HomeMy WebLinkAbout220 E. OLIVE ST. - MODIFICATIONS OF STANDARDS - 27-07 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTPlannin. Development and Transportati. Services
Planning and Zoning
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
DATE: October 18, 2007
RE: 220 East Olive — Request for Modifications
Staff has been contacted by an abutting property owner to the west, owner of
230 Remington Street. This owner has indicated that he has a concern with the
building achieving a height of four stories along a portion of the west elevation.
This owner is unable to attend the public hearing but has phoned -in his concern
about the height and mass of the west elevation. While he supports the overall
intent and design concept of the project, his particular concerns are as follows:
The height and mass of the building's west elevation could be
mitigated increasing the step back of the fourth floor from the third
floor.
2. The height and mass of the building's west elevation could be
mitigated with further architectural embellishment and detail.
Both the applicant and architectural consultant have discussed these issues with
the adjoining owner and all parties agree to continue to meet in order to resolve
these design issues.
Consequently, in order to incorporate this public input, and facilitate resolution of
the design issues, Staff recommends that the following condition of approval be
added to 220 East Olive Requests for Modifications, #27-07:
At the time of submittal for P.D.P., the architectural elevations for the
west elevation shall demonstrate compliance with Section 3.5.1(G) —
Building Height Review and Section 3.5.1(H) — Land Use Transition.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 17
In addition, the project provides a high level of architectural design in terms
of building articulation, fenestration and a generous mix of materials and
color that far exceed that which would normally be required.
H. For Modification Four, Staff finds that the plan as submitted will not diverge
from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division
to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered
from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to
advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of all six Requests for Modification subject to the review and
approval of all affected utilities at the time of review of the Project Development Plan.
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 16
9. Findings of Fact:
In evaluating the request for six stand-alone Modifications to Section 4.9(D)(1 — 6), Staff
makes the following findings of fact:
A. Staff finds that redevelopment of this site represents a significant upgrade
that fulfills the vision of the East Side Neighborhood Plan by providing a
logical transition in land use intensity between the Downtown and NCB zone
districts.
B. The six Modifications are in conjunction with a pending P.D.P. that meets the
purpose statement of the NCB zone district.
C. The project represents a superior design with below -grade parking. This
feature is equal to or better than a plan that would otherwise comply with the
lot coverage standards but included surface parking.
D. The site is located on a block where the north -south alley divides the
Downtown Zone from the NCB zone. And, the west property line abuts this
alley. In contrast, the nearest single family dwelling in the NCB is located
270 feet to the southeast across two streets. Therefore, as a transitional
land use, the subject site properly relates more closely to the Downtown
zone versus the NCB zone.
E. The surrounding area is characterized by a group of buildings constructed
over a wide range of time. There is no cohesive pattern of land uses,
architecture, lot coverages and building heights that knit the area into a
unified whole.
F. For all six Modifications, Staff finds that the granting of the modification would
not be detrimental to the public good.
G. For Modifications One, Two, Three, Five and Six, 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 plan places 100% of its required parking below the structure
thus preserving the opportunity to provide for other above -ground features
such as front porches, patios and balconies that promote an urban character
and a sound transition between the downtown area and the residential
neighborhood.
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 15
• The fourth floor facade is stepped back sixteen (16) feet seven (7) inches from
the third floor facade. Furthermore, a large shade canopy extends out from the
fourth floor balcony obscuring any view of the balcony and building facade from
the streets. (See exhibit 14.)
• The fourth floor step back along Mathews Street and Olive Street is substantial.
In fact, it is only 47% the size of the first floor. (See exhibit 20.) .
• The fourth floor is also visible from the alley (west) side and the north side. The
length of fourth story wall as seen from the alley and north sides are twenty-six
(26) feet and twenty-eight (28) feet respectively. These lengths of facade wall
are nominal and inconsequential when viewed from ground level. (See exhibits
5, 6, 9 and 10-14.)
• The adjacent apartment building (The Park View Apartments) is three stories but
has the height and appearance of a four-story building due to the overall design
including additional wall height and faux mansard roof. In contrast, the roof on
the proposed building is flat. (See exhibit 16.)
• There is an existing three (3) story plus garden level apartment building one
block away at 308 East Oak within the NCB District. (See exhibit 17.)
• Located south and west, diagonally across Olive Street is a ten -story building,
the D.M.A. Plaza. (See exhibit 18.)
The applicant contends that since the fourth story visibly recedes and only the
stairwells are viewed from the street side the excess building height is
inconsequential. (See exhibit 19.)
