HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROMONTORY - PDP - 32-99 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - MODIFICATION REQUESTparking stalls and signage to designate fire lanes, as was recently
permitted in our similar mixed office -residential project immediately to the
north (Landings Bay).
Lastly, I would invite you to consider a thoughtful paradigm suggested to
me by a staff member (thanks), which. I think is relevant to this project and
helps us explain and understand it conceptually:
The residential community has three buildings (F, A and B) with
reasonable street frontage.
Behind these three buildings is a common backyard (park -
courtyard), and to the rear of property garages, carriage house (E) and
two alley buildings (D and C). These garages, carriage house and alley
buildings cannot be served by the street, but are instead served by an
alley -private drive.
We respectfully ask for your favorable consideration and approval of our
requested modifications. Thank you.
Sincerely,
, President
Enclosure
JP/kw
r,
and playgrounds to the south and Post Office, retail, and office
to the north and west.
e. Promoting excellence in design and construction of planned
office parks, buildings, outdoor spaces, and streetscapes.
Incorporating innovative architecture and planning concepts
including: front and back roof step-down design; symbiotic
relationship between small office and residential communities;
central park -courtyard concept merging landscape, hardscape,
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses; interesting building
elevations; and aesthetic building frontages.
g. Providing sense of community and quality of life, which are
inherent in and flow from the essential elements of the project:
a) small office park community with buildings juxtaposed relative
to parking and each other, b) small residential community
comprised of five residential buildings and a carriage house
surrounding a central park -courtyard which merges landscape,
hardscape, pedestrian and vehicle uses, and c) symbiotic
relationship between the two.
Modification Request #3 — Red Painted Curbs and White Painted
Parking Stall Lines
It is our strongest wish that the courtyard portion of the residential project
be successful as an aesthetic pedestrian -friendly area integrating
landscape, hardscape, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses.
In addition to other design features, we feel it is imperative to not introduce
-- - ugly, white painted parking stall lines into this scored colored concrete
courtyard area and the environment we are creating. Zoning has
approved alternative parking lot demarcation by means of three score
lines.
Also we do not want red fire lane lines to be painted in either the
residential courtyard or the office parking lot. They are unsightly and
unnecessary. The fire lane route will be just as apparent with signage but
without the red curbs. The fact that the fire lane is not for parking is also
naturally apparent, because the fire lane -travel lane will be a straight -
through route on black asphalt in contrast to scored concrete parking -
courtyard areas (in residential portion of project).
Accordingly we respectfully request your approval to allow us to use
variations in the parking lot scoring as our method for defining these
5
Introducing a new street connecting to Troutman is not possible because
of separate ownership of the parcel to the south of the project which
blocks access to Troutman. Furthermore, the "blocking parcel" contains a
ditch that would require a bridge which would probably not be worth the
expense. And also a street to the south would interfere with the required
storm water detention pond location and design.
An internal loop street was also investigated but does not look worthwhile
in terms of space consumed vis-a-vis pedestrian connectivity gained, and
it would result in a new intersection too close to Troutman.
So, the only way to meet the standard would be to set the entire building
program up along Boardwalk, either by stacking into taller, elevator
buildings, or by eliminating any building program that isn't up along
Boardwalk. Staff informs me that neither of these drastic changes to
conventional building programs was ever intended for a lot like this one.
Rather, staff tells me that the intent is to extend the street system and then
arran a the building program around it, which again is not possible in this
case.
The lack of connecting walkways to "back yard buildings" C and D is
compensated by the detailing of the drive and parking areas to be as
comfortable and generous for pedestrians as possible while
accommodating vehicles.
In summary, the front buildings relate fairly directly to the street, and the
rear buildings need to be considered as non -ideal rear -yard dwellings
accessed by an enhanced alley -like drive.
Furthermore our plan achieves the purposes and addresses community
needs by:
a. Providing for a community need for moderately priced housing.
b. Providing housing immediately adjacent to offices in project and
nearby to many other workplaces.
c. Providing internal pedestrian connectivity and permeability by
means of the central park -courtyard design integrating
landscape, hardscape, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses.
d. Providing pedestrian connectivity to the street sidewalks along
Boardwalk, Landings and Troutman, which give access to parks
:f
e. Promoting excellence in design and construction of planned
office parks, buildings, outdoor spaces, and streetscapes.
f. Incorporating innovative architecture and planning concepts
including: front and back roof step-down design; symbiotic
relationship between small office and residential communities;
central park -courtyard concept merging landscape, hardscape,
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses; interesting building
elevations; and aesthetic building frontages.
g. Providing sense of community and quality of life, which are
inherent in and flow from the essential elements of the project a)
a small office park community with buildings juxtaposed relative
to parking and each other, b) a small residential community
comprised of five residential buildings and a carriage house
surrounding a central park -courtyard which merges landscape,
hardscape, pedestrian and vehicle uses, and c) a symbiotic
relationship between the two.
