Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTOWNHOMES AT LIBRARY PARK PDP W/ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE - PDP130033 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT (3)RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the six Modifications of Standard and approval of Townhomes at Library Park P.D.P. #PDP130033, subject to the following condition: Prior to recording the Final Plan, the applicant shall submit a signed easement from the adjoining property owner to the north that grants to the applicant the southerly 10 feet of their lot as open space. Attachments: Vicinity, Zoning and Aerial Maps Applicant's Narrative and Exhibits Site and Landscape Plan Architectural Character Elevations Neighborhood Meeting Summary Citizen Input 8. Modification Five, Section 4.9 (D)(6)(e): Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 %) stories. For Modification Five, Staff finds that the Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H) and (1) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that the P.D.P., as designed with a fourth floor bonus room of approximately 300 square feet on six of the ten units, 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. This is because the fourth floor is stepped back from the two public streets in a manner that minimizes the impact of the buildings' height as experienced at the pedestrian scale. The fourth floor bonus room is subordinate in square footage relative to the third floor. Further, the fourth floor is well -articulated and subordinate to the balance of the building by containing less mass. These features combine to create a building that would be equal to a three-story building that contains fewer architectural qualities. 9. Modification Six, Section 3.2.2(L) Table A ("): When garages are located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or buildings, the driveway width must be increased to 28 feet. For Modification Six, Staff finds that Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H) and (4) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. And, the P.D.P. featuring a 24-foot wide private driveway will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code 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. This is because the driveway width of 24 feet is found to be visually screened, functionally safe and appropriately sized given the limited number of dwelling units that are being served. Further, the P.D.P. will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code by: "Section 1.2.2(J) Improving the design, quality and character of new development. " Further, Staff finds that the plan as submitted, with a zero foot setback along Mathews Street, 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. This is because the lot, which adjoins the Downtown zone, and the proposed building placement, represents a gradual transition between the urban character of Downtown and the residential core of the neighborhood. This transition is aesthetically accomplished by the overall residential character and design of the building particularly the screening of the required parking. The entrances face both public streets which promote a pedestrian scale and contribute to walkability of the neighborhood. There remains 21 feet between the building and the street. The proposed building matches the existing building and by being at the corner of the block face, does not break any established symmetry. 7. Modification Four, Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d): Minimum side yard width (north) shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be 15 feet on the street side of any corner lot. For Modification Four, Staff finds that the two components of this Modification comply with Section 2.8.2(H) and (1) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. And that the P.D.P., featuring a building placement as so indicated on the Site Plan, will promote 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. This is because for the interior side (north), the architectural details between 18 feet and to the top of the building exceed that which would otherwise be required if the building were stepped back. For the corner side setback from Olive Street, the individual building entrances, porticos and other architectural elements combine to create a south elevation that surpasses that which would otherwise be setback 15 feet and have less overall quality. There remains 21 feet between the building and the street. Finally, staff finds that the overall form of the building, while being less intense than a Downtown project but larger than a prototypical N-C-B project, remains sensitive to the context of the adjacent neighborhood. well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. This is because the project demonstrates a positive relationship within the context of the immediate surrounding area. The building's form provides a high level of urban design along both public streets with individual unit entries and building articulation. The use of brick as the primary exterior material contributes to preserving neighborhood character. These design features contribute to a pedestrian scale and promote a walkable neighborhood. Finally, by placing parking within garages (which counts towards floor area) versus a surface parking lot (which is not floor area), the P.D.P. mitigates a negative visual impact. 5. Modification Two, Section 4.9 (D)(5): Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. For Modification Two, Staff finds that the Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H) and (1) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that the plan as submitted, featuring ten single family attached dwellings where the F.A.R. on the rear one-half of each lot exceeds 0.33, 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. This is because each unit will have a two -car, enclosed garage (which counts as floor area) versus a surface parking lot (which does not count as floor area). Enclosed parking, with a screened driveway, is a superior design when compared with a compliant plan featuring a backyard that has been converted to a surface parking lot. The rear one-half of the ten individual lots feature floor area at a scale that is appropriate for the area, especially given the transitional context of the site being between the Downtown zone district and the residential core of the East Side Neighborhood. 6. Modification Three, Section 4.9 (13)(6)(b): Minimum front yard setback (Mathews Street) shall be fifteen (15) feet. For the Third Modification, Staff finds that Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H) and (1) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. width will be operationally safe and not have an impact on the general public. The location of the driveway is not visible from the two public streets thus contributing to preserving the character of the area. For Modification Six, Staff finds that the plan as submitted is not detrimental to the public good. Further, staff finds that the P.D.P., as designed, will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code 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. This is because the driveway width of 24 feet is found to be visually screened, functionally safe and appropriately sized given the limited number of dwelling units that are being served. Further, the P.D.P. will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code per Section 1.2.2(J) Improving the design, quality and character of new development. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the Townhomes at Library Park P.D.P. and six Modifications of Standard, Staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The P.D.P. complies with the overall intent of the East Side Neighborhood Plan. 2. The P.D.P. complies with the land use and development standards of Section 4.9, the NCB zone, with five exceptions for which Modifications are requested and are described below. 3. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards with one exception, Section 3.2.2(L), for which a Modification is requested and also described below. 4. Modification One, Section 4.9(D)(1): Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. (This also referred to as a 1:1 floor -to -area ratio.) For Modification One, Staff finds that the Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H) and (1) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally For Modification Five, Staff finds that the fourth story, in the form of a bonus room of approximately 300 square feet on six units, as designed, would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that the P.D.P. as designed, 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. This is because the fourth floor is stepped back from the two public streets in a manner that minimizes the impact of the buildings' height as experienced at the pedestrian scale. Further, the fourth floor is well - articulated and subordinate to the balance of the building by containing less mass. These features combine to create a building that would be equal to a three-story building that contains fewer architectural qualities. 6. Sixth Modification — Section 3.2.2(L) Table A — Driveway Width: A. Standard When garages are located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or building, the driveway width must be increased to 28 feet. B. Proposal The proposed width of the interior driveway between the two buildings is 24 feet. C. Extent of the Modification The proposed interior driveway width is four feet less than the standard. D. Applicant's Justification The applicant contends that the narrowness of the lot (90 feet) dictates that the shared driveway be reduced to 24 feet which is typical of an urban infill condition. Since each garage is sized for two cars, there is increased maneuverability than if the garages were sized for only one car. Finally, the shared driveway is not public and will only be used by residents of only 10 dwelling units. E. Staff Evaluation This standard was originally conceived to address large-scale apartment complexes where garages are arrayed in long rows of one car per bay. In contrast, the P.D.P. features two -car garages serving only 10 units. With increased maneuverability afforded by the two -car bays, and expected low turn -over, the proposed reduced B. Proposal The proposed height is four stories for six of the ten units. C. Extent of Modification The proposed height is one story higher than the standard. The fourth story consists of a bonus room of approximately 300 square feet which applies only to the five units facing Olive Street and one unit (the easterly most) of north facing building. The remaining four units facing north will remain at three stories and feature a rooftop deck and stairwell which is not considered to be a story per Section 3.8.17(C). There are two units at the east end that include an elevator to the third floor but the elevator housing is located above the third floor and again not considered a story. D. Applicant's Justification The applicant contends that considering the context of the surrounding area, the fourth floor bonus room is compatible. For example, to the south across Olive Street is the 11-story D.M.A. Plaza. To the north is the Park View Apartments which features a garden level and two upper stories and steep, sloping faux mansard roof giving the appearance of a taller structure. At 308 East Oak Street, one block north and within the N-C-B, there is an apartment building featuring a garden level and three upper floors which also appears to be a four-story structure. The fourth floor bonus rooms are recessed from the third floor along Olive Street by ten feet and from the third floor along Mathews Street by ten feet. Further, the fourth floor features a roof that is shallow pitched and colored a muted tan in order to de-emphasize its presence. The P.D.P. approved in 2008 included a fourth story. The Downtown zone, located across the alley, allows for a four stories. E. Evaluation of Applicant's Request Staff finds that the extra story on six units is successfully mitigated by use of step backs, and minimized roof form. The additional height gained by the fourth floor does not impact the surrounding properties or general public. The fourth floor bonus room is subordinate relative to the square footage on the third floor. The four stories continues to allow the building to fulfill its role of acting as an effective transitional land use as envisioned by the East Side Neighborhood Plan. There is no cohesive pattern of building height in the surrounding area that would require conformity. A building with only three stories and with less articulation, including surface parking, would not make as positive a contribution to preserving the character of the neighborhood. emphasized that the overall impact of the project is significantly mitigated by virtue of the enclosed parking. Staff finds that while the subject site is zoned N-C-B, it is located on the western edge of the East Side Neighborhood and abuts the Downtown district. The nearest single family detached dwelling in the N-C-B is approximately 270 feet to the southeast, across two streets. Given the mix of land uses and the size of buildings within the immediate context of the area, the Townhomes at Library Park represent a creative design solution that effectively mitigates its height, mass, bulk and scale. Finally, it has been established that there is no clear pattern of building -to -lot size relationships in the surrounding area that require a level of adherence. There is a hybrid character to the immediate surrounding area. The proposed building demonstrates a high level of variety and interest that contributes positively to both the urban character of Downtown district and the residential character of the N-C-B district. For the Fourth Modification, Staff finds that the plan as submitted would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, P.D.P., as designed with the building relationship to the two sideyard setbacks, 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. This is because for the interior side (north), the architectural details between 18 feet and to the top of the building exceed that which would otherwise be required if the building were stepped back. For, the corner side setback from Olive Street, the individual building entrances, porticos and other architectural elements combine to create a south elevation that surpasses that which would otherwise be setback 15 feet and have less overall quality. All units are identified by individual modules enhancing articulation. Finally, staff finds that the overall form of the two buildings, while being less intense than a Downtown project but larger than a prototypical N-C-B project, remains sensitive to the context of the adjacent neighborhood. 5. Fifth Modification —Section 4.9(D)(6)(e) —Building Height: A. Standard The maximum building height is limited to three stories. height from 38.5 to 48 feet, will be a vast improvement in aesthetic featuring doorways, windows and other architectural features. For a building that achieves a height of 48 feet, the 26 feet of wall height from 18 to 44 feet would have to be stepped back an additional 10 — 13 feet. The standard could allow a solid wall to be constructed at the requisite step back, for the entire length of the fagade, with significantly less articulation and variety than proposed. Regarding the zero -foot setback along Olive Street, this design represents a continuation of the build -to line concept that would otherwise be required in the Downtown zone just west across the alley. A build -to line in the fringe area of the N-C-B is compatible given the urban context of being next to the Downtown zone. E. Evaluation of Applicant's Request As can be seen by the table, for the sideyard setback along the north, the building complies with the five feet setback for the first 18 feet of wall height for 100% of the length of the fagade. Where the building is 48 feet high, the standard step back is not achieved for 51 % of the total building length for 26 feet of building height. Where the building is 38.5 feet high, the standard step back is not achieved for 49% of the length for 20.5 feet of building height. The north elevation demonstrates a high quality level of articulation and detail. Each unit is defined by its own module. The fagade-features individual entries and numerous windows. Further, articulation is enhanced by symmetrical series of cantilevers. The affected building to the north, Park View Apartments is 2 1/z stories and topped by a combination of a faux mansard and flat roofs. Its height is slightly lower than the subject building but its mass is similar. Existing trees provide a dense canopy that will obscure the proposed building from Park View Apartments for three seasons. Staff finds that the proposed building, with the narrow profile of maximum building height, is similar in height to Park View Apartments. For the corner sideyard setback along Olive Street, featuring individual entries, Staff finds that the building is visually interesting and highly articulated and blends both downtown -like form featuring a build -to line versus a zero -foot setback. As with the north elevation, the building along Olive Street features doorways, windows and cantilevers. With the Downtown zone located west of the alley, placing the building at the build -to line versus the residential setback is not out of character given the context of the immediate surrounding area. Combined, these features provide an ideal transition as envisioned by the East Side Neighborhood Plan that protects the core residential area. Again, it must be 18 feet. The south fagade features a build -to line approach with a zero -foot setback from Olive Street versus 15 feet. Summary Table North Wall — Total Wall Length — 134' Wall % of Wall Height Segment of Variance From Linear Length Section Length Wall Height Standard Non -Comply Non -Comply Sec. 1 24% 48' 18'— 48' 15' Maximum 32' Stairwell to fourth floor for units 2-5 (8 linear feet per unit) Sec. 2 24% 46.5' 18'— 46.5' 14.25' Maximum 32' 4`h floor stairwell for accessible units on each end, slopes 48' to 45' for an average of 46.5' Sec. 2 52% 38.5' 18'— 38.5' 10.25' At least 70' 3`d floor with parapet and 3`d floor with roof over elevator shaft for the end units D. Applicant's Justification The applicant contends that for the north five units, only one features a fourth story. The remaining four feature rooftop decks only. The fourth story represents a bonus room that is stepped back from third floor by ten feet. The fourth floor, therefore, is not a solid wall but is a mix of enclosed space and open space. The applicant also contends that the north fagade features a mix of stone, brick and stucco with each material having its own color. There is series of windows and cantilevers so there is no flat wall. Accents include brick lintels and projections over the cantilevers. In addition, the building to the north, Park View Apartments, is approximately 32 — 40 feet north of the shared property line allowing for a 37 — 45 foot separation between buildings. With compliance for the first 18 feet of height, the only affected portion of Park View Apartments is the third floor. The proposed Modification for not stepping back the building above 18 feet is mitigated by the fact that there is a cluster of mature deciduous trees located between Park View Apartments and the subject building that obscures the view between the two buildings when these trees are in full foliage. Presently, the existing building features a north wall that is located on the property line with a zero -foot setback. This wall is solid concrete block with no windows and no breaks in the massing. Two thirds of this wall is 14 feet high and one third is 22 feet high. This elevation is not only in violation of current code but represents an outdated industrial -like design. In contrast, the proposed elevation will be setback five feet from the property line and, while ranging in Further, Staff finds that 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. This is because the lot, which adjoins the Downtown zone, and the proposed building placement, represents a gradual transition between the urban character of Downtown and the residential core of the neighborhood. This transition is aesthetically accomplished by the overall residential character and design of the building particularly the screening of the required parking. The entrances face both public streets which promote a pedestrian scale and contribute to walkability of the neighborhood. There remains 21 feet between the buildings and the two streets. The proposed buildings match the existing building and by being at the corner of the block face, do not break any established symmetry. 4. Fourth Modification — Section 4.90)(6)(d) — Minimum Sideyard Width: A. Standard This standard has two components. First, the minimum interior sideyard setback shall be five feet for the first 18 feet, plus one foot of additional horizontal setback for every two feet of additional vertical height over 18 feet. Second, the minimum corner sideyard setback along Olive Street shall be 15 feet. B. Proposal For the interior sideyard (north), the 134-foot long wall representing the front facades of the north row of five townhomes will be setback five feet from the north property line in compliance with the standard. This north wall will vary in height from 38.5 feet to 44 feet with periodic breaks in the massing to create architectural interest. Thus, this request is to allow a sideyard setback of five feet above 18 feet when otherwise a setback ranging from 11 feet to 13 feet would be required. For the corner sideyard (south) along Olive Street, the proposed setback is zero feet which reflects more of an urban build -to line approach versus a residential neighborhood approach. C. Extent of the Modifications Thus the Fourth Modification results in a north building fagade that is not stepped back the requisite one foot for every two feet of height above the base height of Since the building borders the Downtown zone on the west, and is separated from the N-C-B residential neighborhood by Library Park, the project design fulfills the transitional function by being both residential and downtown -like. It is residential in function but downtown -like in form. Like any building in downtown, there is building mass at the front property line. But, like residential buildings, there is a transition between public and private space by use of the distinctive front entrances and porticos. The interior private driveway is a key element that mitigates the mass of the buildings and contributes to the transition from Downtown to Neighborhood Conservation Buffer by providing a visual break between the north and south row of townhomes. This progression represents a classic urban living model that is found in the downtown areas of many cities. A zero -foot setback along Mathews Street was approved for One Library Park in 2008. E. Evaluation of Applicant's Request The existing building sits on the front property line. The project is located on a block that is divided equally between the Downtown zone and the N-C-B zone. As mentioned, the west property line is the alley that bisects these two districts. Whereas on the west side of the alley, the zero -foot front setback (build -to line) is allowed, east of the alley requires 15 feet. The P.D.P implements the concept of land use transition by replicating the Downtown zero -foot setback and furthering the urban form yet retaining the overall residential character of the neighborhood. The ten units are divided between two separate buildings thus breaking down the mass and scale. Both buildings would be set back from the streets by 21 feet separated by a parkway, sidewalk and landscaping behind the sidewalk. The project provides a gradual transition in urban design versus a sharp contrast in building placement. Further, this transition protects the core area of the East Side Neighborhood. As mentioned, the enclosed parking represents a significant upgrade in design that results in a project that is more aesthetically pleasing than a project that may have complied with the standard but with surface parking. Finally, the.building is located at the end of the block, not the interior, where a dissimilar setback would be more noticeable. For the Third Modification, Staff finds that the building, with a zero -foot front setback along Mathews Street, is not detrimental to the public good. For Modification Two, Staff finds that the P.D.P., featuring ten single family attached dwellings where the F.A.R. on the rear one-half of each lot exceeds 0.33, is not detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that 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. This is because each unit will have a two -car, enclosed garage (which counts as floor area) versus a surface parking lot (which does not count as floor area). Enclosed parking, with a screened driveway, is a superior design when compared with a compliant plan featuring a backyard that has been converted to a surface parking lot. The rear one-half of the ten individual lots feature floor area at a scale that is appropriate for the area, especially given the transitional context of the site being between the Downtown zone district and the residential core of the East Side Neighborhood. 3. Third Modification — Section 4.90)(6)(b) — Minimum Front Yard Setback. A. Standard The required minimum front yard setback in the N-C-B zone is 15 feet. B. Proposal The proposed building would be zero feet set back from the front yard along Mathews Street. C. Extent of the Modification Thus the Third Modification would result in a building being set back zero feet from Mathews Street. D. Applicant's Justification The current vacant office building is set back zero feet from Mathews Street and runs the entire 90-foot width of the lot. This elevation is characterized by an unremarkable wall that is 16 feet high, and, in fact, protrudes one foot into the public right-of-way. • Three of the four lots to the north along Mathews Street also contain large buildings that appear to exceed the required FAR and are located in the N-C-B District. Two of these lots, when analyzed from aerial photography and measured for FAR, actually exceed the required FAR. The ratios for two of the four lots are .50 and .86 (221 Mathews Street, Park View Apartments). • Furthermore, the existing building on the subject property consumes the entire lot, and actually encroaches over the property line along the Mathews Street fagade by almost one foot at the southeast corner of the building per the civil engineering survey. Although the buildings at 301 E. Olive Street and 207 Matthews Street do not exceed the FAR, the rear areas of the properties are almost completely paved. The applicant contends the proposed plan will serve the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard by virtue of providing an attractive infill townhomes building that utilize creative design solutions for enclosed on -site parking and open space. Additionally, the proposed larger FAR is inconsequential when viewed in the overall context of the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, the applicant indicates that the requested maximum floor area for the rear 50% of the 10 lots lot is 17,064 square feet (out of 30,188 total square feet), compared to a floor area of the rear 50% of 11,718 square feet (out of 29,212 total square feet) that was approved for One Library Park. The 2.08 incremental FAR for the current request compares to an incremental FAR of 1.86 for One Library Park. As mentioned previously the ground floor garages for the current project represent the majority of this difference. E. Evaluation of Applicant's Request The original intent of the standard was to restrict out -of -scale, new, infill re- development in the back yards of existing uses which would potentially impact the character of the adjoining lots and the neighborhood. But, this parcel is a corner lot, abutting the Downtown zone and next to a 2'/z story apartment building with a sloping roof. The entire block face is zoned N-C-B and features five lots, one of which is vacant (southwest corner of Mathews Street and Oak Street). Of the remaining four, there is only one backyard measuring 50-feet in width. The balance of the block face features not backyards but surface parking lots, garages and storage units. If the intent of the standard is to presence neighborhood character, then such character does not presently exist of this block face. Preserving backyard character on this block face does not depend on limiting the building coverage on the rear one-half of this particular lot. Finally, there is no coherent pattern of floor -to -area ratios in the surrounding area due to the dissimilarity of land uses and the block being bisected by two zone districts. C. Extent of the Modification Thus the Second Modification would allow the ten individual lots to have extra F.A.R. that ranges from 2.78 to 3.87 on the rear one-half of the lot. D. Applicant's Justification With this required F.A.R., the buildings would be one story with each unit having traditional shared open/green space. There are several reasons why the FAR for this zone is not suitable for this particular site: • Proposed are ten dwelling units with each unit will have private outdoor spaces in place of a singular rear yard green space. We contend that this is abetter utilization of space, creating a more creative urban living experience for the residents and allows the building to be designed with interesting, street -facing features. • Typically, a mixed -use building in an urban setting does not have backyard green space. The code appears to imply that a smaller FAR is better suited for residential lots, rather than a single family attached project. In addition to the landscaping and proposed rooftop decks, there is also a large city park (Library Park) located directly across Mathews Street. • The buildings as designed will also give the streetscape a more urban downtown residential presence as a transition between the N-C-B District and the Downtown District. The street facades will have creative entry features on both streets as well as landscaping. Parking for each unit is provided with a surface garage accessible via an interior shared driveway. • As mentioned, the N-C-B zone district is intended as a transitional district between more intense downtown commercial activity and the surrounding single- family residential neighborhoods. The context of the neighborhood is unique, with a library, community creative center (former museum) and public park adjacent to the east. There are apartment buildings to the north and south, a parking lot to the south, and a former funeral home converted into an office to the southeast. Unlike the residential neighborhoods west of College Avenue, the east side neighborhoods are not as well-defined. The east side has a more random land use pattern of non -owner occupied residences, commercial uses and office uses. • The closest single-family dwellings are to the west of the property across the alley and are located in the Downtown District. The closest single family dwellings to the east are 270 feet away and located in the N-C-B district. The proposed building will not impact any residences. 2. Second Modification — Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 4.90)(5): A. Standard This standard requires that the floor area ratio (FAR) be a maximum of 0.33 on the rear 50% of the lot. Based on the two buildings' relationship with the surrounding neighborhood, Mathews, Street is considered the front and the alley along the western property line is considered the rear. It is important that the block face of Mathews Street be preserved to respect the relationship that the block enjoys with the historic Carnegie Library and Library Park. With a total site area of 12,600 square feet, the rear one-half of the lot contains 6,300 square feet. Per the standard, 2,079 square feet would be allowed on the rear half of the lot resulting in a 0.33 F.A.R. This would be the metric if the project were considered Multi -Family Dwellings on one lot. But, with ten Single Family Attached dwellings, with each dwelling on its own individual lot; the metric applies to all ten lots. The applicant has provided a table depicting the floor -to -area ratio on each lot. B. Proposal The applicant proposes to place floor area on the rear one-half of the ten lots in the following manner: Lot number Rear 50% of Lot (square feet) Rear 50% Floor Area (square feet) Rear FAR 1 622 1,730 2.78 2 493.5 1,614 3.27 2 493.5 1,614 3.27 4 493.5 1,614 3.27 5 522 2,001 3.83 6 452 1,725 3.82 7 428 1,657 3.87 8 428 1,657 3.87 9 428 1,657 3.87 10 539 1,795 3.33 underground parking that did not impact the floor area calculation while this request includes ten ground floor two -car garages that are incorporated into the floor area calculation. E. Staff Evaluation of the First Modification The applicant has provided architectural elevations that demonstrate that floor area of the two 5-plex buildings is allocated in an attractive manner. With individual entrances, each building is sub -divided into modules, one per unit. As proposed, the project solves a fundamental urban design issue by placing the total amount of required parking within ground floor enclosed garages. While solving the parking dilemma, however, 10 two -car garages consume a significant amount of floor area. Staff finds the enclosed, at -grade parking to be a superior design versus a surface parking lot. 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. Buildings that front on streets bring activity and interest to the public realm. In contrast, surface parking lots are generally unattractive and contribute very little to the vitality of downtown. Staff finds that in the transition area between Downtown and the residential neighborhoods, surface parking lots have limited usefulness and minimal economic benefit. Downtown urban living calls for more creative use of private open space such as prominent street -facing entrances, porticos and attractive architecture. Vibrant downtowns are well -served by close -in residents. For Modification One, Staff finds that the proposed P.D.P. is not detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that 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. This is because the project demonstrates a positive relationship within the context of the immediate surrounding area. The two buildings are separated which breaks up the mass. Their form provides a high level of urban design along both public streets with individual unit entries and building articulation. The use of brick as the primary exterior material contributes to preserving neighborhood character. These design features contribute to a pedestrian scale and promote a walkable neighborhood. Finally, by placing parking within garages (which counts towards floor area) versus a surface parking lot (which is not floor area), the P.D.P. mitigates a negative visual impact. In total, the ten Single Family Attached dwellings would have an extra 17,588 square feet of floor area in excess of the 12,600 that would otherwise be allowed as per the standard. D. Applicant's Justification Although the two buildings exceed the maximum area allowed by 3.08 times, and the individual townhomes exceed the maximum area by a range of 2.34 times to 3.64 times, the applicant contends that the excess building area is equal to or better than a plan that complies for the following reasons: • The project provides each of the six of the units with a fourth floor bonus room and all ten units with private outdoor spaces in the form of a roof -top deck. These fourth floor attributes are provided instead of a singular, rear yard green space. The applicant contends that this is a better utilization of space, creating a higher quality/living experience for the residents than what could otherwise be achieved in a smaller building with larger common open space in the form of a backyard. • The building and site design incorporates creative entries and landscaping which give the streetscape an active, urban, downtown residential character. This acts as a logical transition between the residential neighborhood and the Downtown District thus implementing the vision of N-C-B zone district. • All required parking is at -grade within garages accessed by a screened, private driveway. Since the number of spaces complies (and potentially exceeds) with the Code, there would be no added pressure on the heavily used on -street parking associated with the Library and Library Park. By enclosing the parking within garages, the building floor area increases. • The N-C-B zone district is intended as a transitional district between more intense downtown commercial activity and the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. The alleyway to the west of the property is not only the subject property line but also the district boundary line dividing the Downtown District and the N-C-B zone. Logical transition requires that the site relate more closely to downtown than the single family dwellings further east. • The applicant contends the proposed plan, with 30,188 additional square feet in total, will serve the standard equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard by virtue of providing urban living that utilizes creative design solutions to achieve an attractive streetscape within this transition zone. • Finally, the applicant contends that the One Library Park P.D.P, approved by the Board in April of 2008, included Modification of Standard allowing a 29,212 square foot building with a 2.32:1 F.A.R. The P.D.P, as proposed, is only 976 square feet of floor area in excess of what was approved for One Library Park. The primary factor in this increase is the fact that One Library Park incorporated Modifications of Standard 1. First Modification — Section 4.9(D)(1) — Density A. Standard This standard requires that the minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building but not less than 5,000 square feet. This is typically referred to as a 1:1 floor -to -area ratio or F.A.R. B. Proposal Based on the entire site, the existing lot area is 12,600 square feet. The proposed total floor area between the two buildings is 30,188 square feet (excluding the driveway, balconies and patios) resulting in a 2.40:1 F.A.R. This would be the metric if the project were considered Multi -Family Dwellings on one lot. But, with ten single family attached dwellings, with each dwelling on its own individual lot; the metric applies to all ten lots. The applicant has provided a table depicting the floor -to -area ratio on each lot. C. Extent of the Modification The extent of the Modification can be described by the following table: Lot number Lot Size (square feet) Proposed Floor Area (square feet) Extra Floor Area (square feet) FAR 1 1,244 2,913 1,669 2.34 2 987 2,667 1,680 2.70 2 987 2,667 1,680 2.70 4 987 2,667 1,680 2.70 5 1,044 3,244 2,200 3.11 6 904 3,244 2,340 3.59 7 856 3,116 2,260 3.64 8 856 3,116 2,260 3.64 9 856 3,116 2,260 3.64 10 1,078 3,438 2,360 3.19 In order to comply with this standard, the building has been specifically designed to address transitional issues: o Along the west elevation, the fourth floor of the southerly building has been recessed by ten feet thus mitigating the mass of the building as experienced by the neighbor to the west. • Along the north elevation, only the easterly most dwelling unit contains the fourth floor bonus room. The other four units are three stories but contain a stairwell to the rooftop deck. 9. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on August 22, 2013 and a summary is attached. The neighborhood meeting also addressed the request for an Addition of Permitted Use to allow Single Family Attached Dwellings in the NCB district. In general, the project was well -received although subject to close scrutiny. Those attending the meeting were knowledgeable of the history of the various uses on the property as well as the various proposals since the building has been vacant. In fact, the length of the vacancy and the partial demolition (interior asbestos abatement and boarded up windows) and occasional graffiti raised the concern that the status quo is undesirable and that a new project that fits in with the neighborhood would be welcome. The primary concerns were parking, architecture, ownership versus rental and neighborhood compatibility. In response, the applicant has selected brick as the primary exterior material. The architecture is well -articulated with six of the ten units having a street -facing entrance. Parking is provided in garages that are not visible from the streets at a quantity that complies or exceeds the required minimum based on whether or not the bonus room is used as a third bedroom on six of the ten units. Existing trees will be preserved and new trees added to contribute to the established character of the neighborhood. Five net new public parking spaces will be added along Olive Street as a result of moving the vertical curb to align with balance of the block. Whether or not the units are owned or rented is not the purview of the Land Use Code. r existing conditions by including the shadows cast by the D.M.A. Plaza as well as the shadows cast by the P.D.P. ;approved in 2008. These three shadow analyses offer an opportunity to compare and contrast the three conditions. For the 9:00 a.m. condition, most of the south elevation of Park View Apartments is in shadow. This is. greater than the existing condition and similar to the condition of the approved P.D.P. of 2008. For the 3:00 p.m. condition, again, most of the south elevation of Park View Apartments is in shadow but this is due to the location and height of the D.M.A. Plaza relative to the sun angle. Essentially, the 3:00 p.m. shadow is the same under the existing, 2008 and proposed scenarios due to the D.M.A. Plaza. The standard indicates that shadowing must be'considered substantially adverse before mitigation becomes necessary. Staff contends that the shadowing of Park View Apartments at 9:00 a.m. on December 21 st, while demonstrative, does not rise to the level of being substantially adverse. For the 3:00 p.m. condition, the shadowing is equal to the existing condition. D. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)3. — Privacy There is only one fourth floor bonus room along the north elevation and only one that faces west above 40 feet. These two rooms do not infringe upon the privacy of the adjacent residents to the north and west. This is because of the minimum amount of windows on the north and west elevations and the physical separation between buildings. Also, there are 10 mature aspen trees located in the south yard of the Park View Apartments that add a measure of privacy for the south facing units. E. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)4. — Neighborhood Scale The structure successfully mitigates the fourth floor height by use of the ten -foot step backs and shallow -pitched roofs. In addition, there is no cohesive pattern of building height in the surrounding area that requires conformity. For example, buildings in the vicinity range in height from two stories to 11 stories. With the reduced footprint of the fourth floor, the mass of the building is primarily contained within the first three floors. A pedestrian at the ground level along Olive Street or Mathews Street will not be further impacted by the fourth floor because the additional height will be minimized by an upper level step back and quality of the overall design of the structure. 8. Compliance with General Development Standard — Land Use Transition: Since the project is bordered on the north by a 2 t/z story building and on the west by a two story building, the P.D.P. must comply with Section 3.5.1(H) — Land Use Transition. tS Transit. It is also located within bicycle commuting distance of major employers such as Otter Box, Woodward, New Belgium Brewing, Odell Brewing, Larimer County, City of Fort Collins, C.S.U. Engines and Energy Conversion Lab, Bohemian Foundation, First National Bank, Wells Fargo Bank as well as a supermarket and a variety of smaller firms, retail stores and restaurants. 7. Compliance with General Development Standard — 3.5.1(G) — Height: A. Background Since the fourth floor of the building exceeds 40 feet in height, the P.D.P. must comply with Section 3.5.1(G) — Special Height Review. The fourth floor roof is 48 feet in height and reduced in mass and scale from lower portion of the building. (The height analysis refers to habitable space only. Section 3.8.17(C)(3) specifically exempts elevator bulkheads and stairway enclosures.) • Of the ten units, six include the fourth floor bonus room. Four units on the north building are three stories and include a roof deck only. The majority of the visual mass along the two streets is three stories. • Along Olive Street, Mathews Street and the north property line, the fourth floor fagade is stepped back -10 feet from the third floor. • A ten foot wide easement will be granted by the adjoining property owner so that the effective north side yard is 15 feet instead of five feet. • When viewed from ground, based on the fourth floor step backs, the mass of the fourth floor appears to be minimal relative to the mass of the third floor. B. Section 3.5. 1 (G)(1)(a) 1. - Views The building, as designed, offers a reduced profile above the third story. The additional height gained by the fourth floor bonus rooms does not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks. Views to the mountains, from the perspective of Library Park, are currently obscured by the D.M.A. Plaza and will not be further impacted by the fourth floor component of the P.D.P. Finally, the number of mature trees in the area offers a comfortable shade canopy and, combined with the public park, creates an urban amenity that is highly valued. C. Section 3.5. 1 (G)(1)(a)2. —Light and Shadow A shadow analysis was performed demonstrating the condition on December 21st at 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The analysis also depicts the shadowing under D. Section 3.4.7(F) — Historic and Cultural Resources — New Construction The P.D.P. is adjacent to the Laurel School Historic District, located across Mathews Street and to the north and south. The P.D.P. is across from the Carnegie Library and Museum cabins, which are Fort Collins Landmarks. The Park View Apartments building adjoins the P.D.P. along the north, and a multifamily dwelling adjoins the P.D.P across the alley to the west. While the eligibility of these multi -family buildings has not been officially determined, it is likely that these buildings are potentially individually eligible for consideration as Fort Collins Landmarks. The project was brought to the Landmark Preservation Commission's Design Review Subcommittee on October 9, 2013 for a complimentary review. In general, the Subcommittee indicated that, as proposed, the new building fits within the neighborhood although there are areas that could be improved. For example, horizontality should be emphasized, which could be achieved through additional horizontal banding, and reducing the verticality of the stucco panels through the use of differently colored sections. The amount of brick is appreciated and allows the project to better blend in with the area. In response, additional brick has been added to the upper floors along Mathews Street. As to adding