E. Evaluation of Applicant's Request
Staff finds that the extra story is successfully mitigated by use of step backs,
balconies and variety of forms. The additional height gained by the fourth floor does
not impact the surrounding properties or general public. The four stories continues
to allow the building to fulfill its role of acting as a transitional land use as envisioned
by the East Side Neighborhood Plan. There is no cohesive pattern of building
height in the surrounding area that requires conformity. A building with only three
stories and with less articulation, including surface parking, would not make as
positive a contribution to the urban area.
Staff, therefore, finds that four story building, as designed, is equal to or
better than a building that would otherwise comply with the standard.
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 14
For the corner sideyard setback along Olive Street, Staff finds that the building is
visually interesting and highly articulated and blends both downtown -like form (zero
setback) combined with residential features (stoops, porches, balconies).
Combined, these features provide an ideal transition as envisioned by the East Side
Neighborhood Plan. Again, it must be emphasized that the overall impact of the
project is significantly mitigated by virtue of the underground parking.
Staff finds that while the subject site is zoned NCB, it abuts the Downtown district.
In addition the nearest single family detached dwelling in the NCB is approximately
270 feet to the southeast, across two streets. Given the mix of land uses within the
immediate context of the area, the building represents 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. The
proposed building demonstrates a high level of variety and interest that contributes
positively to both the Downtown and NCB districts.
Staff, therefore, finds that the building is equal to or better than a building that
would have otherwise complied with the two sideyard setbacks both interior
(north) and corner (south along Olive Street).
8. Sixth Modification — Section 4.90)(6)(e) — Building Height:
A. Standard
The maximum building height is limited to three (3) stories.
B. Proposal
The proposed height is four (4) stories.
C. Extent of Modification
The proposed height is one story higher than the standard.
D. Applicant's Justification
• The majority of the visual mass along the two streets is three (3) stories. The
only area along Mathews Street and Olive Street where the fourth story is visible
is at the stairwells. (See exhibits 3 and 4.)
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 13
height at the five foot interior side setback line occurs for only a length of xx feet
or xx% of the total length of the facade.
• Although 50% of the north facade is not stepped back as required, the use of
different materials on the facade creates a visual break in the plane eliminating a
flat wall appearance. In addition, the three-story apartment building to the north
(Park View Apartments) is approximately thirty-two (32) feet from the proposed
building creating an effective buffer yard of 37 feet.
• The only affected portion of Park View Apartments is the on the third floor, on
the south side, on the easterly one-half of the building. A cluster of existing
mature trees reach the third floor windows of Park View obscuring most of the
view to the south when these trees are in full foliage. (See exhibits 1, 5,
6,10,11,12,13,14 and16.)
• The existing building currently sits on the lot line with no setbacks, and actually
encroaches over the lot line by almost one -foot at the southeast corner based on
the civil survey. The proposed building will be offset from the property line
creating a more attractive streetscape. (See exhibit 1.)
• For a building that achieves a height of 48 feet, the 30 feet of wall height from 18
to 48 feet would have to be stepped back an additional 15 feet. The standard
could allow a solid wall to be constructed at the requisite step back, for the entire
length of the facade, with significantly less articulation and variety than
proposed.
In summary, the applicant contends the proposed plan will serve the standard
equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard by virtue of
providing an attractive potential mixed -use building that utilizes creative design
solutions to create an attractive streetscape within this transition zone.
E. Evaluation of Applicant's Request
For the sideyard setback along the north, the building complies with the five feet
setback for the first 18 feet of wall height for more than 50% of the length of the
facade. Exhibits 6 and 20 illustrate the variety of wall heights and step backs. The
maximum height of 48 feet represents only 15% of the facade length. The affected
building, Park View Apartments is three stories and topped by a faux mansard roof.
Its height is slightly lower but its mass is similar to the proposed building. Existing
trees provide a dense canopy that will obscure the proposed building from Park
View during foliage season. Staff finds that the proposed building, with the narrow
profile of maximum building height, is similar in height to Park View Apartments.
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 12
Moving west, Exhibit 14 illustrates the remaining 55 horizontal feet of building
section. Here the building achieves a height of 18 feet and thus complies
with the five foot interior sideyard setback.
For the corner sideyard (Olive Street), the setback is zero feet.
C. Extent of the Modifications
Thus the Fifth Modification results in a north building facade that is not stepped
back the requisite one foot for every two feet of height for 50% of the length of the
north facade. Moving from east to west, the extent of divergence is 18, 48 and 6
feet in three distinct wall sections where the height is not properly stepped back.