Modification Request #2 — No Connecting Walkways
The Residential Building Standards provisions of the LUC require that
"every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a
connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than 200 feet from a
street sidewalk." [Section 3. 5. 2 (C) (1)]
We hereby request that this standard be modified to allow dwellings with
no connecting walkways for the reasons that a) the granting of the
modification would not be detrimental to the public good or impair the
intent and purposes of the LUC, b) our proposal as submitted will advance
the public interests and the purposes of the standard equally well or better
than a plan that complies with the standard, c) the granting of the
modification would result in substantially addressing important community
needs and d) the extraordinary physical conditions and situation unique to
property would result in practical difficulty and undue hardship if standard
is strictly applied.
The unusual, difficult shape of this existing lot makes compliance
infeasible in the rear portion of the lot. Any developer of this lot will have a
big back yard area that can't relate directly to a street.
This rear portion of the site cannot effectively relate to Boardwalk; it is
more than 200 feet away.
3
meaning that office and multi -family developments sit between residential
neighborhood development and the highway commercial corridor).
This plan fits this context, and doesn't take a bite out of any significant
employment opportunities. The 28% "excess" secondary use (53% vs.
25%) is only 1.42 acres of gross area and 25,648.56 square feet of
building. This answers the standard of "no harm to the public good."
We believe the proposed mix of housing and offices is as good or better
than a mix with a little less housing. The mixed -use intent of City Plan and
the zoning is achieved. We understand the standard and its origins in the
Harmony Corridor Plan process.
The housing is integral to an office park containing primary uses, as called
for. Beyond this basic standard for the development plan, the housing is
complementary to the larger mixed -use area that includes C Commercial
as well as E Employment District areas. In other words, this is a good
location for in -town housing close to several hundred non -retail and retail
businesses within reasonable walking or cycling distance.
Also, this odd -shaped E District infill property is strategically positioned
between retail, office, bank and post office uses to the west, single family
residential to the east and apartments to the south. Our plan will better
achieve the objective of mixed use in this situation, coupled with sensitive
transition between retail, banking and post office to the west, and existing
residential to the east than would a plan, which was required to comply
with the standard.
In addition our plan achieves LUC purposes and addresses community
needs by:
a. Providing for a community need for moderately priced housing.
b. Providing housing immediately adjacent to offices within project
and nearby to many other workplaces.
c. Providing internal pedestrian connectivity and permeability by
means of the central park -courtyard design integrating
landscape, hardscape, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle uses.
d. Providing pedestrian connectivity to the street sidewalks along
Boardwalk, Landings and Troutman, which give access to parks
and playgrounds to the south and Post Office, retail and office to
the north and west.
Lagunitas Promontory, Inc.
3307 S. College Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-226-5000 • FAX 970-226-5125
April 12, 2000
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Re: Promontory/Modification Requests
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members:
Introduction
Promontory is a unique transitional project encompassing five small office
buildings, and six small residential buildings (7-8 units per building). The
offices buffer the existing High Pointe residential neighborhood and
provide a transition to Post Office and commercial uses to the west. Also,
the offices provide supplemental parking spaces for the residences
weekends and nights on an easement basis, however in all other respects
the residential neighborhood is separate and autonomous from the office
portion of the project. The property's zoning is E District (employment).
Modification Request #1 — 25% Secondary Uses
The land use standards for E District [Section 4.22 (D) (2)] require that
residential uses shall occupy no more than 25% of the total gross area of
the development plan.
We hereby request that the residential uses (building coverage, parking
and drives) proposed for this property be allowed to occupy approximately
53% of the total gross area of the development plan for the reasons that a)
the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public
good or impair the intent and purposes of the LUC, b) our PDP proposal
as submitted will advance the public interests and the purposes of the
standard equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard,
and c) the granting of the modification would result in substantially
addressing important community needs.
The ratio of 47% to 53% is as good as 75% to 25% because this is not a
crucial E district set aside for important employment uses and it is the
best -fitting zoning for a mostly pre-existing transitional area (transitional