horizontal banding and using different colors of stucco on the south elevation, the applicant has agreed to consider these suggestions during Final Plan review. At the P.D.P. stage, however, this level of detail is difficult to resolve until overall project costs can be further analyzed. The standard in Section 3.4.7(F) requires that the project, to the maximum extent feasible, be similar to those of existing historic structures in terms of height, setback and/or width, horizontal elements, materials, visual connections and landscaping. New structures shall be designed to be in character with existing historic structures, with horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, aligned with those of existing historic structures, to strengthen visual ties. The P.D.P., at three to four stories in height, is compatible with the surrounding area. The heavy reliance on brick, individual entrances and window details are sensitive to the neighborhood character. The two entrances on Mathews Street are oriented to Library Park. As a corner lot, the building will anchor the block face and help frame Library Park. By preserving existing trees and adding new street trees, the landscaping will soften the overall mass of the two buildings. In general, staff finds that the P.D.P. is designed to respect the historic character of the historic properties in both the Laurel School District and the surrounding neighborhood. E. Section 3.6.4 — Transportation Levels of Service A Transportation Impact Study was waived because adding ten dwelling units at this location would not impact any Levels of Service at the adjacent intersections. The site is strategically located on Transfort Route 15 and three blocks from the Max Bus Rapid This shallow pitch complies with the standard that the minimum pitch be 2:12 and contributes to lowering the profile of the fourth floor. G. Summary of Article Four Standards These six standards are intended to ensure building compatibility as if the new building were being inserted into or next to the heart of the established residential neighborhood or the "Preservation Area" as noted in the East Side Neighborhood Plan. In fact, this is not the case. The subject property shares a boundary line with the Downtown zone district and is separated from the core area by Library Park. The site has a more significant relationship with the activity, scale and form of Downtown versus the residential area. It is next to a 2 1/z story building and across the street from an 11-story building. It is cater -corner to the Webster House, a former funeral home now serving as an office building for the Poudre Library District. The nearest single family detached dwelling in the NCB is approximately 270 feet to the southeast, across two public streets. While the project complies with these standards, a case could be made that due to location and context established by surrounding uses, such standards are not directly applicable. 6. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping All existing trees will be preserved and pruned. New street trees will be added along both public streets in the parkway. B. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) — Bicycle Parking In accordance with the standard, there will be one bicycle parking space per bedroom. In excess of the standard, 100% of these spaces will be within the enclosed garages. C. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) — Required Number of Off -Street Parking Spaces The ten units are expected to contain a mix of two -and three -bedroom configurations depending on market demand of the fourth floor bonus room on six of the ten units. For conservative estimating, each unit is assumed to contain three bedrooms. Ten units, with three bedrooms each, are required to have a minimum of 20 spaces. With ten two - car garages, (five per building), 20 off-street parking spaces are provided, thus complying with the standard. Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 Y2) stories. Sixth — Section 3.2.2(L) Table A (*) When garages are located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or buildings, the driveway width must be increased to 28 feet. 5. Compliance with Section N-C-B Dimensional and Develoament Standards Not Covered by the Seven Modifications: There remain six applicable dimensional and development standards that are not covered by the aforementioned five Modifications. These are: A. Section 4.9(D)(6)(a) — Minimum Lot Width The lot is 90 feet wide and exceeds the required minimum lot width of 50 feet. B. Section 4.9(E)(1)(a) — Building Design — Exterior Walls All exterior walls are parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines of the lot. C. Section 4.9(E)(1)(b) — Building Design — Primary Entrance The primary entrances to the building and ground floor dwelling units are located along the two street -facing frontages of the building, and include architectural features such as landings and porticos. D. Section 4.9(E)(1)(d) — Building Design — Second Floor There are sections of the south and east elevations that feature cantilevers along a portion of the walls. These cantilevers add character to the building in the form of a slight projection and do not constitute the entire floor so the entire second floor does not overhang the lower front or side exterior walls. E. Section 4.9(E)(1)(e) — Building Design — Front Porches Front porches do not exceed one story in height. F. Section 4.9(E)(1)(g) — Building Design — Roof Pitch The primary building mass is three stories. Six of the ten units feature a fourth story in the form of a bonus room that is stepped back by ten feet and contains less area than the third floor. The roof pitch of the fourth floor component is 3:12. Fringe. As a higher density residential project, the Townhomes at Library Park would fulfill this function. The street -facing entrances and the emphasis on brick building facades contribute to the residential character of the Preservation Area. Placing the parking within garages promotes neighborhood compatibility. Ten single family attached dwelling units will not create significant traffic, noise or other conflicts with the adjacent Preservation Area. 4. Summary of the Six Modifications: A summary of the six Modifications is provided. Each one will be discussed in detail in subsequent sections of this report. First - Section 4.9 (D)(1): Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. (This is also known as a 1:1 floor -to -area ratio.) Second - Section 4.9 (D)(5): Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. Third - Section 4.9 (D)(6)(b): Minimum front yard setback (Mathews Street) shall be fifteen (15) feet. Fourth - Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d): Minimum side yard width (north) shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be 15 feet on the street side of any corner lot. Fifth - Section 4.9 (D)(6)(e): In fulfillment of the E.S.N.P., the Buffer Areas were rezoned to Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B in 1991. The East Side Neighborhood Plan (1986) preceded the adoption of the Downtown Plan (1989). Subsequently, the "Fringe Area" was rezoned Downtown. The alley along the west property line is the dividing line between the Downtown zone and the subject site zoned N-C-B. According to the ESNP: "The Buffer areas are intended to provide a "cushion" between the Fringe and Preservation areas. The predominant land uses to be encouraged in the buffer areas are home occupations, office or other low intensity (non -retail) non- residential uses, multi -family housing including higher density residential uses, and other residential uses providing special housing needs such as boarding or group homes, and low/moderate income housing projects." "Although a wider range of land uses is appropriate in the buffer area, all existing structures contributing to the character of the Neighborhood should be preserved if possible. The exterior treatment of renovated structures or any new construction should be compatible with the existing character of the Neighborhood." "Use Conversions — Although a wider range of land uses is appropriate in the Buffer Areas, preservation of existing structures to the extent possible, and compatible exterior treatment and architectural style of renovated structures or any new construction is of great importance. " "Setbacks should be allowed to be consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood." "Any change of use determined to be appropriate in the Buffer Areas should be allowed if the proposal conforms to the intent of this Plan; is compatible with the surrounding environment; and, can be shown to create no significant traffic, noise, or other land use conflicts with adjacent Preservation Areas. Under those criteria, appropriate changes in use would include: • Multiple family dwellings up to a maximum density of 12 units per acre. Higher density residential uses may be permitted as proposed and approved as a Planned Unit Development." 3. Evaluation of Compliance with the East Side Neighborhood Plan: The E.S.N.P. emphasizes that the primary purpose of the Buffer Areas is to provide a level of protection to the Preservation Areas from the more intense activities of the 1955 — 1965 — Employment 1965 — 1991 — High Density Residential 1981 — 1991 — High Density Residential with P.U.D. Option under L.D.G.S. 1991 — 1997 — Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (Pre Land Use Code) 1997 — Present — Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (Land Use Code) At one point, the building was home to Vipont Laboratories, the research arm of Water Pik. Past tenants also include Public Service Company, City of Fort Collins Stormwater and Transportation Departments and the Northern Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization. Most recently, it has been the home of a software engineering company. The alley along the west property line divides the Downtown and N-C-B zone districts. In 2007 — 2008, a P.D.P. referred to as One Library Park was approved. This project consisted of demolishing the existing one-story structure and constructing a new four- story building containing 14 dwelling units with parking below -grade. This project included six stand-alone Modifications which were approved in October of 2007. (Deconstruction included recycling the exterior stone as would the current project.) The P.D.P. was approved in April of 2008 incorporating the six Modifications. A Final Plan was submitted but never recorded so the P.D.P. expired in 2010. In August of 2011, two neighborhood information meetings were held in conjunction with converting the existing building into one or two of the following: microbrewery, micro - distillery, or micro -winery. This proposal was withdrawn in February of 2012. In June of 2012, in association with a pending P.D.P. for new building containing 47 apartments, a request for a stand-alone Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), which establishes the minimum number of parking spaces for multi -family dwellings, was submitted. The Land Use Code required a minimum of 67 parking spaces and the applicant proposed zero spaces. As mitigation, the applicant proposed to provide 40 parking spaces across Olive Street in the City of Fort Collins public parking lot. These 40 spaces were available by a long term lease in accordance with the leasing procedures of the Parking Services Department of the City of Fort Collins. Other mitigation measures included a car share program and a bicycle repair facility. This request was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board by a vote of 4 to 3. 2. East Side Neighborhood Plan: The East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP) was adopted in 1986 and divided the study area into three general land use areas: the commercial "Fringe Areas" along College Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Lemay Avenue and Mountain Avenue; the predominantly residential "Preservation Area" that comprises the majority of the Study Area; and, the mixed use `Buffer Areas" between the Preservation and Fringe Areas. The Townhomes at Library Park, located at 220 East Olive Street, is located within one of the Buffer Areas. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Staff recommends approval of the six Modifications of Standard. 2. Staff recommends approval of the P.D.P., subject to one condition. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • The project complies with the East Side Neighborhood Plan. • The project complies with the N-C-B standards with five exceptions. • The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Standards with one exception. • Six Modifications of Standard have been reviewed and evaluated and recommended for approval in compliance with the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H). • A condition of approval is recommended that would require submittal of a signed easement from the adjoining property owner to the north that grants to the applicant ten feet of open space along the north side of the north property line. • The P.D.P. depends upon approval of allowing Single Family Attached Dwellings as an Addition of a Permitted Use in the N-C-B zone. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: N-C-B; Existing 2 1/z story multi -family building (Park View Apartments) S: N-C-B; Existing parking lot for City Parking Services and D.M.A. Plaza E: N-C-B; Community Creative Center (Former Museum) and Library Park W: D; Existing mix of commercial and residential (To further describe the surrounding area, it is notable that the former museum in the historic Carnegie Library Building at 200 Mathews is being repurposed as the Community Creative Center. The creative center concept includes flexible, inexpensive spaces for the community to rent to support their creative endeavors. Once fully renovated, the building will house galleries, performance space, classrooms, innovative think spaces, and a digital classroom. The building is currently offering rental gallery space and serving as the home to the Arts Incubator of the Rockies (AIR) and Beet Street's professional development program for creativity and innovation. Also, the Fort Collins Public Access Network (FCPAN) will create a studio in the basement allowing more community access to the cable station.) The existing, one-story structure is boarded up and vacant and has been under a variety of zone districts and used for many different functions over the years. The zone district history is as follows: arof t Collins ITEM NO 5 - PDP MEETING DATE February 13, 2014 STAFF Shepard PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PROJECT: Townhomes at Library Park, P.D.P., #PDP130033 APPLICANT: Mr. Brad Florin Noco Townhomes, Inc. c/o Kephart 2555 Walnut Street Denver, CO 80205 OWNER: Olive Street Properties, Inc. c/o Mr. Brad Florin P.O. Box 270070 Fort Collins, CO 80527 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a P.D.P. for ten Single Family Attached Dwellings located at 220 East Olive Street at the northwest corner of East Olive Street and Mathews Street. The existing structure would be demolished. The 10 units would be divided into two, five- plex buildings bisected by a common driveway. Six of the units would be four stories in height and four of the units would be three stories. All ten units include a two -car garage at a number that complies with the required minimum. The only access would be from the alley on the west property line. The lot measures 90' x 140' for a total of 12,600 square feet. The P.D.P. includes six Modifications of Standard relating to floor -to -area ratios, setbacks, building height and driveway width. This P.D.P. is submitted in conjunction with a request for an Addition of Permitted Use to allow Single Family Attached Dwellings in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B zone district.