I see the public need for the whole project —it's a wonderful idea and she supports the whole concept. She doesn't believe the modification itself substantially addresses a community wide need. The project itself does but can we do the project with six or seven floors? It doesn't totally fit into the character of the neighborhood—it'doesn't provide staggering levels. While she would be willing to go with a height modification, she has reservations with a height modification that doubles the height. She would want to weigh that carefully --what if later on there's a project that wants to go up 24 stories in al story zone. Planning & Zoning Board March 20, 2008 Page 9 Member Smith asked if the revised staff report was available to the public. Aspen said the staff report is a part of the public record and as such could be requested. He also asked about transition with regard to old town square. Aspen referred to the three sub -districts (Old City Center, Canyon Avenue, and Civic Center) in the downtown -zoning district. There are historically significant buildings in old town as well as along Remington (such as St. Peter's Fly Shop.) The transitional area is between College and the proposed project. Chair Schmidt asked for references as to where First National Bank and Key Bank are. She also noted the changes in building heights from the first to the revised staff reports. Aspen said the correct heights could be found in the revised report. Per staff member Clark Mapes, the buildings are 154 and 157 feet high. Member Stockover provided a historic perspective of what has transpired downtown from his experiencing of growing up in Fort Collins. He believes this project makes the top ten list for what will affect downtown including the shift from being the central commercial area (to Foothills Mall), old town square development, the centralization of government, the downtown transit center and more. He thinks as proposed it will be seen from a long way off. At first he thought it was too much in light of the top two floors of residential being for a lucky 4 to 8 families. He knows the project still needs to go through the normal review process with impact to the neighborhood and, while he had initial reservations, he generally supports the project as proposed. Member Smith asked staff for examples of how the citywide need justification has been applied before. Aspen replied that examples of projects that have used that justification have centered around affordable housing projects and the Southeast Branch Library at Front Range Village. Director Gloss added a number of modifications approved for the Front Range Village centered around two big -box stores (Target & Lowes), the east and west entrances, the parking distribution, and the inclusion of the Southeast Branch Library. Community wide benefit arguments were made holistically (including arguments for needing to meet City Plan needs of underserved Southeast Fort Collins library patrons.) Member Smith noted when the downtown sub -district height standards were reviewed, what was the significance of the three sub -district height standards and was there some anticipation that a building of a height such as this be coming to the Old City Center. Gloss responded the expectation had been that bulk of the buildings with heights such as what is being proposed tonight would be in the Canyon Avenue sub -district. There had been some discussion about a building with significant height at a particular north downtown intersection. In summary, consider an L-shape with the height distributed in the Canyon and Civic Center sub -districts and this Old City Center having lower heights. Member Smith said that earlier discussion, like all land use changes discussions, consider the character of the neighborhood as integral to those discussions... is that not correct? Gloss responded yes. Chair Schmidt stated she realizes the while Board is not reviewing an actual design plan, her understanding however, is that if the Board agrees to the modification requests; the project will be similar to what is presented tonight. Her areas of concerns are in mitigating height (Land Use Code Section 4.1.6, page 105.) Davis replied his observation is to look at where they are in the process. With approval of the modification requests, he can say they are prepared to move forward with the building blocks you see tonight. What he cannot say is what the final design decisions related to the use of glass and the outdoor area for the upper residential floors will be. He will take concerns expressed as feedback into consideration for the next phase of design. Member Wetzler wondered, from questions raised at public input, with regarding to this virtually being a zoning change —would approval by the Board establish precedent when approving other projects? Planning & Zoning Board March 20, 2008 Page 8 Center Sub -district. Six goals are listed there that define what this sub -district should be guided by -- five of which are applicable to and met by this project. That is where they're coming from in quoting the standards. Chair Schmidt asked for a response to the question relative to alley access and could the applicant also please speak to where the parking access points might be. She understands these questions might be more appropriate later but if they have some ideas now, they like to hear them. Davis said he'd like to answer the questions in reverse order. Further analyses of how cars will move and where to locate them will need to take place before a more definitive plan can be shared. Potentially, there could be access from the north, valet parking along Oak, and potentially an entrance and egress along Olive. Davis said they recognized the importance of alley access in the downtown area —that message was underscored at the community meetings. The particular alley in question (runs parallel with Remington) will be a service alley for the complex. They recognize and appreciate it'll also continue to be one used by pedestrians —they've be tasked to keep the alley clear and functional — minimize service and trash so it's still a nice place for pedestrians. At a citizen's request, Eckman read Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code which spoke to the granting of the modifications (height and mass) should not be detrimental to the public good and the general purpose will promote the standard equally well or better than a proposal, which complies with the standard. And the granting of the modification would, without impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of City-wide concern (i.e. parking) 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 "expressly defined or described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy (such as the Downtown Strategic Plan) ordinance or resolution of City Council. Finally, the strict application of the standard would render the project practically (not economically) infeasible. Member Smith asked Eckman to elaborate on "without impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code" (more general than specific.) Would he please describe what he meant by that? Eckman referred him to Land Use Code Section 1.2.2 where purposes a through n are listed. He read into the record the purposes listed there. Member Rollins asked staff if another design was submitted that met all the standards, would it look like one monolithic cube. Aspen responded that any project would have to meet all the building standards in Section 3.5 and in addition it would also need to meet all the qualifications that Eckman just read and are elsewhere in the Old City Center sub -district. The project would need to be in keeping with and sensitive to the character of the sub-district/neighborhood area. Rollins asked if Project A met all standards,'had some architectural enhancements, and was still relatively monolithic in design; would staff think that Project B (the project being evaluated tonight) is significantly a better design? Aspen replied that Project B blends well into the downtown because it 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, the proposal provides high -quality streetscape amenities and pedestrian plazas which promote the urban character of the downtown area. She believes this project is quite a bit better than one that was more monolithic in design. Member Wetzler believes the project being proposed tonight has a lot more character than one that meets code and is not so well designed. Planning & Zoning Board March 20, 2008 Page 7 and support other development projects. By the creation of more density in the downtown, we'll avoid sprawl. He encourages the Board to support the project's modification requests. Jean Lamb, is affiliated with the Beet Street Initiative. They have begun programming and recognize they don't have adequate space to bring people downtown for a variety of arts, scientific, and cultural events. Approval of this project is essential for Beet Street, downtown and the community. She requests the Board's support. David Derbis asked for a restatement of qualifications/criteria trying to be met for this modification request. His argument against the project is if the public need can be met at a site that is appropriately zoned then it should be. Andrew Dickson, represents the Christian Science Reading Room at 212 S. College. They support the project. They just have just a couple of quick queries. How much of the parking will be available to the public. Will it be increased over the amount that is currently available in that area? Also will the alley way to the west of College be impeded in any way? Les Kaplan is a property owner downtown. He had a couple of suggestions in terms of considering this project. Even though it's only a request to modify the height, modifying the height and changing the intensity of this project is tantamount to rezoning the property. I encourage you when you consider the height modification to consider it not only as this being a characteristic of the project but to consider it in the context of this essentially changing the zoning. Look at this project —what is really contributing to the height and massing are those elements that are not directly related to the public good --the add-ons (or "pork'.) In fact, the elements that are not are competitive with other dynamics that are currently going on downtown. He just wanted to bring that to the Board's attention for their deliberation. End of Public Input Koehn noted this project would add (not take away) from the downtown area. It's his personal opinion that the project will create value for other projects that follow. As to the questions that were raised about parking —there will be two underground stories that will double the current public parking capacity as well as add parking for the program needs. Underground parking is a very expensive proposition but they think it's important to the scale of the project and the context of the neighborhood. He wanted to thank those that spoke in support of the project and asks the Board to approve the modification requests. Davis says the drawing that looks south on Remington where the Elks currently is derived from a photograph and is a true curb -to -curb representation. What it does not reflect are parking and drive lane measurements. He would also like to clarify —the assertion that the height modification request is a vehicle for additional density is misleading. Rather it's arranged differently for other benefits: less negatives/more positive attributes, identity, focal points, pedestrian scale, daylight, and solar access. The project is approximately 230,000 square feet; including 45,000 square feet convention center/public space, 80,000 square feet office & retail, and 15,000 square feet residential. Chair Schmidt asked for a response to Mr. Leggett's question relative to the various code sections seeming to be in conflict with each other. Deputy City Attorney Eckman referred to Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code where the standards for which modifications are granted. White clarified further the community need standard, .which the Board is considering is one that is "expressly defined or described in the City's Comprehensive Plan, or in an adopted policy (such as the Downtown Strategic Plan) ordinance or resolution of City Council." DD-1 on Housing comes from the adopted Old City Planning & Zoning Board March 20, 2008 Page 6 central core area of a community that it spawns sprawl. He asked the Board to support the request and to keep the concentration of tall buildings along Oak. Patty Spence is on the DDA Board. Until two weeks ago she owned property on the proposed site. As a downtown business owner, she applauds the proposed project. She appreciates the sensitivity in which this project was designed. Personally, she thinks this is the right place in the heart of downtown and likes that it'll bring businesses downtown. She thinks that those involved should be proud of the project being considered tonight. Ty Smith, spends a lot of time downtown as that is his primary focus and where he makes his living. He asks that the Board keep at the forefront of their decision the fact that City Council adopted the Downtown Strategic Plan and with the Mason Street Corridor (rapid transit/mobility system;) a project of this size could be located in the land area that is currently zoned for it --allowing easy access to the Mason Street Corridor investment. Staff member Clark Mapes has spent a great deal of time analyzing downtown and the different sub -districts with the outcome being the Downtown Strategic Plan. He understands that things change, that economics change, and that different opportunities arise. With this site being a City asset —public real estate, he asks that we're careful —be conscious of the height and mass. This site is good for its proximity to the heart of downtown. He asks the Board, when making their decision that they also consider the issues he's raised. Mike Jensen is a downtown resident and real estate and business owner. He cares deeply about downtown and has spent a lot of time and money in its advancement —working on urban inf ill projects and land assemblage. In fact, he's spoken to a number of hoteliers, including Corporex, about a possible hotel site at the corner of College & Maple. It is zoned at that location for a nine -story hotel with up to 115 feet high use by right. Downtown is finally at a point for supporting new office and new retail. He does not support the proposal for a number of reasons. First-- the value of land. He and others have been working on the assemblage of land in that area for $40-100 a square foot. By using the site and moving from 56-100 feet it's increased its value to $100 square foot. Since its City land, that value should be considered at the time of sale to the developer. Secondly, he's against the cannibalization of private projects —by this proposed arrangement it's chasing private developers out of the arena, as they are not publicly subsidized. Finally, he's concerned about the process — collaboration of a quasi -public agency not being open to the public. He owns land zoned for 4 stories and 85 and 115 feet. He asks the Board to consider the precedent they are setting with this and future projects. Chip Steiner, is the Executive Director of the DDA, stated as the Board knows, the purpose tonight is not about the financing, it's about the modification requests for height and bulk. Second, all developers are welcome to come to the DDA and ask for assistance in developing downtown —we participate in every project we think is beneficial to downtown. At the neighborhood meeting, there was unbridled support of the project. City Plan supports infill—its intent is to preserve the cornfields and farmland on the periphery. For that reason, and especially in downtown, you have to go up. This project is done phenomenally well. Downtown is a primary asset of the community. People who live in Fort Collins bring their visitors downtown and it is essential that we keep it strong economically, culturally and socially to ensure its success. It is of community wide importance and deserves the Board's support. Doug Johnson, speaking as a private citizen, is looking forward (when he moves into his new office at Oak & College) to hearing the construction noise and seeing the project go up. Without question, it'll improve the vibrancy of the downtown. Imagine a day in the life of a downtown conference participant at 5 p.m. going out to explore the retail and restaurant attractions in that area. It'll create healthy competition as the crown jewel-- the first and premier project. It'll increase the density of downtown Planning & Zoning Board March 20, 2008 Page 5 Public Input David Herrera, local attorney and managing partner of Peterson Street Partners, LLC (a competitor) believes the height and massing issues have been addressed by Council at a December, 2006 meeting and by revisions to the Land Use Code. Now, after the Code revision and City Council review, the RFP was sent and Corporex is before the P&Z Board asking for modifications for their proposal. Herrera believes granting the request is detrimental to the public good. He believes it's insensitive to the surrounding neighborhood and that historic buildings such as St. Peter's Fly Shop will stand in its shadow. He asks, because this project (using public funds) is in competition with the private sector and control of this land is not certain that the Board reject the request. Richard Leggett is a resident of downtown Fort Collins. It appears that Remington (in the drawings) appear to be as wide as 1-25. Are the renderings to scale? The cars appear tiny and the roads large. He also had a question for the Deputy City Attorney. He understands the criteria of not detrimental to the public good and one of four other justifications is needed for approval. It seems that it is in conflict with the section that allows for residences on the upper floors. Jim Reidhead, has been involved with the downtown since 1972 when he purchased the Cupboard. Since then he's been involved early with the DDA and on the Construction Management Committee for Old Town --whose role was to preserve the historic components of downtown. He'd like to make two points —the first was it was a rude awakening when it was discovered that historic structures (because of the technology of the time was limited to 3-4 stories) would not meet current day guidelines. The second point is technology today allows for what's needed today. Please approve the modifications as they do support the community and the downtown. Al Dinton, with his wife and family, purchased a building restored by Jim Reidhead at 233-235 Linden four and one-half years ago. He's been in the downtown area since 1972—primarily as a tenant. He's walked the streets and alleyways and has had the chance to meet past and current day developers. He's seen City Plan at work and appreciates how it and other land use tools help. He asks only that it's flexible —allowing variances and modifications as needed. The need for a hotel is paramount for the downtown area. He doesn't care how many stories it has. He asks only that the fire department have what they need to handle the taller structures. He asks the Board to approve the request. Tomas Herrera, son of David Herrera, like his dad and others present, care about downtown. He's an advocate for development that conforms to the strategic plan. He doesn't think the area, in which they are trying to fit 250,000 square feet of programming (hotel, etc.), was meant for that much density. He wonders if it's appropriate for that zone. Maybe because of the traffic congestion and parking issues, it would be better suited to an area near the Lincoln Center. He believes the standards that protect the historic buildings along College need to be preserved. He is against approving the modification requests. Eric Berglund, lives in southeast Fort Collins. He plays downtown and can appreciate how living, working and playing in Fort Collins makes for a sustainable community. Where else but on Oak (where the First National Bank Tower and Key Bank are located) would a nine -story building be appropriate? He thinks the project creates a unique opportunity for primary employers in downtown and creates an alternate to other conference facilities in Fort Collins. He thinks this project also benefits economic stimulus goals for Fort Collins. He appreciates the tiered design and does not think it is outside the scope of a vibrant downtown. He thinks when tall buildings are allowed outside the Planning & Zoning Board March 20, 2008 Page 4 OZ became involved through a competitive process. They were given a site (South Remington, Oak, Mountain & Olive) and the program (convention center with ballroom, hotel, office space, retail space.) In addition to the hotel, the design includes 15,000 square feet of residential, 80,000 square feet of office space, and 15,000 square feet of commercial/retail. They considered the scale, the synergy of the hotel and convention center and identified areas for public/civic activities primarily along Oak Street. They propose underground parking. They have concentrated height in the hotel part of the project just south of Oak Street in order to stack the hotel and residential 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. They propose that the taller hotel 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. The attractive, articulated buildings utilize creative design solutions to achieve an attractive streetscape within this downtown setting, which they believe is better than a code -compliant project. They will also be seeking LEED certification for the convention center, the hotel and other buildings. They believe the City would be taking a leadership position with regard to sustainability with that plan. Member Lingle asked for clarification of the basis of the modifications' support. He understood the benefits were that it was not detrimental to the public good, equal to or better than the standard, and community need, but wondered whether the top two floors as residential met a community need. Koehn said that in City Plan, page 178, Housing Section (D)(d)(1.5), on page 178 it spoke specifically to providing residential on the upper floors in the Civic Center Sub -District. Additionally, Corporex said from a risk profile and economic viability perspective, it provided a synergy for the project taken as a whole. Chair Schmidt asked Deputy City Attorney for clarification with regard to the Board's ability to assess a project when it came to economic viability (and not just a land use perspective). Eckman said that it would be improper for the Board to consider financial infeasibility but it would be proper to consider the question of "practical infeasibility" in a broad sense. Chair Schmidt referred to page 6 of the revised staff report with regard to effectively mitigating the height and mass of the project. Davis said their intent was to create a positive pedestrian experience on Remington by decreasing the size of the office building (on the south side of the project) closest to the neighborhood, to provide relief of mass with the Oak Street opening and mid block in the passageway that leads to College. Additionally, putting the parking underground aids in mitigating the height and mass. Chair Schmidt asked what aspects of the plan make the nine story hotel/residential floors less imposing. Davis responded the hotel would be narrower along Remington and broader along Oak. The tradeoff from what some may say is abrupt along Oak Street is the cascading down toward the buildings on the south that are closer to the neighborhood density. The benefits are the varied heights and orientations. The wing that includes the restaurant (just south of the hotel/residential) is pushed back from the street. There's a rhythm of varied heights and depths that would not be found on a monolithic building. Planning & Zoning Board March 20, 2008 Page 3 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. A neighborhood meeting was held on this project on February 26ih, 2008. Approximately 80 people were in attendance. Several changes to the Staff Report have been made since the Board's March 14th work session. That revised report along with a letter from the public was distributed to the Board prior to the hearing. Kim Koehn, President and COO of Corporex Colorado, reported they are excited about bringing their expertise (skills and experience) with multi -use projects to bear with this key Fort Collins project. Since inception (at the time of the RFP (Request for Proposal)), the selection of the architects, and working with staff on conceptual design; the Downtown Strategic Plan and the City's Comprehensive Plan were used —aiding them in getting to this point tonight. Those goals and principles were embraced. The context and character of the downtown area, the pedestrian appeal, and textures and finishes were taken into account with the proposal being submitted tonight. Corporex is a 43-year old company and has been doing business in Denver for the past nine years. They have a great team of designers, engineers, and consultants including local firms such as Northern Engineering, ELB Engineering, and BHA Design. He asked the Board to carefully consider and approve the modifications requested. Carolyne White, Corporex Colorado Land Use Counsel, noted she'd like to highlight the criteria by which their requests can be evaluated. She stated that the modifications of the standards for Section 4.6 (D)(2)(a) Building Height and Section 4.16(D)(4)(a) Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over three stories) can be justified as is set forth Section 2.8.2 (H)(2) of the Land Use Code are: "The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. " And that "The plan as submitted would 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" She believes the manners in which the massing and height of the buildings are designed are equal to or better than a design which complies with the standard. Kelly Davis, Managing Partner for Oz Architecture of Boulder, Colorado Springs and Denver, stated they have a forty -year history with Corporex projects like this in communities like ours. They're familiar with the challenges and the obstacles as well as the climate of redevelopment and continued development of our communities. They respect and want to protect and at the same time they want to be active participants in how our communities continue to evolve. Planning & Zoning Board March 20, 2008 Page 2 Oak Street. The parcels are zoned D—Downtown, Old City Center Sub -district. 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 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Planner Aspen reported a downtown hotel and conference center has been a goal of the City's in planning documents for over 25 years. 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." "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." Five responses were received for various sites in the downtown area. Corporex scored highest of the teams in the written and oral evaluations of the RFP process and was awarded an exclusive negotiating contract. Corporex subsequently held an architecture competition and chose OZ Chairperson Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, Stockover, and Wetzler Absent: Campana Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Aspen, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the agenda. Of special note, Director Gloss reported Member Lingle has a conflict of interest for the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, Project # 39-07 on the consent agenda and will abstain from voting. Citizen participation: None Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience and the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the consent agenda. There were no requests to move consent items to the discussion agenda. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the January 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, 2. Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, # 39-07 Discussion Items: 3. Downtown Hotel and Conference Center —Modification of Standards, # 6-08 Member Stockover moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda including Minutes from the January 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion was approved 6:0. Member Stockover moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda including Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, # 39-07. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:0 with Member Lingle abstaining. Project: Downtown Hotel and Conference Center —Modification of Standards, # 6-08 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