For the corner sideyard setback along Olive Street, the result is a 15 foot
divergence from the standard. (See Exhibit 4.)
Summary Table North Wall (Exhibits 10,11,12,13,14) — Total Wall Length — 123'
Segment of
Wall
Total
Wall Height
Linear Length
Section
% of Length
Wall Height
Non -comply
Non -Comply
Ex.11
9%
48'
18'-36'
11.25'
Sec. 1
Ex.12
27%
48'
18'-48'
33.75'
Sec. 2
Ex.13
18%
36'
18-26'
22.5'
Sec. 3
Ex.14
45%
18'
0'
0'
Sec. 4
The summary table illustrates that of the total north wall length of 123 feet, 67 feet
(55%) diverges from the height/step back standard while 55 feet (45%) complies.
D. Applicant's Justification
The applicant contends that the decreased setbacks result in a plan that is equal to
or better than a plan that would otherwise comply for the following reasons:
• The north facade is articulated with varying heights (see Exhibit 6). Only 50% of
the total length is out of compliance. The table illustrates the relative magnitude
of divergence from standard. Note that the worst case scenario of 48 feet of wall
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 11
The applicant contends that the six inch encroachment is nominal and
inconsequential
E. Staff Evaluation of Request
Staff finds that the six inch encroachment is not perceptible to the public using the
alley.
Staff, therefore, finds that the request to allow a bay window on the west
elevation to encroach six inches into the minimum rear yard is nominal and
inconsequential.
7. Fifth Modification — Section 4.9(D)(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 is 15 feet.
B. Proposal
For the interior sideyard (north), the 123-foot long building facade will range in
height from 18 feet on the west to 48 feet at its highest point on the east. (See
Exhibits 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 22.)
Exhibit 11 illustrates the eastern 16 horizontal feet of building section. Here
the building achieves a height of 48 feet. From 18 to 36 feet of wall height,
the facade is not stepped back the requisite one foot for every two feet of
height. (From 36 to 48 feet, the building complies.)
Moving west, Exhibit 12 illustrates the next 29 horizontal feet of building
section. Here the building achieves a height of 48 feet. From 18 to 48 feet of
wall height, the facade is not stepped back the requisite one foot for every
two feet of height. This section represents the worst case scenario.
Moving west, Exhibit 13 illustrates the next 22.5 horizontal feet of building
section. Here the building achieves a height of 36 feet. From 18 to 26 feet of
wall height, the facade is not stepped back the requisite one foot for every
two feet of height. (From 24 to 36 feet, the building complies.)
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 10
as semi -private space. The front door signifies private space. This progression
represents a classic urban living model that is found in many cities.
E. Evaluation of Applicant's Request
The project is located on a block that is divided equally between the Downtown
zone and the NCB zone. As mentioned, the west property line is the alley that
bisects these two districts. Whereas on the west side of the alley, zero front
setback is allowed, east of the alley requires 15 feet. The project implements the
concept land use transition by replicating the Downtown setback but only to the
extent of the front porches. Thus a gradual transition is accomplished versus a
sharp contrast in building placement.
As mentioned, the under -structure parking represents a significant upgrade in
design that results in a project that is more aesthetic than a project that may have
complied with the standard but with surface parking.
Staff, therefore, finds that the building, with a zero front setback along
Mathews Street, is equal to or better than a plan that would be setback 15 feet
since the building placement represents a gradual transition versus a sharp
transition which is wholly appropriate for a building that shares a lot line with
the Downtown zone.
6. Fourth Modification — Section 4.90)(6)(c) — Minimum Rear Yard Setback:
A. Standard
The standard requires that the minimum rear yard setback be five feet from the
existing alley on the west. Supplemental Regulation Section 3.8.19 — Setbacks
allows bay windows to encroach into a minimum yard by two feet.
B. Proposal
The building includes a bay window on the rear (west) elevation that extends two
feet and six inches into the rear yard setback. (See Exhibits 6 and 9.)
C. Extent of Modification
Thus the Fourth Modification results in a divergence from standard by six inches.
D. Applicant's Justification
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 9
then such character 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.
Staff, therefore, finds that the proposed building, with 0.60 additional
coverage on the rear portion of the lot, is equal to or better than a plan that
would otherwise comply because each unit will have private outdoor space
and a common interior courtyard provides light and air. Further, with Library
Park across the street, a large open green space is available to all residents.
5. Third Modification — Section 4.90)(6)(b) — Minimum Front Yard Setback:
A. Standard
The required minimum front yard setback in the NCB zone is 15 feet.
B. Proposal
The proposed building would be zero feet set back from the front yard along
Mathews Street. (See Exhibits 3,5 and 7.)
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 only building features placed at the zero setback line would be the raised
covered porches. The facade of the building would be setback 12 feet from the
front property line.
Since the building borders the Downtown zone, and is separated from the NCB
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 raised front porches.
The raised front porches are a key element in the transitioning from downtown to
residential. Like a residential front yard, the stoop, next to the sidewalk, acts as
semi-public space. And, just like any other residential property, the front porch acts
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
• As mentioned, the NCB 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, museum and public park adjacent to the east. There is
an apartment building to the north, 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. (See exhibit
2.)
• 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 NCB district. The
proposed building will not impact any residences.
• 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 NCB
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
facade by almost one foot at the southeast corner of the building per the civil
engineering survey. (See exhibits 2a, 15, 16 and 17.) Although the buildings
at 301 E. Olive Street and 207 Matthews Street do not exceed the FAR, the
rear area 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 potential mixed -use building that utilizes creative design solutions for open
space. Additionally, the proposed larger FAR is inconsequential when viewed in the
overall context of the surrounding neighborhood.
E. Evaluation of Applicant's Request
The original intent of the standard was to restrict out -of -scale new development in
the back yards of existing uses thus negatively impacting the character of the
neighborhood. But, this parcel is a corner lot abutting the Downtown zone and next
to a three-story apartment building.
Evidence suggests that this lot, and two others on the same block, already exceed
the standard. If the intent of the standard is to preserve neighborhood character,
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
a. Second Modification — Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 4.9(D)(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.
B. Proposal
The proposed building would have a FAR of approximately 0.93 on the rear 50% of
the lot. (See Exhibit 1.)
C. Extent of the Modification
Thus the Second Modification would allow the proposed four-story building to have
an extra 0.60 FAR on the rear 50% of the lot.
D. Applicant's Justification
With this required FAR, the building 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 is a four-story potential mixed -use building with a FAR of
approximately 0.93 on the rear 50% of the lot. The building will have 14 units
total and each unit will have private outdoor spaces in place of a singular rear
yard green space. For light and air, an interior courtyard is provided. (See
exhibit 1.) We contend that this is a better 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 such as stoops and covered
porches.
• Typically, a mixed -use building in an urban setting does not have back yard
green space. The code appears to imply that a smaller FAR is better suited for
residential lots, rather than a mixed -use multi -family residence. In addition to the
landscaping and proposed patios and balconies, there is also a large city park
(Library Park) located directly across Mathews Street. (See exhibit 2.)
• The building as designed will also give the streetscape a more urban downtown
residential presence as a transition between the NCB District and the Downtown
District. The street facades will have entry steps, porches, balconies and
landscaping. Parking for the building is below grade under the building.
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
Courtyard
Units
Standard
Bigger Sq. Ft.
Need Modification
Smaller Sq. Ft.
Complies
The fundamental aspect of the First Modification is to distribute the additional
16,612 square feet among the 14 dwelling units versus into the common outdoor
and courtyard areas which are not visible to the public. As viewed from the street,
under either scenario, the building would look the same in terms of mass and scale.
A building that complies with the standard could distribute an equal of mass along
both streets with common outdoor and courtyard areas located internal to the site.
Staff finds that in the transition area between Downtown and the residential
neighborhoods, hidden common outdoor areas such as yards and courtyards have
limited usefulness. Downtown urban living calls for more creative use of private
open space such as porches, patios and balconies. Since the project is directly
across the street from Library Park, residents who desire to experience a large
common open yard can simply walk across the street to the largest park in the East
Side Neighborhood.
Finally, Staff finds the below -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 the project demonstrates a high level of urban character along
both public streets and that the building, with an additional 16,612 square
feet, is equal to or better than a building that would otherwise comply by
distributing its mass along the two streets with large internal outdoor and
courtyard areas.
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
• The building and site design incorporates entry steps, porches, balconies 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 NCB zone district.
(See Exhibit 2.)
• All parking is under the building. This eliminates the need for unattractive
surface parking. Since the number of spaces complies with the Code, there
would be no added pressure on the heavily used on -street parking associated
with the museum and park. (See exhibits 3 and 4.) An underground parking
garage requires a larger building footprint.
• The NCB 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 NCB 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 16,612 additional square feet,
will serve the standard equally well or better than a plan that complies with the
standard by virtue of providing an attractive, potential mixed -use building that
utilizes creative design solutions to achieve an attractive streetscape within this
transition zone.
E. Staff Evaluation of the First Modification
The applicant has provided exhibits that demonstrate that the additional square
footage results in a structure that is equal to or better than a building that would
comply with the standard. In other words, a building with 29,212 square feet will be
experienced by the neighborhood in roughly the same manner as a building that
would comply with the standard at 12,600 square feet in terms of height, mass and
scale.
This is because there is an inverse relationship between the square footage of the
building and the size of the common courtyard and outdoor yard area. A building
that would comply with the standard would simply have a larger courtyard and open
space and a corresponding smaller building square footage. Conversely, as
proposed, the building features smaller common outdoor areas and a larger
building. The table below illustrates this relationship:
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
Summary of the Setback Modifications:
Require by code
Proposed
Difference
Front yard — fifteen 15 feet Matthews Street
0'
-15'
Rear yard — five 5 feet from existing alley West
5'
0'
Side yard — five 5 feet for all interior side yards(North)-5'
0'
Corner side yard — fifteen 15 feet South
0'
-15'
Side yard — walls higher than 18 feet North
varies
Varies
3. First Modification — Section 4.900) — 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.
B. Proposal
The existing lot area is 12,600 square feet. The proposed floor area is 29,212
square feet (excluding the courtyard, balconies and patios). (See Exhibit 1.)
C. Extent of the Modification
Thus the First Modification would allow the proposed four-story building to have an
extra 16,612 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 building exceeds the maximum area allowed by 2.3 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 14 units with private outdoor spaces (porches,
patios, balconies) versus a singular rear yard green space. In addition to private
outdoor space, all units will share a courtyard. (See exhibit 1.) The applicants
contend 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.
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
2. Summary of the Standards Relating to the Six Modifications:
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.
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)(c):
Minimum rear yard setback (west) shall be five (5) feet from existing alley
and fifteen (15) feet in all other conditions.
Fifth - 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 (Olive Street) shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street
side of any corner lot.
Sixth - 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.
220 W. Olive — Modification of Standard, # 27-07
October 18, 2007 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
residential neighborhood to the east. Due to superior building design and underground
parking, Modifications 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, are justified by being equal to or better than a plan
that would otherwise comply. Modification 4 is justified by diverging from the standards in
a manner that is nominal and inconsequential. Staff is recommending one condition that
would preserve the integrity of existing underground utilities.
COMMENTS
Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: N-C-B; Existing three-story multi -family building (Park View Apartments)
S: N-C-B; Existing parking lot for City and D.M.A. Plaza
E: N-C-B; Existing Museum and Library Park
W: D; Existing commercial and residential
The existing one-story structure has been under a variety of zone districts and used for
many different functions over the years. The zoning history is as follows:
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 (Post Land Use Code)
Please note that the P.U.D. option under the Land Development Guidance System was
available between 1981 and 1991 regardless of the underlying zoning. This option allowed
for a design -based review process with flexible land use and development standards,
subject to providing impact mitigation where necessary. Modifications to development
standards were not necessary under L.D.G.S. as long as the overall project performed at a
high level of design, and subject to Planning and Zoning Board approval.
At one point, the building was home to Vipont Laboratories, the research arm of Water Pik.
Past tenants also include the City of Fort Collins Stormwater and Transportation
Departments. 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.
ITEM NO. Z
MEETING DATE 10/18/07
STAFF Ted Shepard
Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: 220 East Olive Street — Request for Six Modifications of Standards,
#27-07
APPLICANT: One Library Park, Inc.
c/o V-F Ripley Associates
401 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNER: One Library Park, Inc.
P.O. Box 270070
Fort Collins, CO 80527
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for six stand-alone Modifications in conjunction with a pending Project
Development Plan located at 220 East Olive Street. All six Modifications relate to
development standards in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B, zone district.
The pending P.D.P. would be a request for a multi -family redevelopment project at the
northwest corner of Olive and Mathews Streets across from Library Park. The existing
structure would be razed. The proposal consists of constructing a new four-story building
consisting of 14 dwelling units with parking below -grade. The fourth story would be
stepped back from the first three stories except along a portion of the north facade. The
first floor units would offer an option for live -work potential. Access to the underground
parking would be from the alley along the west property line. This west property line is
also the boundary line between the Downtown zone and the N-C-B zone. The lot
measures 90' x 140' for a total of 12,600 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to one condition relating to utilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Section 4.9(D) contains six development standards relating to lot coverage and building
height. The applicant has requested six Modifications. The NCB zone is described in the
East Side Neighborhood Plan as a transitional area between the downtown area and the
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0580 (970) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT