Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING - PDP - 29-99 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS03/13/2000 11:35 970484"n59 DBA/DDA :I PAGE 02 DDA MINUTES PAGE 8 - kcarch 41 1gCtG Participate, to request any additional funding ne�-6 sary,4hIis was seconded by Mr. Slezak and the motion passed with opposition. LPC UPDATE Angela Milewski provided an update on behalf, of,the Laridmark— Preservation Commission, and indicated that of recent date six projects had been awarded funding: four residential and two non residential. CITY OFFICE UUILDING Returning to the Board a second time to provide an update on the new City Office Building, City Staff shared that RFP's have gone out, and that this 70,000 square foot office building is estimated at a cost of `j8.2 million. It is currently proposed that groundbreaking will begin between April and July 2000. Site elevation maps and artist renderings were displayed to explain the plans. In addition to the building, careful thought has been given to the center of the plaza which is a focal point of the project. Questions were posed concerning the positioning of the building on the comer, and there was some discussion about the bike path and pedestrian Plaza which runs along Mason and LaPorte Streets. The customer approach Is projected through the parking lot in the center of the structure, although this is still under discussion. The center door will provide the formal access, although there will be several other doors by which to enter the building. The three story structure lends the Justice Center greater stature, and it has been designed with optimum flexibility. On entering, a very attractive rotunda will greet visitors, and provide the information center for the building. STAFF CONTRACTS Staff contracts were included in the packets for the Board's review. Mr. Slezak moved to approve both contracts as written, with one change noted on Mr. Hardy's in the area of retirement benefits. The motion was seconded by Mr. Belcher and carried unanimously. ADJOURN There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 a.m. Jason Meodors, Secretary DDA Miviv% 3/q/qq 03/13/2000 11:35 97040e -59 PAGE 01 DDA MINUTES PAGE s .NEW CITY OFFICE BUILDING 6cT 7, 1ch94 �5 �etc7e� 1 PAR 1 3 ` H . Ann Tumquist outlined .the,project whichiIs`intended to consolidate many of the City offices currently spread throughout town. The plan calls for a 70,000 square foot, four story building. The R.F.P's are slated to go out in November and it is hoped the design will be completed and approved in 1999, with the construction phase begun in 2000 and completion by 2001. Board input is sought to ensure this building is planned with the public In mind: with many of the more commonly used facilities housed together so they may be more readily accessed. 251 LINDEN ST Owner Douglas Gennetten, appeared before the Board to seek DDA participation in the restoration of this building. Mr. Gennetten advised that both he and the Silver Grill were recipients of a State Historical Grant in the amount of $140,000 to be shared between the two projects. The restoration, spearheaded by Richard Beardmore, will be done in phases. Tate first being structural reinforcements, roof repairs and interior finish of the lower level, This, combined with the facade restoration, will facilitate the leasing of 2,000 square feet of retail space, thus providing funds for the second floor restoration, which is phase two of the project. Initially, a motion was made to support the project in the amount of up to $20,000. This was moved and seconded by Messrs. Belcher and Pitner respectively. Then concern was expressed that appropriation of DDA funds had not yet been worked out by the City's Finance Department, and while the hearing by City Council will take place by year end, these funds are not yet in place. Therefore, Mr, Wanner moved to table the motion, with indication of future support at such a time as the governmental variables are removed. This was seconded by Mr. Meadors and the motion carried with two opposed. BELCHER PROJECT Mr. Steiner stated that the City has required the developers of this project to revise right -Of --way improvements, which could result in a reduction of funding for this segment of the project, which DDA had agreed to underwrite. The developers have posed the question as to whether some of the funds can be re - appropriated to cover facade costs. The Consultant shared his reasons why this request did not seem appropriate. Following some discussion by the Board. Ms. Brayton moved that the level of DDA participation previously agreed upon remain proportional to the funding envisioned for this project. This was seconded by Mr, Wanner. As the issue was further clarified, Mr. Allard summarized that the Board should consider the above a point of information only at this early date. He concluded, that when final numbers are received, whatever action is appropriate could be taken by the Board at that time. OTHER BUSINESS ' Rand -Scot Incorporated Ms. Brayton declared a conflict of interest and declined to take part in the discussion. Mr_ Steiner recapped the Board's commitment of $32,000 made to this entity in 1997 for facade and right-of-way improvements. CDBG funds were earmarked for this project, but it was later teamed that they could not be DDA hv1vteS 16/e/18 03/13/2000 11:35 9704840969 DBA/DDA PAGE 05 ABA MINUTES PAGE 2 NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR The budding will house such entities as Information Technology, Human Resources, Forestry, Parks, Planning, Transportation, etc, The entry will open up into a rotunda which will house an information center for the entire building. Responding to questions on how the building will look, the Board was advised that most surfaces will be brick, probably with a stone facing. Construction is slated to begin in 2000 and will take approximately nine months to complete. Cost of the building will be paid for by the City's General Fund. It is under consideration at this time to put the new Library and a third parking structure on this lot David ' Short, new Executive Director, was formally introduced and welcomed by the Board. FINANCIALS Scott Smith reviewed the financial report for the Board, noting that assets were greater than liabilities. The aging report reflects funds due through the end of the year and Jacor has finally paid in full. A question arose regarding sponsorship monies. Jay will check on this and Provide the information to David. A review of First Night financials showed us over budget by $9,000 most of this was in the area of entertainment. Other factors were less sponsorship dollars than the previous year and not as many button sales as projected. The budget for 1999 - 2000 was reviewed. First Night is less aggressively budgeted than last year, ' in fact it is "lore realistic. David 7amzow made a motion to adopt the budget as presented, this was seconded by Ann James and carried unanimously. EVENT UPDATE St. Patrick's Day Parade -,For the first time in history, this event made money. There were sixty three paid entries, seventy three, including sponsorships. A suggestion was made to set the parade time a little later, to encourage crowds to stay downtown for lunch and shopping. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Lee Swanson provided the Board with a very comprehensive, thought provoking report on his meeting with the captioned committee, and the deciding vote to commission Michael Haynes to prepare plexiglass banners to be hung from downtown light poles. The Board reviewed the samples provided by Lee, and expressed great concern on several levels. It was generally felt that in no way did work of this caliber complement the historic look of downtown. Safety issues were discussed because of the high winds this area experiences. In addition, plexiglass becomes cloudy and abrades very quickly when exposed to the elements, and lacks the timeless quality which fits downtown. Thus the Board is in opposition to this art form. It was urged that a letter be sent to die City expressing concern. It was also felt that the Landmark Preservation Commission should be apprised. ELECTION OF OFFICERS In the February Board Meeting, Directors were asked to consider serving in an executive capacity. The sate of officers is as follows: Dak M(n s `j/7/q`j p,2- 03/13/2000 11:35 97048d`G9 DBA/DDA PAGE 04 BOARD OF DIRECTORS' MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 7, 1999 REGULAR MEETING The Board of Directors of the Downtown Business Association met in regular session at 3:00 p.m. April 7,1999 in the Adriel Hills Club House at 1900 Kedron Drive. PRESENT There were present: Mary Brayton, President Ed Stoner, Vice President Scott Smith, Treasurer Debbie Reider, SecretaryR i1) Robin Goette Lee Swanson David Zamzow Jeff Nuttall Ann James Jim Larsen Ed Stuessie Brenda Cams ABSENT Tommy Short STAFF David Short, Executive Director Brynn Markle Anne Garrison GUESTS Jay Hardy, lack GianoJa, Wendy Irving Wells, Jim Bowie, Bill West CALL TO ORDER The meeting came to order at 3:00 p.m. with Mary Brayton presiding. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ed Stoner made a motion to approve the minutes of March 3, 1990 this was seconded by Scott Smith and carried unanimously. NEW CITY OFFICE BUILDING The updated design was presented by representatives of the Neenan Company. It reflects the ideas and suggestionsof such Boards and Commissions as DBA. The three story, 7l,000 square foot building is to be set back from North Mason and LaPorte, in order to allow for a pedestrian pathway. I)ow"town Business Association . 19 Old Town Square. Suite 230. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Tel: 970-484-6500 - Fax: 970-484-2069 P6Ar ffilAutt6 q/T/,Iq 95l 03/13/2000 11:35 97048n" ;9 DBA/DDA PAGE 03 jr DBA MINUTES MAR 1 3 PAGE 2 NEf anoFFXE A presentation was given by Ann Tumquist who explained that the BUILDING projected building would be a 70,000 square feet, possibly four story building located on the southeast corner of Block 32, (LaPorte and Mason Streets.) The intent is to house as numy administrative offices under one roof as possible, i.e. departments such as Transportation, Human Resources and Information Technology, to name a few. RFD's are going out at the end of the month in the hope of finding a Design -Build firm that will do both the design and construction of the building. The timeline is to complete the design in 1999, construction will take place in the year 2000 and completion/occupancy in 2001. It is planned to design a building that will be customer friendly, energy efficient and both flexible and durable over its lifespan of 40+ years. City personnel is requesting input from the Board which would assist them in determining the image this building will project. Mr. Stoner suggested that a design be employed other than that projected for the new parking . structure. It was also suggested that the building have a more functional look, in contrast to the more inspiring Justice Center. TRANSPORTATION John Daggett spoke concerning the Northeast Trucking Route; that consideration is being given to moving Highway #14 and Riverside out of the downtown area. Throughout the summer various options have been examined; they are presented here for the Board's consideration. Using a master street plan, John indicated projects scheduled for build out by 2015, including developments which will house 13,000 residents and include a high school. The projected Fort Collins population in ten years is 150,000. This undertaking is currently in its third tier of evaluation. The three alternatives presented were as follows: * Vine Drive - Interchange at Interstate * Mulberry Corridor - to Lemay/Mulberry Intersection * Vine Drive - Straight to College Avenue Cost to do one of the ahernatives would be $15 - 20 million and the timeline is one to five years. EVENTS At the November meeting a full report will be provided regarding the Farmer's Market research. In addition, a meeting with City personnel has been arranged to discuss the occurrence at NewWestFest, in which Sierra Club personnel paraded in opposition to a political booth. Dm Minuet, tom/°fib New City Office Building Public Comments: Optional: Name: Address: Phone: 1��v�ovt � open 1nw,� 350.000 300,000 250,000 City of Fort Collins Facilities Planning: Space needs for employees in the downtown FORECAST OF SPACE Ni.-ZEDS VS EXISTING AVAILABLE 291,053 253,089 OTRANSPORTATION ® POLICE ® EXEC/LEG SVCS ® CLRS CPES ®ADMIN. SVCS —EXISTING 6 TOTAL II 131,808 1 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR assumes no new facilities leased or constructed, and space on Blocks 31 and 32 not available after year 2010 9/23/98 Proposed Occupants New City Office Building Finance Department • Accounting • Purchasing • Risk Management • Treasury Cultural, Library and Recreation Services • Forestry Administration • Golf Administration • Parks Planning • Parks Maintenance Administration Human Resources Department Information Technology and GIS Transportation Services Administration �qH� �OM Oftlk NEW CITY OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST: $11,578,449 (projected) FUNDING: Tax-exempt lease certificates of participation SIZE: 70,000 sq. foot, four story building LOCATION: Southeast corner of Block 32 LaPorte and Mason SCHEDULE: Design/Build Team RFP Design Construction Begins Completion Fall 1998 1999 January 2000 March 2001 1OV' k �fmn^ OPM61a 1 I NEW CITY OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION On September 1, 1998, Council approved the funding for a new City office building through the issuance of tax-exempt lease certificates of participation. The current projected cost of the facility is $11,578,449. Plans for the building call for a 70,000 square foot, four story building to be constructed at the southeast corner of Block 32. The facility will be directly across the street from the new Larimer County Justice Center. Land directly east of the project will be used to develop a Transit Center on Block 22, while the new parking structure will be located to the southeast on Block 21. Several design elements should be considered to be "givens" in the process because they have been prescribed by various planning documents adopted by the City. Some of the elements which are predetermined include: • The building facade should be comprised primarily of sandstone and brick materials, as outlined in Land Use Code for Mixed Use —Institutional and Commercial buildings in the Downtown District. • The architectural features should match those which will be used at the Justice Center, parking structure, and transit center to reinforce the continuity of the four corner's projects. These features should include items such as the overall visual impression of the building, the exterior light fixtures, sidewalks, crosswalks, and other details. • The design should support the overall Civic Center Master Plan concept, including the importance of the pedestrian "spine" in the district, mixed uses, a human and walkable scale, easy access for a variety of transportation modes, and strong connections to Old Town, surrounding neighborhoods and the Poudre River. • The building design should enhance customer service, be energy efficient. and make building maintenance efficient over the building's lifetime. • The Art in Public Places component of the project should be coordinated with the other three facilities in a master planning process. Public comment will be sought on such issues as: • How can we best design the building to meet the goals of the Civic Center Master Plan; • What image should the building project to the community; • How can the overall design enhance customer service; • What qualities in the building will help it to be both flexible and durable over its expected 40+ year lifespan, as well as energy efficient; and • What "sustainable design" elements are important in the building to minimize the building's impact on the environment. I A404 6M open W-YA- NEW CITY OFFICE BUILDING Pre -Design Outreach Process Handouts October 1998 Rook Qm OPMAP* Page 2 • Try to include a water feature or native rock feature that ties to the history of Fort Collins • There should be an outside professional helping to evaluate designs • Tie the design in to the Mason Street Multi -Modal Transportation Corridor plan • The new buildings at the four corners shouldn't be too much alike, or it will seem like an institution • Emphasize natural materials • The look of the buildings at this intersection should be diverse or downtown becomes boring • Needs to be a timeless look, not trendy. It will serve as an anchor for the downtown, so it needs to look permanent • Too much gaudy design is difficult to maintain • Include a place in the lobby for kids to wait as business is conducted • The building should have clean lines, not too "grand" • Not as "fussy" a design as the parking structure • It should look like a government building, solid and permanent • Not too flashy or expensive looking like Jefferson County • Classic lines are best • It should look useful, efficient, not intimidating • The building doesn't need a lot of lobby area • There should be a consistent look with the rest of downtown • There should be an obvious entry point (s) so that people aren't confused about where to go into the building • It seems like Utility Billing should be part of this building so that people know that those types of functions are all in one place • Plan for future expansion of the building pubcouun.doc Ocfolaer 6 ope&q goose MIMUu6 5 P5Z New City Office Building Pre -design Citizen Input October 1998 • Friends of the Library Nvould like 1200-2500 square feet of temporary warehouse/sorting space for its program until the new library is built (basement/attic type space) • The building should be lower scale, not as imposing as the new Justice Center • Day lighting should be emphasized • The space should "delight" the visitor, as. does the new Harmony Library • Design/Build is not the most cost effective or design effective way to accomplish the project • Design/Build is a good way to do this type of project • It should be easy to find your way through the building. This should include good mapping and signage. Maybe even a color coding system. • The building should have enough doors from the outside so that it is convenient to approach from more than one direction. • The building should be welcoming, with a clearly established point of contact for visitors • The building should be warm, professional and welcoming like Loveland's City Hall • Well -labeled counters • Information should be available outside of counters, like applications, forms, or brochures. Plan for this because it always happens. • Touch screen directories help people find either departments or individuals • Wide, well -lighted corridors • Less angular is more welcoming and comfortable • Consider issues of water quality and the building's parking lot • Make sure that the water, sewer, stormwater and electric systems can handle the new building • Create a design that helps encourage the use of alternate travel modes: daycare center, bike shelter or parking, showers, lockers, etc.) • Include a large multi -purpose room for both day and evening use. Should be easily accessible at night form community meetings, not buried in office suites. • Create easy ways to move and change room set-up. Include a good way to store tables and chairs in a tidy way. • Balance between a nice finish and the cost • Needs to be easy to maintain • Easy access from the sidewalk, not just through a parking lot • Should be a preference for local architects and builders • Underground the parking if possible • Use the concept of borrowed light, possibly as part of the Art in Public Places • Cubicles are depressing OQ00er Opev� Hover Mlnvi:s eb I NFT 7HBORHOOD INFOR"TATION MEETING s for I Project: Ctfi�j 0 Ton4si+ City of Fort Collins Meetin2 Location: .-Zs 1 N . Cc, i/� rai P Poo t t.. S Date: _q Z 13 / 47 1 d Attendees: Please sign this sheet. The information will be used to update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood meetinas. Contact the Planning Department (221-6750) if you wish to receive minutes of this meeting. Name Address Zip; Did You ReceiveCorrect Written Notification of this meeting? Yes No Address. Yes No CD c S - 2 2 V I rJC1U1R,Co O.�Z� L . ��L 10CC / S I v v T-r�cl 7..i , 'Zi.VGc✓ - Cl e-,c /T/6' i C3 ow�>ZZ �A irl ✓�. 74f r� 60///,H6 G . 02 A� /BZo xs� �a. �o NI I � n /-'I Z' 13CI n k Le C OTC - ' I . public hearing. When a project is under development review, the files are public record. Any member of the public can look at the files at any time for any reason. Q. Has there been any determination of a site for the new library or the new performing arts center? A: Sales tax has been appropriated to pay for the acquisition of the land, but there has been no decision on a site for either building to date. There has not been any funds appropriated to build either building. Q: Is there a deadline for choosing these sites? A: The site for the performing arts center should be determined this year; the library, probably not until 2004. A: Both projects will be under construction at the same time, which will temporarily affect the vehicular circulation and access of the Justice Center. Q. What is the band of green next (west)to the proposed office building? A: Landscaping, curb paving, and water quality features. 2. The Transit Center Q: What is the proposed bike library? A: A facility where bicycles can be checked out for public use. This would include a bike maintenance area. Q: It appears that the existing alley configuration on this block is being moved. Won't the alley on this block need to line up with the alley configuration on the block to the north? A: This is a preliminary design at a very early stage of development. The city's development review process allows the various departments within the city the opportunity to review the proposed configuration. If there is a problem with the configuration, the Transportation Department and the Engineering Department will have an opportunity to review the proposed alley alignment against any code requirements for such alignments. Q: What is the schedule for this project? A: Originally the project was scheduled to begin construction in March 2000, but it has been pushed back at least 3 months. Q. Is the city in a discussion with Greyhound about possibly locating bus service here? A: There has been nothing finalized, but there is a discussion currently underway between the city and Greyhound about putting bus service here. Q. What is the next step? A: Next week, the applicant will be meeting with the building users to go over the site plan. Once layout is determined, the project will be formally submitted to the Current Planning Department for development review as a Project Development Plan (PDP). Q: Has the general public been informed about this project? A: The concept of a transit center on this site has been discussed at city council meetings in the past, which are public hearings. When this project goes to hearing as part of the development review process, there will be another NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES for The City Office Building & The Transit Center conducted 7pm — 9pm, September 13, 1999, 281 N. College, Conference Rooms A&B 1. The City Office Building Q. Time Schedule for construction? A: Construction will not start until the Howes Outfall is completed. The outfall is scheduled to be finished across this portion of the site in July of 2000. Construction of this project, if the Howes Outfall is completed on time, will commence in July of 2000, and will take approximately 1 year to complete. Q. How will traffic and access issues (impacts on surrounding properties) be coordinated during construction? A: The alley access will be utilized, bike lanes will be maintained, and there will be a traffic access plan in place that will direct traffic with signage. There will be no complete closure of access during construction. Construction of Laporte Avenue will be done in Phases. Matt Baker, the city's street oversizing coordinator with the Engineering Department can answer any specific questions about Laporte Ave. construction. Q: How will stormwater issues be addressed? A:. The Howes Outfall will be completed before the construction of this project is underway, therefore, the outfall will take all the stormwater rather than the streets. The Howes Outfall from Cherry Street north to where it terminates is currently under construction, and its construction from Cherry Street to -Laporte Avenue will start in February of 2000. All drainage easements for the Howes Outfall are within this block will be on our site rather than on adjacent property owners sites. Laporte Avenue will be lowered 2 feet to accommodate the outfall. Q: What types of pre -construction work can we expect on -site? A:' The existing temporary parking area will be vacated and utility work will begin several months prior to the July 2000 official start of construction. Q. How will the Laporte Avenue construction cooinside with the construction of the proposed office building? City seeks By KYLE NENLEY The Caomamn What would you like to see incorporated into the city's new $11.8 million of- fice building? City officials will be looking for your opinion at a 4:30 p.m. open house Tuesday at the Communi- ty Planning and Environ- mental Services building, 281 N. College Ave. City picks By KYLE NENLEY The Coloraooen Plans for an $8.2 million city, office building are mov- ing ahead. Late last week the city awarded the contract to de- sign and build the 70,000- square-foot office to a team led by Neenan Co., a Fort Collins -based construction company. ' The building will be on the northwest corner of Mason Street and LaPorte Avenue. Construction will begin. in the spring of 2000, and the building is scheduled to be complete "We thought befo started designing building that we find out what the thinks would be said Ann Turnquist Council policy mana The 70,000-squa office building is pr for the northwest co Mason Street and L Avenue - across the from the new L pro car input 0n re we County Justice Center and the a 900-space parking struc- should cure. public Construction has begun good," on the justice center and , City parking structure, and ger. crews will begin building re -toot the office building early in 2000, of The city's parks, finance, aPorte human resources, infor- street mation technology and arimer transportation depart - ■Region, State/2, 6-7 RObituaries, Record/4 ■Cash 5, Football Fortune/4 ■Opinion/5 new office building ments tentatively are scheduled to move into the building, which likely will be finished in 2001. "These are departments with lots of customer con- tact" Turnquist said. 'We envision a lot of customer windows." Even with the multi- million -dollar price tag, the new building is being billed as a cost -saver. local contractor to design, in late 2001. "Quite a bit of the focus is on energy efficiency" Assis- tant City Manager Frank Bruno said. 'The building, during the day, %till use very little artificial bght" Combined with other en- ergy -efficient designs, that will result in 35 percent in energy savings compared with traditional designs, Bruno said. "I think it is going to be an extremely attractive project for the city of Fort Collins," Neenah Co. President Jim Neenan said. "We went to great lengths to incorporate human resources, i We went to great tion technology and trans - lengths to incorporate portation departments are the newest ideas that scheduled to move into the new building. Those depart - are out there and ments currently are spread proven successful in out in various leased spaces the design of the fa- in and around old Town cility. f The city will save about $600,000 a year by mining Jim Neenan, president, employees out of the leased Neenan Co. space, money that will go 10 ward paying for the new building, Bruno said. the newest ideas that are out Neenan, the construction there and have proven sic- company, will he working cessfal m the design of the with BHA Design and CZ facility" Architecture, which will de - The ciWs parks, finance, sign the structure. The city currently leases will be saved "from current 47,256 square feet of office leases or current needs space in downtown Fort that would no longer be re - Collins. Many of the de- quired ... with the develop- partments in leased apace ment of a new office build - will move into the new ing." building, Assistant City That will go a long way Manager Frank Bruno toward paying the said. $850.000 payment Following the basic phi- -yearly on the 20-year bond the losophy that it is better to city is using to finance own than to rent, Bruno construction of the build - estimates $600,000 a year ing. An Ottioe ksunuing , for 2001- �. 4.41�'e� -1': is Ja:+. i The City of fort Collins invites you to an open F'touse for its next addition The new city office building will be located on the corner of LaPorte Avenue and Mason Street:' Please join us on Tuesday, Oct. 6: from 4:30 to 6:3' p.m. in the Conference Room at 281 North Collegt Interested a�tt�zens, downtown neighbors and downtown busi- nesses areienmoraged;to at4endsWe'II provide information abouF. 0. city bRc'ebuilding and., elcome feedback and ideas orn tnterested citizens on the design of the new facillG ` Thi m i ilding is slated for construction in 2000 and will 611. -,. be tomQ�rxec-in 2001. The 70.000 square foot building will be zd'aren-t the -new County justice Center, the new City parkin'S"'"u' ureand the newTransitCenter, For more information, all Ann Turnquist at 224-6094. ion nmrnY ndutUam Ya M1[wembk umm,leJumm bxam,m Gly unkn pipr11m1.M/dMdOYW W IIYY[RlfulNml"YNUIMu,.,l(lmenu bpll0,r mlt•,.. construct downtown office building informs" - Courtesy City of Fon c FUTURE LOOK An artist's rendering depicts the city office building planned for the comer or son Street and LaPorte Avenue. .i��.'t •�TrICIt4 tEi�'.�"'".`""�Iir.:.Y,� ..._�. - s City of Fort Collins Admini itive Services Facility Services Department MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Blanchard, Director of Current Planning FROM: Jared Interholzinger, Interim Facility Services Directo DATE: March 6, 2000 RE: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Bob, attached are copies of a couple of newspaper articles regarding the New Office Building being proposed. P&Z Chairperson Colton stated at the March 2°d meeting that he had not recalled seeing any newspaper articles on this project. I had mentioned that I would send copies of the articles I had. Please distribute to P&Z members as desired. Also, note that the exterior rendering has not really changed from the design shown at P&Z. Attachment: Copy of newspaper articles cc: Jack Gianola, Senior Project Manager 117 North Mason Street • P.O. Box 580 9 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6611 Feb-14-00 06:48A P.03 The plan, as submitted, serves the purpose of the code equally well or better that a plan which complies with the code for the following reasons: The street tree placement, as proposed, integrates the building with the site and landscape design. The landscape plan considers the building's character, form and function, and it accentuates specific architectural features. A plan which complies with the code would merely line the streets with trees with no consideration given for features which make the project unique. The code does not consider site relationships or subtleties which help to integrate the design. A plan that is in compliance with the street tree requirement would provide two (2) more street trees in front of the building entrance and two (2) more street trees at the northeast and southeast corners of the site, or a total of six more street trees. in order to ensure significant canopy shading, to reduce glare and heat build-up, and to offset the decreased number of street trees, we have provided eight shade trees around the circular water quality pond near the northwest corner of the building. All of these trees are above and beyond those required for "hull tree stocking" purposes. The proposed street tree planting scheme also serves the purpose of the code by: reducing conflicts between activity areas and site elements; by contributing to the visual quality and continuity within and between developmenis; and by enhancing outdoor space's. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. End of Request Rnqu�a - .S'tn�ra 7rre .Sj>arin,� Feb-14-00 06:48A P.02 Alternative Compliance Request - Street Tree S Civic Center Office Building Section 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection Purpose: The intent ol'this section is to require preparation of landscape and tree protection plans that ensure significant canopy shading to reduce glare and heat build-up, contribute to visual duality and continuity within and between developments, provide screening and mitigation of potential conflicts between activity areas and site elements, enhance outdoor spaces, reduce erosion and stormwater runoff, and mitigate air pollution. Alternative Compliance Request There are three locations along the perimeter of -the Civic Center Office Building site which require that we request alternative compliance for street tree spacing as defined in section 3.2.1(1))(2)(a) of the Fort Collins i.and Use Code which states ... "Wherever the sidewalk is separated from the street by a parkway, canopy shade trees .shall he planted at thirty-foot to forty fciot spacing (intervals) in the center of all sued parkway areas. Such sireei trees shrill be placed at least eight (X)feet away frenn edges of driveivrr).T and alleys, and forte (40) feer away fi-uni any street light." Area 1. We request alternative compliance for the street tree requirement in the area adjacent to the main entrance of the building on the cast facing facade. Street trees have been intentionally left out of the area in order to preserve views to the building entrance. This portion Of the building has a significant level of architectural detail and deserves to he seen and framed when viewed from Mason Street. Please refer to the architectural elevations. Areas 2 and 3. We also request alternative compliance for the street tree requirement at the northeast and southeast corners of the site. Street trees have been kept away from the comers for the following reasons. first, existing or proposed street lights are located on both comers (as required by the Light and Power Department). The code requires a minimum 40 foot separation between street lights and shade trees and a mitnniurn fifteen (1 S) leot separation between ornamental trees and street lights. The proposed shade trees provide the required setback to the street lights. The code would allow ornamental trees to be closer to the street lights, but we feel that they would interfere with pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks because of their low branching habit. The proposed street tree configuration also preserves views to the southeast comer of the building, which incorporates significant architectural elements. in reviewing the building elevations you'll notice that this comer includes a considerable amount of sandstone, cornice treatments, .and interesting window elements. Alremative Compliance Request - Sit eer lies )pacing Paer I of? m Feb-14-00 O6:47A P.O1 4803 Innovation Orive. Fort Collins. CO 80525 Tel 970-223-7577, Fax 970-223-1827 design Fax To: 1 O M5 Date: !r' �... 00 _ Company: ��� n Project: j! ( g� 0l>�f ( 7, Subject: A W . 6.Mf!Imo AN= From: Pages: - - - ❑ As Requested )� For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply • Commentst Feb-04-00 04:26P P-03 mid -block crossing. We feel that it is unsafe to introduce the pedestrian crossing into this area. 4_ A plan which complies with the Civic Spine standard H.rndd: Add one more conflicting element to a very active street. The plan, as submitted, serves the "purpose" of the standard by. Incorporating civic uses within the Downtown District to complement adjacent uses such as hotels, entertainment, retail and housing. 2. "The building architecture respects and reflects the local heritage and character by incorporating brick and indigenous sandstone. The building forms are reminiscent of other buildings within the immediate area and within the Downtown District. 3. The building incorporates architectural elements (mass breaks, plane changes, columns, and awnings) which gives a human scale while preserving the institutional character of the Civic Center. Refer to the building elevations included with the project development plan. 4. Generous sidewalk widths are provided which support the pedestrian oriented character of the civic center. Ornamental street lights and high mass street lights are provided to support the night-time use of this area. Street trees and tree lawns create a comfortable and protected pedestrian zone. The plan, as submitted, will protect the public. interests and purposes equally well or better than a plan which complies with the Civic Spine standard The plan serves the intent of the Civic Spine standard for the following reasons: 1. Well defined cross -walks are provided at the I.allorte/Mason and Maple/Mason intersections. The LaPorte Street/Maple Street intersection is signalized. We feel that the cross -walks at the intersections provide safer pedestrian crossing points by reducing the number of conflicts between cars, buses, trains and pedestrians. "These connections are not as direct as a plan that would comply with the standard, but they are far safer due to the conditions described in earlier paragraphs. 2. The cross -walks will serve to connect various buildings in order to unify parks and plazas. Thank you for your consideration of this modification rcqucsl. Roger Sherman BHA Design Feb-04-00 04:25P P-02 Modification Request - Civic Spine (Mason Street Mid -Block Crossin Land Use Code Section 4.12(A) - Downtown District (D) "Purpose. The Downtown District is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, office and cultural uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing. It is divided into three (3) subdistricts as depicted in l igure 19. l7re development standards for the Downtown District are intended to encourage a mix of activity in the area while providing for duality development that maintains a sense ol'bistory, human scale and pedestrian -oriented character." Land Use Code Section 4.12 (E)(5)(a) - Special Provisions - Civic Center Subdistrict "Civic Spine. All development shall incorporate the concept of the "Civic Spine" as described in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan, allowing for continuous north -south and east -west pedestrian connections. The civic spine will serve to connect various buildings in order to unify parks and plazas. Modification Request 1-he east -west civic spine, as described in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan, is a well conceived notion from a general perspective. I lowever upon a closer examination ofthe site specific physical relationships (i.e. adjacent uses, traffic, safety, ctc.) our recommendation to the City is to modify the east -west spine so that it dues not cross Mason Street at the mid -block location. For reasons described below, we feel that the Mason Street mid -block crossing would be detrimental to the public good if installed per the original concept Alternatively, the two proposed Mason Street cross -walks at the north and south ends of this Mock provide a safer pedestrian connection to buildings, parks and plazas on the east of Mason Street. Therefore we request a modification of civic spine standard. Suppletnental Findings A plan: which complies with the Civic Spire standard will not protect public interest for the following reasons: A plan which complies with the Civic Spine standard would. Extend the east -west civic -spine across Mawn Street and bisect the existing bus/car loading area at the Transit Center site. This configuration would create a situation where pedestrians cross in font of buses and cars that are attempting to merge from the busicar loading area into the Mason Street travel lanes. This is an unsafe condition for pedestrians. 2. A plan which complies with the Civic Spine standard would: Encourage pedestrians to eroas the railroad tracks at an un-signalized location. This crossing represents and additional liability to the railroad company, therefore we anticipate resistance of this idea from the railroad company. 3. A plan which complies with the Civic Spine standard would: Locate the mid -block crossing just south of the median in Mason Street. This creates a situation where many drivers are looking for opportunities to change lanes, or are changing lanes, in and around the area of the Feb-04-00 04:25P P.02 4803 Innovation Orivc, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Tef 970-223-7577. Fax 970.223-1827 design Fax TO: Date: :7 �il✓%� Company: � r !� Project: I � / _ N�. w_ fz_3PWO- Fax:—�Ltf�_ Iv Subject: C/ (i !ELT 4 From: Pages: n As Requested X For Review • Comments: n Please comment ❑ Please Reply 1.1 S.I0 V1 WAE102MPAVAMWAMM,1//a 1 r Corner Treatment Fort Collins, Colorado DOOR OPTION Corner Treatment Fort Collins, Colorado design Mason Street Urban Design Fort Collins, Colorado a ��`a / • --'r ' ICI I �� ' � . �Il 'y ! j, �'f� IBM "N i —!Is.— Mason Street Urban Design Fort Collins, Colorado DOOR OPTION I. DOOR PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING 3 STORIES Flagpole. typical 71,513 S.F. Flower Pot, typical 5anch, typical Planting Bed, typical MASON STREET Seat Wal, Low Iron Fence Street Light 70 -Bicycle Rack Ornamental Pedestrian Light 6- W] 11 xosrx o r is u Mason Street Urban Design Fort Collins, Colorado Q -1 f- I I I I 0 PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING H - _ 3 STORIES _ � \ _ Flagpole, typical 71,515 S.F. 6' coo Flower Pot, typical ' _ I--j - Bench, typical - Ch[1�-7 Planting Bed, typical H ,\,. MASON STREET seat wall Bicycle Rack Seat Wall Low Iron Fence Street Light Ornamental Pedestrian Light i�u� X02TR o r it u den�o Conceptual Master Plan Fort Collins, Colorado /1 i�u^ NORTH o IT u i,o design No Text MAPLE STREET (PUBLIC) LAPORTE STREET (PUBLIC) /1 romml n lR u 1 ROR}R 0 M N O PROIRCT DEVHLOPMM PLAN _ LIGHTING PLAN CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING FORT COLLINS. COLORADO SHEET 6 OF S DRCRM BER T. 1999 R HWD F H. a ' rrrrrl 11 11 1� rl Ir rl n rl i/ 111 1■ ■1 i \7 .1; a F a N • i;IC M n u Ill ii ii 11 11 norm ii N ME iirl RE MH iiiii RO ME Irrl inl Im IBM in ii u I- �alrrn:i r 11 1 1 �� o h i nr i i mu, ,! aE i of m unmlrn�url;,�url.�ii7� �lll ti'Filaalrrl: urrrurlmlrngllrn n u ii ii i; M1 M ill ii I M ii ii 11 ME Irrl un Irrl ■® ON zip an n n �ulun_�rn�nn I rl Ir rl_ 1li Ii1 Irll 11 J! Irrl Irrl Irrl Irrl Ire: .............. un nn m_m n u u o Inl Irn m Irl nre•; hli�i n 3! n n ': �Irn�liGi�nl�ul��nre•�� PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN _ CONTEXT DIAGRAM FORT COLLINS OFFICE BUILDING FORT COLLIMS. COLOIiADO SHEET 3 OF 6 YLRROARY 1l 3000 F am • sr s. I nvw •an oR x.a min nAIM EAMAU IIn v Nelr.r ... s .a.. •I. w�PY �.1.l.wl..ylti� frN� N Y/1.' 1 r.�r�.HwM ! eu.w rlr yw• yn.lwyrw v � N W yw u �R Y.,.b N.vla Y4�v N �/w T.�iIVI./0►7y1. 1.4T N Y~i� fA91111N ,nR[. nIY M...vy..•W. Y/ Accmw.rr •Y. M.pe .r IRE N YM Ibxrr On.w •Y•r Y ♦aG P ,0.�.•n �• �Y•v fi• iv et nw�ivw•'wln..r Yb PM..w o1yb+...n.w.. ••..v f^ u'ec Y'OG Nl.Iba�W •Y.v ur slm avw�....wra.'rla�. Nl.r na.•s •.... fw Gil xw l.p�i. � F.ya� 4y.� ..11v Yr •�Y .Y.n � Y� F..�a Nr.•svaR•aPpr �Nr fi roc rw• n...... •.Pi m AENCA l IICDm ODECIpY]b 54ApE *F£E OLgJAMEMY *ra;e CFT.fiERp+S *i€E .,u� EEscuE eoo , yNep�..bx....Pwrm.Fa...Y.Ira.la.IF.,. wl—Y iM, b.6�ilYWY.x b M1. Fpgw.WP�M w �,JwaYe Oy .4� Fgyninn nN>Ru pbr In •. )i.vev W. wbro pvnn T PbM1tlN WYIgrtlxM Mwn. rwC 1 .'vvN.�btl b P PtlM NM l• aqN uCv w.li. W .rC 1 P y4eM n pvw.l Y.eb .. Ynb YVY. NII b.rMIO M.I'1.1r �vpyMp.R !M rb� s.�.a,. amv M1P,9M'.'W.pwrw a x rp. I•lb pnM., lOw �ln 1wn.nbwJ.i'.9.•'0 ✓'.e b.ro M,rom IrrMr M..A N.rr.M u,wro 1M Y'.0 P.eM.C.M. wv. M IN. 0.xllvu 64�6. l � v�+r P mope Ira N W aw ✓an I.W x bW a IM pM v. Y1P•LL Pn� v rs.� F M. Pu! R� M Yy ..rxa.FW...__._.I. 4r e.JT Ma.uP lN,v�rv•x.w lv 0.\MY.r MIM M •...IVYb a. c..xxu> owowvl vWUP....11e.rt� ... bFn>•an•n.P. usw.g rw P rw•Pe a •. W a Rx car.w rx...lxa M Y�ra.yw: w. n.. P �IY.Iw) Mcas M r. x r•��•9.9�nuu.+qq. ��w.Pwm�PCbv��v�M�b.Y JTL. ✓nY N PPc W v .ry .r W � erowvtl ,v Yv W vv.x ipl..p,•vgw.tw R LuxR .�.1a.PP^.b Gybw.�fw Pam'. x.•Wrl. N. f0•W rw NII P IMw1 b. r.w lv�. a1 ]O' Irm vu�R 4.6 r�T� ally. MUW a VM IANDWAN CATMOM uox�.E unmle) loll rmvl .••.1 .R.N!•1�M ! >•N! •I YN! 11R! tl! /, I' cAL , r.s' RORIS O or IQ BY PROIDCY DIV®APMUNT PLAN - PIAWMG PLAN CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING FORT C04-11IN9. COLORADO ;u a® SHEET a OF O DECEMBER ]. 1909 RSVISEI) FER. I/'E 1 �in Iff \ I II \� I loft, m LAPORTE R9,.. G.DI. YfIR re r wv®ro CMAIGIm Y wMR QMATGIO rI.IWr fNBI NblGr VICUffff KAIP ^n LAND USE DATA ...cw v.e oc°PrPa wmrea.�ae�oe+.c, .rweY.,Ww nYYv .n.,a.rnYe,eDx..i..� W •rGm� . �nccn w,nm u uw. x. ..•reo . x.o.Go� -vrfm ue..�wr�.on rm na..Ga� nsr r, we r.r.w. se v.ra'wcwee.raa a. a.ernGw w t014 eLiCi! IYtW WI! fiBi y GVLZNALNOTU xmr.a J.»P /mw w wYer«Yi•.isYw Ysti W_�~•~r_1 r�t, .. . OW.rW YY�y Y•Y..•Y'r W. n�w•�✓�� x�iie �ir••Y��wnr wW..�r .ram �� .Yrf...r... ».»..w...-w.. r.y.�wrµ�y grr..cr.wr eY r�sr.•`if1~ MrrO wir.Ni..Y«Yi rrq r�...r Nws vY� �Mrw»wlfWv«W.tiw.Y«!M1 G± N \YY�eer 1r. M M MM Ilw Ilw MIW fJli. w Lw I w /YYrYY..Pv.rMeY YstiW .wr. r•YM�rr /•• LRQAL DescRv77ON OWNUSEOPURrincum M I.ialfOd DC�eM 1C®. G9YfI,' Tu, we ut M IaY,LL DY6e Q• RLL FllTBR1' Df13.lm Gl em MR R/w MG M �l4D. QR,.. M.i IY.Ga1 M fdOrtYltl rG lfllYC,�G! Yl Iul,u w On0 YR Rya tlTO WI.I fLIIW e. rn./imrcw MM.®Y i0lbleY m• Lni.RPK. .imr. M YC.f.OW w,weva Yw YY�rcM_ o ro m e.avY. w v r"'mY�iro ro� �xx W POWW AND ZON M BOARD Clw4LPACATWN frivfD.m s. M r...fYw yo rareu norm a o M an a raer cai.w BOULCTOR OF PLANNM (6�.CD q.1wDY.lCL� [�YYMNW OMGI.OKR1 Gx1M •aven..w ID.If_. I� Ic t.nRl ■ORT■ 0 6 r r PROJECT DL'VVIDPMENT PLAN - SITE PLAN CIVIC CENTER OITICE BUILDING FORT COLLLNS. COLORADO W�1�1�(:1► _a'Ae® .mr v S H 6 S T 1 OF 5 DECRLR[R 1. 1999 N6V1S6D FEB 112000 I RE Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 16 architectural design of the building entrance, and by providing more trees than required. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff recommends approval of the request to modify section 4.12(E)(5)(a) of the LUC. 2. Staff recommends approval of alternative compliance request to section 3.2.1(D)(2) of the LUC. 3. Staff recommends approval of the Civic Center Office Building Project Development Plan, #29-99. Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 15 questions about the alley, and the impacts this project might have on his property. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Civic Center Office Building Project Development. Plan, #29- 99, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The proposed land uses are permitted in the (D) Downtown zone district. 2. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.12 of the Land Use Code, (D) Downtown zone district except 4.12(E)(5)(a) for which a modification is being requested. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code except 3.2.1(D)(2) for which alternative compliance is being requested. 4. The granting of the modification to section 4.12(E)(5)(a) would not be detrimental to the public good because the Transportation Planning staff and Engineering staff have explained that it would be safer for pedestrians to not have the mid -block crossing of Mason Street. 5. The proposed modification request does not impair the primary applicable stated purpose of section 4.12(E)(5)(a), which is to provide for quality development that maintains pedestrian -oriented character, by providing well defined crosswalks at the Laporte/Mason & Maple/Mason intersections: 6. The strict application of section 4.12(E)(5)(a) would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties because the railroad track goes down the center of Mason Street and because the Mason Street Corridor (not designed by the applicant) has a two-way designated bicycle corridor along the west side of Mason Street that is separated from the adjacent automobile and train traffic by a low wall. 7. The alternative compliance request to section 3.2.1(D)(2) accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards by emphasizing the Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 14 (d) Base and Top Treatments [3.5.3(D)(6)] — The elevations depict the required top and base treatments, thereby satisfying this standard. E. Transportation and Circulation [3.6] 1. Master Street Plan [3.6.1] —Laporte Avenue and Mason Street are both identified as arterials on the Master Street Plan. Maple is identified as a local street. The existing right-of-way widths for these streets meet the required standards. 2. Transportation Level of Service Requirements [3.6.4] — A combined Traffic Impact Study was done for all the projected civic center projects (including the Civic Center Parking Structure, the Justice Center, the Civic Center Office Building, the Transit Center, the current Courthouse, the Library and other Government Office Building) in September of 1998. City staff representing Traffic Operations and Transportation Planning have reviewed the TIS in relation to this Project Development Plan and have indicated the transportation Level of Service standards are met for automobile traffic, bicycles, pedestrians. 3. Transit Facilities Standards [3.6.5] — Directly across Mason Street to the east of this site is currently a major Transfort hub called the Downtown Transit Center. This Downtown Transit Center is planned to be expanded to not only accommodate local busses, but also national/regional busses, taxis, and bicycle check-out services. F. Compact Urban Growth Standards [3.7] 1. Adequate Public Facilities [3..7.3] — As required, the level of service standards are satisfied for the following public facilities: transportation, water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, and electrical power. 4. Neighborhood Information Meeting A combined neighborhood information meeting was conducted on September 13, 1999 for this project and the,proposed Transit Center project. Minutes of the neighborhood meeting are attached. There were primarily only questions about how the building will look, stormwater issues, traffic impacts, and the timing of construction. The owner of the glass store just west of this site had a few Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 13 (a) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway [3.5.3(B)(1)] - The main entrance of the building faces and opens directly onto a street sidewalk, thereby satisfying this requirement. (b) Orientation to Build -to Lines for Street -front Buildings [3.5.3(B)(1)] — The building is set back 10 feet from the property line of both Mason Street and Laporte Avenue which is in conformance to the setback requirements along arterial streets. The location of the build -to line allows the building to form visually continuous, pedestrian -oriented street -fronts with no vehicle use areas between the primary building faces and the streets. • Variation in Massing [3.5.3(C)] — The project provides the required variation in massing by integrating changes in height and structural projecting and recessed elements both vertically and horizontally along the building facades. • Character and Image [3.5.3(D)] — (a) Site -Specific Design [3.5.3(D)(1)] - As required the building contributes to the uniqueness of the Civic Center Subdistrict of the Downtown Zoning District. (b) Minimum Wall Articulation [3.5.3(D)(2)] — The building bays are clearly articulated by architectural features such as fenestration patterns, columns, and column -like ribs, thereby providing the required architectural interest and visual variety to the facades. (c) Entrances [3.5.3(D)(4)] — The primary entrance is clearly articulated with a major columned portico -type entry feature and thereby satisfies this standard. Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 12 1. Historic and Cultural Resources [3.4.7] — The new building is in character with existing historic structures of the downtown area, but as required is not an imitation of historic styles. The use of the brick, sandstone, lintels, and articulated cornices help to blend in to the established character of the historic architecture primarily present in the historic commercial store fronts along College Avenue in the downtown area. D. Building Standards [3.5] 1. Building and Project Compatibility [3.5.1] • Architectural Character [3.5.1(B)] — As required, the development is compatible with the established architectural character of the downtown area. • Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale [3.5.1(C)] —As required, the building is similar in size and height to the mass and scale of other structures on adjoining blocks (i.e. Justice Center & Civic Center Parking Structure). • Building Orientation [3.5.1(D)] —The primary fagade and primary entry are oriented toward Mason Street, thereby satisfying this requirement. • Building Materials [3.5.1(F)] — Building materials are similar and compatible to the materials already being use in the neighborhood. Windows are individually defined using a variety of frames, sills and lintels for adequate articulation. • Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment [3.5.1(J)] — Utility meters, mechanical equipment, trash enclosures, transformers, vaults and conduits have all been located to minimize visual impacts, and have been adequately screened. 2. Mixed Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings [3.5.3] • Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking [3.5.3(B)] Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 11 occupancy. The proposed parking lot provides 0.88 parking spaces per 1000 square feet, therefore the plan satisfies this requirement. The on -site parking is intended for fleet parking and customer parking only. Staff parking will be accommodated in the Civic Center Parking Structure. • Handicap Parking [3.2.2(K)(4)] — Based on the total number of parking spaces provided in the parking lot, 3 handicap parking spaces are required. The site plan provides 4, thereby satisfies this requirement. • Parking Stall Dimensions [3.2.2(L)] — All spaces in the proposed parking lot meet or exceed the required minimum parking stall dimensions. 3. Site Lighting [3.2.4] — The lighting design as well as required maximum and minimum lighting levels are in accordance with the requirements of this section. B. Engineering Standards [3.3] 1. Lots [3.3.1(B)] —The general layout of lots, roads, driveways, utilities, drainage facilities and other services are designed in a way that allow in interconnected street system to occur and accomplishes the intent and purposes of the LUC. 2. Water Hazards [3.3.3] — The Stormwater Capital Projects staff has designed and construction is underway for the Howes Outfall which will ultimately be an underground stormwater drainageway that will mitigate much of the flooding of the downtown area. The stormwater development review staff have reviewed the proposed project development plan, ensured that it is coordinated with the Howes Outfall project, and also have ensured that it meets all applicable Stormwater development review standards. 3. Engineering Design Standards [3.3.5] — This project complies with all design standards, requirements, and specifications for all of the commenting departments and agencies. C. Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards [3.4] Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 10 • Access and Parking Lot Requirements [3.2.2(D)] — Vehicles can enter the parking lot from a one way entrance off Mason Street, or from the alley. All exiting vehicle traffic is directed to the alley. Access requirements are therefore met. The parking lot is properly paved, and adequately lit in accordance with this standard. • Parking Lot Layout [3.2.2(E)] — As required in this section, the proposed parking lot addresses the following issues: (a) The circulation routes within the parking lot are well defined. (b) Standard traffic control signs are used to direct traffic where necessary within the parking lot. (c) Landscaped islands with raised curbs are used to define parking lot entrances, the ends of all parking aisles and the location of internal access drives. These islands also provide pedestrian refuge areas and incorporate walkways. (d) Points of conflict between pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles are minimized, and where they conflict, proper crossing enhancements have been provided. (e) As required, there are no parking bays that extend more than fifteen spaces without an intervening landscape island or landscape peninsula. • Setbacks [3.2.2(J)] — The proposed parking lot is setback from the Mason Street and Maple Street by more than 15 feet, and is setback from the alley by more than 5 feet. The parking lot setbacks therefore meet the standard set forth in this section. • Required Number of Spaces for Type of Use [3.2.2(K)] — General office uses allow a maximum of 3 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of gross leasable of the Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 9 bicycle areas by the use of separated sidewalks, grade separations, pavement markings, refuge areas within landscape islands in the parking lot, and designated on - street bike lanes. • Curbcuts and Ramps [3.2.2(C)(2)] —Ramps are located where sidewalks meet the crosswalks at street intersections, where the sidewalks cross driveways, and where sidewalks cross the alley, and therefore this standard is being met. • Bicycle Facilities [3.2.2(C)(4)] —Adequate bicycle parking is being provided in locations and designs consistent with the requirements of this standard. • Walkways [3.2.2(C)(5)] — Walkways within the site directly and continuously connect points of pedestrian origin and destination. Where primary pedestrian ways cross the parking lot, priority is placed on the pedestrian realm by locating the walkways primarily within landscaped islands, and providing painted crosswalks where the walkway crosses parking lot drive aisles. This standard is therefore satisfied. • Direct Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations [3.2.2(C)(6)] — The transit center will be located directly to the east of this site across Mason Street, the Justice Center is located directly to the south of this site, and the employee parking is located in the Civic Center Parking Structure located southeast from the site diagonally across the intersection of Mason Street and Laporte Avenue. Enhanced pedestrian crosswalks are provided across the intersections of both Mason Street and Laporte Avenue to get pedestrians from the site to the destinations listed above. City Hall is located a block to the east of the site. A major east -west pedestrian spine is planned for the mid -block connection of this building to City Hall. The on -site portion of this pedestrian spine is provided. A modification of standard has been requested to the requirement of a mid -block crossing of Mason Street (see comments on Division 4.12 above). Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 8 • Minimum Species Diversity [3.2.1(D)(3)] — Based on the total proposed number of trees of 64, the applicant would be allowed to have up to 16 of any one species, but has only proposed a maximum of 14 of a single species, therefore the landscape satisfies the minimum species diversity requirement. • Foundation Plantings [3.2.1(E)(2)(d)] — All high visibility sections of building walls have planting beds at least 5 feet in width along more than 50% of the high -visibility walls. The landscape plan therefore satisfies the foundation plantings requirement. • Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping [3.2.1(E)(4)] — The parking lot abuts both Maple Street and Mason Street. Trees are provided along the parking lot's frontages with these two streets at the required ratio of one tree per 25 lineal feet of street frontage. The parking lot is also screened by plant material along the alley by shrubs in accordance with the requirements of this section. The landscape plan therefore satisfies the parking lot perimeter landscaping requirement. • Parking Lot Interior Landscaping [3.2.1(E)(5)] — The parking lot area on the site plan is required to devote at least 6% of the area of the parking lot to landscaped areas. The proposed parking lot devotes 8.3% of its area to landscaped areas. • Screening [3.2.1(E)(6)] — Landscape and building elements are placed to adequately screen areas of low visual interest and visually intrusive site elements including the loading dock and trash enclosure areas. • Utilities [3.2.1(K)] —The required separations are provided between trees and utilities (street lights, underground water lines, underground sewer lines, etc.). 2. Access, Circulation and Parking [3.2.2] • Safety Considerations [3.2.2(C)(1)] —As required, pedestrian areas are separated from vehicle areas and Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 7 in not being requested (providing 30 foot spacing where 40 foot spacing would otherwise satisfy the spacing criteria). (b) Staff agrees with the applicant that providing an unobstructed view corridor to the main entrance from Mason Street will enhance the visual quality and continuity within and between developments. Adjacent and nearby developments include the transit center to the east, the Civic Center Parking Structure to the southeast, the Justice Center to the south, and City Hall to the west. (c) The issues of screening and mitigation of potential conflicts, the enhancement of outdoor spacing, the reduction of stormwater runoff, and the mitigation of air pollution are all equally well addressed with the same given number of trees regardless of whether two of the trees are located in front of the main entrance or elsewhere on the site. Section 3.2.1(N)(2) Alternative Compliance Review Criteria states that "in reviewing the proposed alternative plan for the purposes of determining whether it accomplishes the purposes of this Section, the decision maker shall take into account whether the alternative. preserves and incorporates existing vegetation in excess of minimum standards, protects natural areas neighborhood continuity and connectivity, fosters nonvehicular access, or demonstrates innovative design and use of plat materials and other landscape elements." Because the reason for the alternative compliance request is to emphasize the architectural design of the building entrance, and because the alternative plan provides more trees than otherwise would have been required to be provided, staff has determined that the proposed alternative plan does in fact demonstrate innovative design and use of landscape elements. Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 6 well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of this section. The applicant has intentionally left out street trees in the area adjacent to the main entrance along Mason Street in order to emphasize a significant level of architectural detail of the entry architecture. There are no physical constraints that would prevent the standard from being met. The applicant is seeking alternative compliance for the tree spacing standard to create an unobstructed view of the main building entrance from Mason Street. The street tree standard requires the applicant to provide street trees at least every 40 feet in the parkway between the building and Mason Street. Mitigation is provided in two ways. First, although the spacing can be as far apart as 40 feet spacing intervals, the applicant is proposing the street trees in the remaining area between the building and Mason Street to be spaced at 30 foot spacing intervals. Second, the applicant is provided additional trees around the on -site water quality pond. The "purpose" of the section to which the alternative compliance language refers, is listed in Section 3.2.1(B), which states, "the intent of this Section is to require preparation of landscape and tree protection plans that ensure significant canopy shading to reduce glare and heat build-up, contribute to visual quality and continuity within and between developments, provide screening and mitigation of potential conflicts between activity areas and site elements, enhance outdoor spaces, reduce erosion and stormwater runoff, and mitigate air pollution. Staff has determined that the alternative design satisfies the purposes of this Section equally well as a plan that satisfies the standards: (a) Glare and heat build-up are reduced equally well, on the average across the site, with a redistribution of more than the required minimum amount of trees in various locations across the site. The heat build-up along the Mason Street sidewalk will be addressed by having a tighter tree spacing in the areas where alternative compliance Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 5 design for the Mason Street Corridor (not designed by the applicant) has a two-way designated bicycle corridor along the west side of Mason Street that is separated from the adjacent automobile traffic lane by a low wall. The transportation planning department has made it clear that a mid -block crossing in this location would not work well with the bike lane and low wall design. 3. Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Site Planning and Design Standards [3.2] 1. Landscaping and Tree Protection [3.2.1] • Full Tree Stocking [3.2.1(D)(1)(c)] — Full tree stocking is required in all landscaped areas within 50 feet of any building along high use or high visibility sides. Full tree stocking is formal or informal groupings of trees planted at 30' to 40' spacing intervals for canopy shade trees, or at 20' to 30' spacing intervals for coniferous evergreens or ornamental trees. The proposed site plan satisfies this standard. • Street Trees [3.2.1(D)(2)] — The applicant is requesting alternative compliance to Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code where it states, "whenever the sidewalk is separated from the street by a parkway, canopy shade trees shall be planted at thirty-foot to forty -foot spacing (intervals) in the center of all such parkway areas. Such street trees shall be placed at least eight (8) feet from the edges of driveways and alleys, and forty (40) feet away from any street light." Section 3.2.1(N)(1) Alternative Compliance. Procedure states that upon the request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative landscape plan in lieu of a landscape plan that meets the standards of this section if the decision maker finds that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 4 The applicant argues and staff concurs that eliminating the east -west civic spine mid -block pedestrian crossing across Mason Street would not be detrimental to the public good. Transportation Planning staff and Engineering staff have explained that it would be safer for pedestrians to not have the mid - block crossing in this location, therefore the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. The applicant argues and staff concurs that the granting of the modification would not impair the intent and purposes of the LUC. The "purpose" of the section for which the modification is requested, states in section 4.12(A) of the LUC, "The Downtown District is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, office and cultural uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing.... The development standards for the Downtown District are intended to encourage a mix of activity in the area while providing for quality development that maintains a sense of history, human -scale and pedestrian -oriented character." The intent to provide a pedestrian -oriented character is not impaired by the granting of the modification request because the alternative plan provides well defined cross- walks at the Laporte Avenue/Mason Street and Maple Street/Mason Street intersections. The provided crosswalk locations are not as direct as the mid -block crossing would be, however the pedestrian -oriented character of the project is not impaired with the alternative design. The east -west "Civic Spine" is shown in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan to cross Mason Street at a mid - block location half way between Laporte Avenue and Maple Street. The applicant argues, and staff concurs that there are two reasons why this pedestrian crossing is not possible. The first reason is that there is a railroad track that goes down the center of Mason Street, and the railroad company has made it very clear that they do not want pedestrians to cross the tracks in any location other than at the designated crosswalks at street intersections. The second reason is that the Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29-99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 3 B. Dimensional Standards [4.12(D)(2)] — The Project Development Plan complies with the required lot dimensions, FAR, setbacks, and height restrictions. The PDP meets the applicable Development Standards [4.12(E)] as follows: A. Facades [4.12(E)(2)] — The proposed facades comply with these requirements because there are no blank walls proposed, because the building is designed to promote outdoor activity in an entry arcade/courtyard, and because the windows are individually defined. B. Site Design [4.12(E)(3)] — As required, parking lots to not dominate the frontage of Mason Street or Laporte Avenue which are both pedestrian -oriented streets. The parking lot is located in the side yard (north side) of the building. C. Special Provisions — Civic Center Subdistrict [4.12(E)(5)] • Civic Spine [4.12(E)(5)(a)] - The applicant is requesting a modification to Section 4.12(E)(5)(a) of the Land Use Code where it states, 'All development shall incorporate the concept of the `civic spine' as described in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan, allowing for continuous north -south and east -west pedestrian connections." Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code states that the Planning and Zoning Board may grant a modification request if they find that the granting of the modification would: (a) not be detrimental to the public good, and (b) not impair the intent and purposes of the LUC, and (c) by reasons of extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, provided that such difficulties are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan # 29=99 March 2, 2000 P & Z Hearing Page 2 5. The alternative compliance request to section 3.2.1(D)(2) accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of this section. COMMENTS: Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: D (Civic Center Subdistrict); Maple Street, Vacant city owned property, S: D (Civic Center Subdistrict); La Porte Avenue, Larimer County Justice Center, City and County office buildings, SE: D (Civic Center Subdistrict); Intersection of La Porte Avenue & Mason Street, Civic Center Parking Structure, D (Old City Center Subdistrict); Retail, offices, municipal court, E: D (Civic Center Subdistrict); Mason Street, existing rail road tracks & railroad switch, historic freight depot, restaurant, retail, car wash, city offices, W: D (Civic Center Subdistrict); existing retail, city offices, Washington Park, City Hall, The property is located in block 32 of the original City of Fort Collins which was platted in January, 1873. 2. Division 4.12 of the Land Use Code. (D) - Downtown Zone District The proposed use of "offices" are permitted in the Civic Center Subdistrict of the (D) - Downtown zoning district subject to Type 1 administrative review (this application is being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board due to a request for a modification of a standard to the LUC, and because the building is larger than 50,000 square feet). The PDP meets the applicable Land Use Standards [4.12(D)] as follows: A. Floor Area [4.12(D)(1)] — Because the total proposed floor area is greater than fifty thousand square feet the Project Development Plan is subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. ITEM NO. 7 MEETING DATE 3 2 00_ STAFF Troy Jones City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: APPLICANT: Civic Center Office Building, Project Development Plan, #29-99 Roger Sherman BHA Design 4803 Innovation Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: City of Fort Collins Project Manager - Jack Gianola 117 Mason Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: fo y�(o/ao �j 155'L5 to C;J;( 5PIy-& Z\ Sit lfaS 3iJDtf'eL+ Arce5s +o 5 i c M cl.e Pt S+I"0+tPAS This is a proposal to build a 71,515 square foot office building at the northwest corner of Mason Street and La Porte Avenue. Because of the size of the building, it will be subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. The site is in the Civic Center Sub -district of the (D) - Downtown Zoning District. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1. The proposed land uses are permitted in the (D) Downtown zone district. 2. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.12 of the Land Use Code, (D) Downtown zone district except 4.12(E)(5)(a) for which a modification is being requested. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code except 3.2.1(D)(2) for which alternative compliance is being requested. 4. The modification request to section 4.12(E)(5)(a) satisfies the requirements and criterion established in 2.8.2(H) for the granting of modifications. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT