Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
215 MATHEWS OFFICE BUILDING - PDP - PDP150020 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS
515 IT). w�E 3 wa wWI➢ nooravi M x nameuE aw (D DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING 9 W TtlX"O omw wr ww W& �r m' ,r" mria�mMaa'� mtiloWa .. aAaEA WwS: Wwn�ic�0mx rx �R1ER flila n PERENNIAL/ORNAMENTAL GRASS PLANTING WWW6 YfM d /Il W9 !tll NL 111Q5 W WIII ql Pm61R1V1 11V/i1C /AfAi Roar CRpw T' x EIa M CDIX. Y a m®1 IMm CR.➢C. IEYV�[ wnc 116 AID wOM I �. em waan. ran of wean J roe[ furw Wal fIWSN cnrtt. S�svanxE wrtrwi -coanTcrto wxwa[. Iµ x WINWl oW EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING B OwAx a.. axwlm �O O FaIVL rlswgxw C SHRUB PLANTING 0 TRIANGULAR SHRUB SPACING P MNE PLANTING J K"..0 RN KMY w cm IOP IIIRf Nyf $4105IONf G'P Tw 6'1111K%wmM PNCNI® SNIO.SIOY bPStd[ 1 PLYIIIIO NFA SNIP CN 011 fA'[IUNF➢ 1 f00[ SNp$IOY [MStpif IIIII i� II 1 1 III II 1 1 I I I I r $film sNm I I I i11 1 1 1 III I 1 1 1 1 I I I11� I I I III I I 1 1 III I I I I I I III 1 gtwn 12" SANDSTONE EDGER I I I III II 1 1 III SOEIWGG II III A, WI • 1]' 0.0 Y NO SR IMR) oxnNif Yxc z t. LW. Y OC Y/6- " m 11' NOk2difN Irt. ILL11tY FMOC. LW. YMIS CFOSIFD CRNEI CND SIBiUOC li' O.0 fA MT summ Y)R: f1605N1 LdCR1F f/RS LO XNH � SM% Pf'OI 8 CONCRETE WALL P�,N„My rvan6o Nrn LF. Y ■C a•LOP N/ m O KLM $(� I. 9WIMf Rl 9f VAS M MOfN iPpl !' YN RI I!' WA. 8N1 C 810SWALE a' 9PW i IZ_ 5 IeN �l a Pal 6 xSw �1 B16SMIE. i hlt'/.% t 4 MILL UfRp/rtn IlI�IEHa � � . � WR s eqa ,tfw•�y �a Iu/]u RSOIF/dl1[eM6 O Me � FS]IC clef fi lF1Yll anvec rmo rea 6-e' ®9t SeME � � Y bL - 4reF IRE � � yeFv- Pv,MI mRnRc IemSfdPlSG®PL - nPrul m Vtex Ne IgnY.Mt INNSNo 9991mES SYIm arRf �lE Pa w soars 0 AIIifRw YMIlOeel R'atelep eN4e e' M. Be0 I]�]e' ]-� PMI PNIlriF]1a54J5 51.111 aCKRS MRa]aR I G4. W. �� ml.11C YWpy®' QMl6pN'YSIW! fAFPLR S19Y il1NlC WI[ fLYM NY[ 9R Fl SirdAl' HRIMYS RL9mI (o y r mOUR ael x' a w so-w ss-u xre xaa[aI xr].ewlcl axueRxP ca. xl' IV (eaux s]u 51/Mf) s cr. x-s ]-s 'slew Mac. a RHIrz' ]Ru RORRawus HMor RFN96 wrur i rx. le-lr le-xl' � m TV MMR INMwNSR 9IGt pO[FBFAW a eL 6-r 'xlPPr r�nwFs' P-fi � rmoRsl �mnR su Pw v¢ s sI� Ia >n' O. f➢asl[IM WfI- wv. In ] A ls• m W e-Is a-Ir (Ma^-""� omsonweus H9rsfay]s ewr a�f eH s 9& ]r xr we ]wlgoars Oq.O1M I 'pNlONOx a116911 9\C OW. 15 p. W 10-]N I]-lf' c9wwaala I RtM m rwlxr]c MMR I a ad l-Y Q .owon rnrmea drawswlm]en I]-crW lass Io-ls 'evxxrx' ]em ws (Iuo-srt]q o PNL1M Mw.nr sncleMss 19lL r r n OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN a ux m so Dear eoc I s x-Y x-> LP103 IRS ,'�'.F.'}{�'�'.. IRS HSLUBUOAS4 r' Ya yn0 awMlc Mp YEd i/:�-i_'1, 1, 1-r a®[ 5•Yi nRHEIrt ONER Fret "CASK* T \ l fMIgx 5N%DE ME $D• cr_ - al• & IHf ESFAImfx m NYMI Mw plwll IYY Yd YI. SNStl TY OOLESaS YYAPNPe .. $' G W W-W aMSMY11�>� l O. aE51pM HO-YE1odM Hl Y]]LW AKI IS• a1 W FIr ("'E EY) e O gn%a5 x'dYRLMOY WIRd 9•E Ovl Is- (L NS bSr Or1Mwx rMNmt$ vYmu veR®en Is CW BARl0-Ir WIT L-Y IHMAFY IRIS 15 0 AMOWIS SmSAPEN IIHQWO YLUWD AMFVI r M. W Il-r] $i' *4 IA4 KLWaE3RR[6 lE o mpR Haag x[1Hn' EE1sr awr oo$roGa s aE, 1-S 1-$' Y ] b Aa•E5 IIONRL'@lA N/tx OS.At®En S GAL 5-r HY 9 O MIr16\ KMY.HW YA FH Wr 5 61, 'r 311• L-Y A TOY( 1 • CIResoNWe MV EosvS HA' HU IMHIWIISx s Ul 1e• %' K-L w Nwmoslis Pxu.Evrg Wes• 11 • fNMYIiT'616 I KURLPU AMYNrI[ HA1HA 1 PL 1-5, 1-Y Y 'ANYAH1c am Gass N O RMRLN M Tw 5YI(NYp4 1 pL r i L 11 o TAWS BI1n•MAw N$ RN CARRY Smlr I aA. $-S $-S I-M 11 NU aAnrllOtrt9]S EM SWKRS 14K Sr. L-Y PM 0,. 1RY1W1' MREC a@Ei1 aE�Y$ I5 ASx Ip1LfGA IAOBaWZ LtllxbE 1 tlt. $1' I!' l-Y 'wm NG• M IEI a' IS YlY KAKXXII '1M9/ aMbR' I ETAe DAUY 1 EL W'11, 16-N' mt. 2 a a A LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE AND NOTES (NNE � MIa xAIP Ybi] OYEn I RW (RAFf Ni q Wk M S i H 1-WH W W I I,rYUr -WE H MM1 DETEM Of xCIWt HxM ww. iw mwl wD 9 NSOnMII TO M SKMS AS HUED M M Wkx M.tl'MIYM P I is" mown mEmSEM tvm) SIMESNRS All WES sR&E H AI AM] Y.HN W toEwxr. I R St. H GAL 0 EEL 1 MYAnd ML IN6bR NR6 MIIF nF 9rt MOHIL Mf. 9M6 HPS MO IEf MQAS PHl H NHA]U I,OH Sr. IC Hl. 10.11Y 4Y. NM M MnasH Mprp MRY IH MfNRx aM Yin H RnE.to MR rw+%tn T w nn H ran cause MIER ohms HIMMMI mRNcf a A m mL .FS5 YWM 10 MIS. R NaOxNnmIOMAC4 M NM M IHMC V SISTER RAM SEEM D TOTAL NO E 1]11 VL U. sIWI H MIa Nm Moo,c N (DRCtlr) Plp S,I(Y, W 911H MI I[nFlNle . = 1,U1 Sf. NM M NRMp nN6 M RH.UGx Mnx 9H1 H MMRO m Efl MRIWJM MAOEW CAI S MR Sr. - dla6 Nx 5xl aY./I!. TS Exa a M MAIW MMII 14 NY[E IRR gd/ID]NI P N(A5 , mrR 11M1 fi 41PS0 PIYC dxSdCip ICINn 9R1 E ] IW91: m M VAIN QR111 ftl 6 K � N/A )kS It (pEAKD rW US W MAS 4allMf aKarAND MR LVSI3IPM' IRHM - IISIr P SIYp PnS, BM�IME. RAM 4Na11, SID Ytl 1. SW MOAMS SW MIDIaAlIIS 511N1 E MT10m 4R COGMPHD N I[LGDNAi MiN LOY fGH SECOd MI H .IC NRSPrt A A RW W M CCMi INx a v IMRHY OTERR rim IRO M 0. A [6bG W THt Eow* IET1gD. AT aRr]R (IDm) satyr Far a WE A NTIp mlWSr E Emall,IIRRoj;Ky JUpIr ImSOm MO n-lu. a Ia sa]n 1p Imf ANnca MM M] IMllsruOF rW T. ANs R]OOERM Ifl H Oatll, E wmws MR LMW IaRll m OTHER d aLMIrS MM L11aSp1N SYIL E WMIMxD WE FROM OIrASr, r . EEE6S MR LniMt MM ML LNOaM SIII RA'WS sad M mra MR E SW41 E 4NYEO MR Ep1aN MROOCNtr TO YYIrMR . smrnwuY SOIrR CA W`XX, 1 4nxt]oE: Nn LMRsnMx orlon My 1Es W fi onER•fi[ IE1YlnD. aru E mranr xAYnD x HtDIYYQ MIN Im vis ie a nfE RAr6 x M ra]aFc S[PMMIIma6 swt E Ao.Rm ErrtA M[5/RMns NIO unmEs 10 RI MiMLY om IREE$ MR SHEET Od15 IS HFI EIYEd "NNOND 1REt AIDWRE TEE A m R EIASRI OM AND ARIL Mao S.HMii NR TEEM MARK WM IN6 E FEET EIEEEI TIFFSSM ARTS' CHID AND FR nNDY SEMA H E ES 1 For E1REI RKES ND 0.HC CiW MO VHIMN MR Sm1Y Hl[Y IN6 1 REr ElEEE1 m}3 .NR fAs INFS E. M] 31.l( 11R$ SMxI E AIHO A YIMY [RM (A) Mr .MY rRalN M fOr6 H PMINYS MO MIFK t91 Im 11.1f$a)ME 16 (TW OF II H M] LINI0515TIM SMNI E N .YIdpIE2 AIIX M flan HSINIGf plEaS AS HFCIra H M CII'/ 6 Nn [OLLNS IR 51NCIWEi HI UNd^.'m EIap15 WU1FA MW 11• S1WL E NIGED NIWN M SAD ORLWY mrllaF W FAEIrM15 YM M ❑114YIIRN H HWAI mE IAOAED OtN M lOMSr 0911E)1 6 Al UAsr C' flAl dME. MM iRIf6 MOM M flan O6TMQ mYAAf W (NSFIf1n Yet E N1H 14R MM IT N Im11 MR 6 M ffp E591 11. trios mA srra ARAS IIR LY6M'MNG MOM Rpn H AYa sMEr YIW4 NEE EMrt C%Sa Aorcon m otrp WEE ova wM xr 4DIIE®m E w$mrEn T . IMOArIr aNrlfi IsoaAra M fPOAx1Y HYl6 ASSaCN1xM 6 RSIVRHE id 91'JY EMMM d NL .OWFM TmEI 9OEWIa NR d Nl OaE1YK. AMR lxMf2 MO PIHdO MUS IRnM M OA(IOAlalr. I} M HKla91 SWLL FIMm oar M rWL LYpaIP[ RM 6 mHRWRO ENx Ml 0111a rYlll AUX [IfIEM15 w Iwi MAA/V40 Wpr SYIFY NWNH, NR aI1N1 EIr1MOrt tlrU[YMS W xOr O]YSCI YM wY Mta1A reuu.nGNl NR wNrtwAri a dRHirt rlRldls d ra nYN 1] YMM fHxIH.S M SIFflS MO ANn mGlxE6 WY E 111H tlENi m161HIGiRx -- d aallm T 511E NIpR16 M RNII MT/A]IY QSNIl OaYOIn, a]xllr, MR Eip CAYRA Yes E naesRln rIO1 M N111MEO ANtS. tE M a PMICI rIM M aYM114S KIWD N M A,WS L61. SHCIa NR aYVlll6 W61MRO 51WUK AUCm. NL OYNHS a PVM sAP6 rND lnGmx Ym INK MLfICY MImIM M M orr PaOR IS ERTM1.A1304. Il NL OUMN- EW SWll E YILbrD 10 A wYN HIM E nAFE NO(5. IS RRELSRD Rl6 SWLL E RIAs EUaM55/RMIrJtY HUOV55 MBIED AEKAH W .A4HF0 FOWL 10. NqR HrEEEII GAt4 YIR S1MIB EDS SrY1L E Ir x 1' SR6 Sn Iflfl •IM mR P Sm W 1RMMD I��YAI H OBIAHD M1 M Lin Na$IER ENE Nn rRES W SMRS M HO1N d ra iS.xl A4 PUNlEO, raEm W NpITEO N M PIIBIIC gpll-H-wY. ra Mnlla6 tdF] EIAFDI M SOEAMA Axa wle Irorle .rR onu an NGREnr. ra rRMn swu MxmR M muip MR slEas m E n.MrtD. rMlm ro aHYM ra REnn fi A warp a M an a iPn gxtNS mH warn m WAmN (ffC1aN 1. moon nr Gm N45RR m NSan Mt snmr rat AMnErs Ar M nHRRfrnl H EAd mDa a M EK16UM. ALL Yer H IIPIIfD AS 4RRl d M WRSfMF aNL MINPBI 6 Slats FEET aMI1Ma 6 aHIAm Ema Alw MWEYI P f/Ol AYSF. ]. 511RFr I.MIFL'Plan ExllHr SmFT 1aF5. 9W1 E SfIECIN M .[QYDVIE NM 1LL Pn CrM6 MR r'nuli NL HEC AYIEM- AIO RENIPnL VWxT SIIY] E aatlOtD T A Pn 6 iWl LH1M5 ICa6N A®]R$ MF4 EPEVD M CASICSIREr IFQS SMML E APRID YlR P1IMim T M LtSfLlPE11 Ilvllls A OI]NfrO dR51'1.1a Cd SC .. M HKiaP SIII 4R/2 GEED W OIM" flair IAEES KEEP P STREF WEE M1l WM Lta W BE MA1 m' a. KI M M [m 6 K m D NaSIM d6p Nl SNOW To N M MG[n W51 a [STARHED AIM M IV Df SrF[4 NR -- .0 IT TR CGAMAN NOW E N ABRED E. ]. DRW il APANSMi l M N DDRS -- TWIr arf IHArMR O E TRM m.IXaMpM.R cE,Ww 10GOIOIe, RE1O TICMI.O ED ET•EY ST Safi SEEMS MR SOQO lane. RIST rR(B ro E IMSS A R M ON 6 H M IH m M [YS rUSIMP TIVI 53rs RRDS. d aMl YOT E MSINtm IMIIS A IQeI[rp 6 .1TRTfD M M On m EE St➢NWp SDnaxMS. A ifM IWS E ARE M r•d Man R NEW Elar AM mss W SIML6 M NOTED d ra AM .R PL•nm, REED q Eap.[D M M p= ROxI-H-16Y. ra NRWFS MORE ElEall M SREIIYx MR AN M NR ODG [m TO ORDER. ra TERM 5MNt YRNOE M E M O FO T= S E I SEAIAE fED 10 (STATION m6 M 27- r A NOMy O M tln H rdl OR R mE DREE m al D O (ECIIGM TE OF MR Wr N50 ESHI N Efl/LI6 W R]LNa1516 il�.t AIR A mm d HMIidR H aauwlL.. TV J REMOVE GRO% Of SIBERIA ELM TREE TREE PROTECT x WITS. 9. ME I%STMULHM R OUTES, Iwlf#ICM LK9 OR AM INA[INKIRRD fRINd RWMING (XXJPAT M GEEPER TYN SI] (B) R SNNL AI ACtMPt5RD W BURNS WXR TF ROOF SYSTEM O F OIECRD EIOS1N16 FIFES I Na flMTING ORES 111MIN ONE LHMS GE W DAIl0f0R YO MAIN MY NOMM AEA StfiER ZONES yWL AT A Y:RNY RPIN OF 11101Y-Epq (]I) "S ME M fl RBF 5 ESDdSI(O fRW M ENE OF Ef R Aw BE PROTECTED MESS NOIEp Om "'ESE PLWS FOR R)"NAL FREE (WRR HYN) NO R SE/lED FAIR EFU OWRIER If BR/ST fIEN]fl M DESCRIBED N Mf HART HLA. ]. f(Rw TIE DIW LORE OF ANF PROECTED EXAMIG IRE. THERE Swu BE NO CUF OR FR1 OVER A FOR-01(li WE CMIFRR AT ,,ER WARE FROI DEPTH (MESS A O.YLPIE) AROORIST 0 FOESTEP INS EVAUATED ANO MPROdED ME OBILt LE wRl NEIOR 1eR]F55 FNY O TR[ (Rn1 S. NL PROECIFD E10 W WES SHML BE PRUNED TO T4 CITY O FORT COWNS FOASSTRY SWYwRDS TREE 0-2 I J-1 ] FRDNK w FEUDAL Sli)u BE PEFVDWED 9, A BUSINESS MEAT NODS A CURRENT CBY O F00 COWNs 5-9 5 /iAIfRST LICENSE V EFV REONRE➢ B CM ID -IA 10 A POOR TO AND DURING CO51RLllOf. BARR16 51141 BE ERRED Ngltt9 NL PIRJLECTED EXITING WES STIR 15-19 n 19 15 R1CN BERM M SE OfONNGE F CAG A NNIWV OFWN FR (1) FEET N , SECOED RIM USUALMR T-POSTS. MI CIDSER RSAN SO (6) FEET FROM TR WINE OR wE-IVLF (%) 0 TIE OW W RNICMVER O 9. ALL OFF RRDAL il0]Yr1 s L BECOREITO Dlw w DR S01Ri1IB RSRNG SF.ISON (RB I - MY SI) GRLAIER BIER SHALL BE NO STDMDE OR YDEYENT OF EWPRENT. MT RNAL DEEM 0 FU (THIN ME FENCU TREE PRoncnw iwE. OR CONO A JURFV O WES ENSDRIC M ACDSE RESTS N M Ol 5. DURnG ME CO K)m JOGS of DF'ALPYM. TE N0.VNI SIWL PREYFM ME OENOL or EORNYFNF OR w1FRY1 OR IR STORAGE w DISPo54 OO ws1E wIERl4 Sl 4 PAR91S, DNS. SOLNflDB ASPHALT. LUNpETE Rgfw DL w W DlfFjl ldlk 4 IRMNUL TO TM 1fE OF A WE RMIN Tf OW M O Nn ROII TREE 0 GROOP O TREES. 6. W OUAOG AITACHYEM, ORES, SOPS OR PERMS wY BE FASTENED TO AM PROTECTED TREE F. LVRGE PROPERTf AREAS COMNNiNG PROTECTED WES AM SEPARATED FRD CCYSnUCDO OR 1.0110 CI RIG AREAS, RDN IQ.MIS-a-Mr " 1RTLL11y EISEUBTS wr BE 'RBsMS O .' ROER TR1 m7w PIoorEl FE1RO4 NIWIU GGI THE M ROARED of S05ECI10 (G%S) ABOVE M MY BE MYYFYJSHp M Pl p YET& T-POST STARS A wO" OF RM (SO) FEET APNR AND TTND R� OR POPE Pool nAITE-N-SIAYE &M VIE OUTLDE "1117ERS O SUCN ARUS BDNG CIFARED. TREE PROTECTION AND MITIGATION PLAN .1 .1.1. IIn Y] i /� PRortCI EIYSINC IISE ® TREE 10 BE Atful II NR w '" LY. .TU, 0 0 1] $YEIbM IlY f Co rNR I IS "o"" IlY }I' OR, RY/1 0 n N[gGr IIY 12• u MA n MRK.W tY 1r u POOR a IS wHW EIY 13' (A COD a n .. IIY 0' M POOR 0 it n YpLYY RA"L e' fM. IEID a 19 Ypwl WAI 5' cm ri 0 Flo RREM'A1 RY II CA. POOR r11 wOwAIT n' LY. POORa n} Poll YCA POKR n5 A51 e'!M. POOR 0 nR ASII e• rx. Pow I 115 wbN a. R' fM. POOR 0 w FLY S' EJI. PM wNYL EIY 5' M PRO woo 4 5- fM. PRIOR w9F a: r G. Pow wRYY am 1'G. NA w FLY e' LY. PI09 wlwl am e' CAL Pao9 www am 5' M (] M) root/ wNYI FLY IV f4 p'A r wRYI am IE' m P%M wICM RY n- m FO]1 wRM RY Ir. (] Slow) Ww wRW 4Y IYbL PJCP wwN ILY It bL POOR wlWl If• bL P%q a: wRW Fl IS" CL 0.VY 0 116 SKM,. 5'OIIL. PRO0 tl) "NERROI pY 5' CA. ICM 0 tlt RHRYr pY 9' CM. PpR 0 r1f BURw 9'!M. POOR 1.5 r10 BO]fLRA 5' CM. FAR nl M. a. 1]'fM TVA 0 TTl w1M am II' CALFAR 1 M wAN am 26' CM FAIR 15 r9F F q1 r PM. POOR 0 M aaEm RO r cY row I. n6 Xpstt 1PP1E 11' CN. POOR 0 t01N WES 10 BE YIIIGIRO'. e I r I S 0 f if HI XORIM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - LANDSCAPE SUBMITTAL 215 MATHEWS STREET TRACT Z, OAKPARK P.U.O., LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION IZ, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PLANNING. CERTIFICATE ■ ■ 1111111 `� rNONE 11111►� 1fi� =M ■'.7 1■IIIIII illllll . � o11� .. Slim H LMI [K CMR Mal WE RIOICCIgN MD WIWN %NI LP10I UNOSC4E $CKE E MD MIES LP100 OLERAL WgSfJPE PWI owl VAOwG ORALS owl WIOSC/BL ORALS ZONING MAP V NOiTII wxas.unlerww IN[ VMO[PSMNrn IKK5/W u[Rn aAIFY MA1 I/N[ M[ M[ IMNL UMIflS a M[ R/L MtlTPM1 IF�LW W.0 ql IIIR 511[ RMI MO OY NEMM QRIIIY IWI I/IIF /LLM M[ WOIMMIS Nq MSfit00X5 Y I !(MX dl Yp yl! %AV. OIRRj��R ARFl9pk9)�1R Ift1R a I 1 Ws Iaexn a I waaiao MM row 10 a arm IXrs a+ a x . n Marw W Reo Nw mlaA aA. ANRL� W'DO�A6.PE� rrRRRo a IK cuRRal arena a raAwm aR1aNeN1 � xrcMeoAMm wmlcLs lao-al a m[ nn a ran rnLM. rnowoo, nlrs a mlr. D�REA �RD I 9 f � ....I � O IL Loin ..we_ I o n G Jim ins o N I „Site Plan / Main Level Floor Plan 1• b� Land Use Data Cmd KGB gW1Op�nmY Coa�vYa luAf v�m.unnp �.�L.�n u.. aw-PN...bbl9.rvb Nu �ynCm.me M',O's i.) 11,3M uu /uw OpMOitir/�ge 1,m6Ml.bv ]I e) 21.n iipn�9vn.m Flaar M1m IYpp dn..lilm e.b0len l,pbM =f,M .�A v.hw. PnWA q.gWm I.p.p..],bo a•a.pv. Vehltle P.Mlnp PrwpeE Bky01. PVWnp R.pWrtl p.pvfY♦.hF.AObpn tlRll .p[ww 'M'1 .A.vv.i.. B x�. v.MA Prwgtl ..to � I mw.E uaia ua.Bu.Nnp.m m w.. pnam M l.wq l,M�lel eJarp wvM Mu tlu1eFP i�epM �'m^uetl P,x.rvW PYIINIO ��MpM lvluu+ n 1, , Vicinity Map NPaT y proied T I n i 1 i I rroject i earn OWNEn 9CgITLEAyXp. LLC ]lOA I.WVn.. Y►Mq Fen CaMm, CA!@AI IBMIi313Bi GvpRTaq ONniNa m.e.�.yarreamn WCNlER WEC0.FLtXF1�NaWIER ]I]6 qPY ewN Fat CeFa. C011M9S Wm �.wosruEwlcNrtEcr nus]Eu.wus aT,olo , 6 fJeP/„Ia. Ni ]W Fu1Lle. CO q]'4 ��NdAb a�aeelOti��� CML ENOINEEN. IM=C MMMWOLF 283 IIN, C COIOi�B IWM W [ wl l�aYa .s 1wYvbmMONiMAHmm 11M WOEEIONEA. MII.N dr 7.Taa OpX P,LL0.,. n M .., .c, 12 T. W7N .Wnp BO' tlMM PwwwN N.�, crytlam caw, cweritl Laos Wo acm.aa. BVI J�aN�1 paytllaW mtlaa ],OW Sqw PM v O 1 W Mom, np aY� �.4L vi awn iys a 1ucx PpR1 PO0.] PW.] Cwa9wl OAai MiIIWtlBwbn IPOYI VIW coew TW Imm.FeM]am�rr� I VIM WlleyeI%I Xabe LPWI LPEW l�bep Otlae IwYel�Otlae MI PNS PManMkM FTMaMkCUY1wY 215 Mathews Offices Project Development Plan rianning uemncation Owner's Certification M�FwiMOiTaaK N6FAVWVv .®@Q 73 - HT, TRUNKS WAN TRUSSES KSONRY/ _ 12�, LR 3RD 171'--23W 'BRSy_ 1ffi•07H e OW NO ]ND 11T-1 318_-& 1ASONRYY 116•B11H8-� tR RND 110'-3 AT mu _ ]w-tr� OW tu,jDT _ 106.8 IASONm' 1 107.8- T.R to - tOR-7 72 Preliminary West Elevation -0- EA -�j wi iA iUi ii ®i of ®i Ne alk CE G NJ fa gal I il Vol! -W fill Ta Preliminary 1st Level Floor Plan 7/32'= 1'-0' NM (Gras dddng) WL" �01P 8F 2nd LwO-Olb �0179F 9d LGVW-Oleos 3WOSF None ursnm 11ss 67 Mathews Street Aerial Mathews Street Partial Block Face Elevation 1- 20._0.. W i I I V 0 b IP � 9 y. AMI 1.� ygvsw �n w u O 3 w L ro Building to the South (The Park View Apartments) Buildings further South (Townhomes @ Library Park) Project Site (Existing Residence) Building to the East (Community Creative Center) Building to the North (Library Park Apartments) CONTEXT PHOTOS ea E. Oak Street 3 0 d a Existing Multi -Family Library Park � .wA y +am han M4MN14 SECK SHOWN IS FROM PREYIOUS PROPOSAL - SEE CURRENT SITE PLAN Existing Multi -Family E. Olive Street 63 215 Mat'heWS St. Site Context Attachmen62 Modifications of Standards Requests 215 Mathews Street Offices December 31, 2015 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. Summary The proposed modifications are all nominal when compared to the entire development that provides high quality, high performing architecture that is sensitive to the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and as such is consistent with the policies of the Land Use Code described in Section 1.2.2 as follows: (B) Encouraging innovations in land development and renewul. (F) Encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation. (.9 Improving the design, quality and character of new development. (K) Fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. (L) Encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas. (M) Ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods Approval of these requests for Modifications would facilitate a positive infill development adding much needed quality office space to the Old Town area. Furthermore, granting these requests would not be detrimental to the public good but would provide for a substantial improvement over the existing conditions of the property. Attachmen6T Modifications of Standards Requests 215 Mathews Street Offices December 31, 2015 two much more intense and dense multi -family residences with an approved even more intense attached -dwelling project, the Townhomes at Library Park, on the way further south on the block. The existing adjacent buildings, and certainly the approved Townhome project, exceed many of the zone district standards but do so in what seems to be an appropriate manner given the proximity to downtown and the lack of immediate proximity to single-family homes. Neither of the adjacent projects comply with this standard as, like stated previously, the general character of this block is more like the Downtown District in this regard. It should be noted that the setback for the project to south varies with the easternmost portion at the required setback and the western portions setting back significantly further, which helps provide further buffer. And, it should also be noted that the project fa4ade to the north contains no windows that would be impacted. Given this surrounding context, it is argued that the proposed solution is minimal and inconsequential. Furthermore, it seems as if this standard was intended to apply more to single-family residential projects, like those found further to the east of this project. Most two story or taller office buildings, other than those in former houses, would not comply with this standard. This is demonstrated by most office uses in the adjacent Downtown zone district. Since this zone district is intended as a transition area and since this particular block is more adjacent to and more closely resembles the intensity of the Downtown district, this standard does not seem as appropriate as it might elsewhere within the district. Modification 5 — 3.2.2(K)(5)(b) Handicap Parking Location. Location. Handicap parking spaces shall be located as close as possible to the nearest accessible building entrance, using the shortest route of travel. When practical, the accessible route of travel shall not cross lanes for vehicular traffic. When crossing vehicle traffic lanes is necessary, the route of travel shall be designated and marked as a crosswalk. Proposal: It is proposed that the single required handicap parking stall be placed directly in front of the building, on Mathews Street, in combination with the other new parking stalls being provided there in lieu of the existing driveway. A new walkway and ramp would also be provided connecting the new handicap parking space directly to the main building entrance. Justification: City staff has typically interpreted this standard to require that handicap parking be provided on -site. In this particular instance, it is believed that the on street location proposed will be more visible, more convenient and more accessible to visitors to the building due to the very close proximity of the proposed parking stall to the main entry and due to the fact that the proposed on -site parking will be secured by a gate at the rear of the property. Further, if the handicap parking space were to be located on -site, under the structure, the added space requirements needed for a handicap stall, in lieu of a conventional stall, would mean the loss of an on -site parking stall and thus would cause the project to fall out of compliance with the minimum required number of spaces per Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) and would thus require a Modification of Standard from nine to eight parking stalls. Thus, it is argued that the project, as designed with nine standard spaces under the structure and one public handicap parking space on the street, will promote the general purpose of the AttachmenR Modifications of standards Requests 215 Mathews Street Offices December 31, 2015 between two much more intense and dense multi -family residences with an approved even more intense attached -dwelling project, the Townhomes at Library Park, about to begin construction further south on the block. The existing adjacent buildings, and certainly the approved Townhome project, exceed many of the zone district standards but do so in what seems to be an appropriate manner given the closer proximity to downtown and the lack of immediate proximity to single-family homes. Neither of the adjacent buildings meet this standard. The building to the north of the subject property is setback approximately fourteen (14) feet. The building to the south of the subject property is setback approximately two (2) feet at the eastern -most masonry piers of the main entry, approximately eight (8) feet at the main entry wall and approximately eleven (11) feet for the remainder of the building and the Townhomes at Library Park project, further to the south, has a virtual zero setback for the full width of the two buildings. Viewing the four properties of the block face, a nice undulation pattern of facades is developing in a mild in and out fashion. It is argued that the proposed solution is minimal and inconsequential given the surrounding context. Furthermore, the front building elevation is further mitigated by the inclusion of a high grade building material palette similar to the surrounding buildings. This elevation is proposed to be constructed predominantly of masonry (brick and stone) with the exception of the windows, which are similar in character to the apartments and an upper band of stucco. As well, the ground plane is treated with extensive landscaping all serving to further mitigate the issue. Lastly, the proposed project will greatly improve the streetscape and pedestrian experience through the removal of the existing driveway which presently disrupts the pedestrian flow across the site. Modification 4 - 4.9(1))(6)(d) Dimensional Standards. Minimum side yard width. Minimum side yard width shall be Jive (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion orthe wall or building shall be set backfrom 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. Proposal: This standard has two components. The proposed project complies with the first component of providing a five (5) foot building setback. The second component requires the building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet to be stepped back. The proposed building will be approximately thirty (30) feet high at the eave line and approximately thirty-one (31') high at the property line without stepping back Justification: The N-C-B zone district, the subject property is located within, is intended as a transitional district between more intense downtown commercial uses and the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. The subject property happens to fall on edge of the Downtown District and in many ways the subject block more closely resembles the character and intensity of the Downtown District more so than the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. The existing single-family home is the last remaining on the block face and is sandwiched between Attachmen69 Modifications of Standards Requests 215 Mathews Street Offices December 31, 2015 Proposal: The proposed total floor area on the rear half of the lot is 4,767 square feet on a 3,500 square feet rear half of the lot. This equates to one hundred thirty-six (136) percent. Justification: The N-C-B zone district, the subject property is located within, is intended as a transitional district between more intense downtown commercial uses and the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. The subject property happens to abut the Downtown District and in many ways the subject block more closely resembles the character and intensity of the Downtown District than the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. The existing single-family home, on the subject property, is the last remaining on the block face and is sandwiched between two much more intense and dense multi -family residences with an approved even more intense attached -dwelling project, the Townhomes at Library Park, about to begin construction further south on the block. The existing adjacent buildings, and certainly the approved Townhome project, exceed many of the zone district standards but do so in what seems to be an appropriate manner given the closer proximity to downtown and the lack of immediate proximity to single-family homes. While this proposed increase in area is significant, the public record shows that the Townhomes at Library Park project was granted a Modification which exceeds this criteria by a greater amount and it appears that the adjacent Park View Apartments may also exceed this criteria. It is argued that the proposed solution is minimal and inconsequential given the surrounding context. Furthermore, it seems as if this standard was intended to apply more to single-family residential projects allowing them to have a back yard area and also to maintain the quality of the adjacent back yard areas. Since the Apartment project to the south does not have a back yard area and likely exceeds this criteria and since the apartment project to the north places a parking lot at the rear half of its lot, it would seem that there would be no benefit to the adjacent projects in holding the subject property to the standard. Modification 3 - 4.9(D)(6)(b) Dimensional Standards. Minimum front yard setback. Standard: Minimum front yard setback shall be. fifteen (15).feet. Proposal: The majority of the proposed building is setback nine feet eight inches (9' — 8") feet with a minority portion at the main entry setback nine (9) feet. Justification: The N-C-B zone district, the subject property is located within, is intended as a transitional district between more intense downtown commercial uses and the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. The subject property happens to abut the Downtown District and in many ways the subject block more closely resembles the character and intensity of the Downtown District than the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. The existing single-family home, on the subject property, is the last remaining on the block face and is sandwiched Attachmen6g Modifications of Standards Requests 215 Mathews Street Offices December 31, 2015 Modification criteria and Support Findings Modification 1-4.9(D)(1) Density Standard: Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of 'the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) squarefeet. For the purposes of'calculating density, "total floor area "shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings, including each finished or unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7'/2) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for pwposes of calculating density). Proposal: The proposed total floor area is 11,898 square feet and the lot area is 7,000 square feet thus the proposed building exceeds the standard by 4,898 square feet. Justification: The N-C-B zone district, the subject property is located within, is intended as a transitional district between more intense downtown commercial uses and the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. The subject property happens to abut the Downtown District and in many ways the subject block more closely resembles the character and intensity of the Downtown District than the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. The existing single-family home, on the subject property, is the last remaining on the block face and is sandwiched between two much more intense and dense multi -family residences with an approved even more intense attached -dwelling project, the Townhomes at Library Park, about to begin construction further south on the block. The existing adjacent buildings, and certainly the approved Townhome project, exceed many of the zone district standards but do so in what seems to be an appropriate manner given the closer proximity to downtown and the lack of immediate proximity to single-family homes. Given the requested increase is significantly less than the amount adjacent properties exceed this criteria, it is argued that the proposed solution is minimal and inconsequential. Furthermore, the front building elevation is further mitigated by the inclusion of a high grade building material palette similar to the surrounding buildings. This elevation is proposed to be constructed predominantly of masonry (brick and stone) with the exception of the windows, which are similar in character to the apartments and an upper band of stucco. As well, the ground plane is treated with extensive landscaping all serving to further mitigate the issue. Modification 2 - 4.9(D)(5) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. Standard: The allowable floor area on the rear half of 'a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot. AttachmenU Modifications of Standards Requests 215 Mathews Street Offices December 31, 2015 Project Description This is a request for five Modifications in conjunction with a pending Project Development Plan (PDP) for 215 Mathews Street. All five Modifications relate to development standards in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B, zone district. The pending PDP request is a request for redevelopment that results in a new three story office building of approximately 11,898 square feet. The existing home would be razed in order to accomplish this. Site, architectural, landscape, lighting and utility plans have been provided for the project that provide visual tools to understand the scope of the modifications proposed. Context The subject property is a 7,000 square foot lot with a small dilapidated home currently on it. The property faces the City Creative Center (former museum) and Library Park to the east. Immediately to the south is the Parkview Apartments. To the west is an existing alley and to the north is the Library Park Apartments. The surrounding land uses are as follows: E: N-C-M; Existing City Creative Center and Library Park S: N-C-B; Existing Parkview Apartments W: D; Existing commercial and residential N: N-C-B; Existing Parkview Apartments Parking The current standards for parking in the N-C-B zone district for an office use require one space per 1,0D0 square feet of gross leasable area. This results in a requirement of nine spaces for the proposed facility. Nine spaces will be provided on site and four new spaces will be provided on Mathews Street in lieu of the existing curb cut serving the existing driveway that will be removed. One of these new street parking spaces will be a van accessible space and a new ramp will be provided for the space to the walkway paralleling Mathews Street. Neighborhood Impact Redevelopment of this property will add much needed quality office space to the Old Town area and clean up the current unsightly and dilapidated existing home and site. Since parking is being provided on site, as required, plus additional spaces will be provided on the street, this project should have no adverse effect on the neighborhood. Land Use Code Standards Relating to the Five Modification Requests Modification 1- 4.9(D)(1) Density Modification 2 - 4.9(D)(5) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. Modification 3 - 4.9(D)(6)(b) Dimensional Standards. Minimum front yard setback. Modification 4 - 4.9(D)(6)(d) Dimensional Standards. Minimum side yard width. Modification 5 — 3.2.2(K)(5)(b) Handicap Parking Location. 1 56 Statement of Planning Objectives 215 Mathews Street Offices December 31. 2015 Project Overview A three story office building of approximately 11,898 sf is proposed on a 7,000 sf infill site immediately across Mathews Street from the Fort Collins Community Creative Center. The existing zoning for the site is NCB and professional office use is a permitted use subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. Redevelopment of this property will add much needed quality office space to the Old Town area and clean up the current unsightly and dilapidated existing home. Approximately 3,500 sf of the new facility is expected to be occupied by Cline Williams Wright Johnson & Oldfather, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law. The remainder of the space will be for speculative office space likely to be other law practices. The site is a small urban infill lot with the current single-family home being much less dense and intense of a use than the immediate surrounding properties. The proposed site design increases the density and intensity to respond to the present more urban context. The architecture attempts to sensitively respond to the historic nature of the Parkview Apartments to the south and the Creative Center (former museum) across the street, and the less descript building to the north and yet still be a reflection of the current time. In reviewing the surrounding context, there are a series of unifying elements, which the proposed design attempts to echo. First and foremost is the predominant use of masonry. While the specific type of masonry varies greatly, the general use is rampant in the neighborhood and will continue with the proposed building. Second, building scale is fairly uniform, with there mostly being a mix of two-story and three-story buildings and even a four- story building currently proposed for the Library Park Townhomes at the south end of the block. The three-story building proposed is more consistent with surrounding context than is the current single - story single-family home. Third, while not all do, most nearby edifices make use of pitched roofs. The proposed project continues this theme with the appearance of the project, from street level, being entirely of a pitched roof. Hidden within that pitched roof will be a roof well to conceal roof top mechanical units. Fourth, residential style and scale fenestration seems to be another common architectural thread in the vicinity. This project continues that thread with the vast majority of the windows, with there being just a few uses of storefront type glazing at the rear of the building. Lastly, this building seeks to echo the masonry arches used on both the Community Center (former museum) and the building to the south. Not in a literal way but with a subtle nod taking form in an arch over the main entry. The proposed 215 Mathews Street Office Building project embodies the character and vision of City Plan, as well as the NCB zone district. Characteristics of the proposed plan include: • A high quality built environment • A compact pattern of development • infill project that is compatible with the established character of the neighborhood. • Building and site are designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. • quality landscape design responsive to an urban context. 1 55 10.The Siberian Elms along the alley are a mess and I'm glad they are to be removed. But what about the Bur Oak in front? A. The Bur Oak in front will be preserved as it is in the parkway and, therefore, on public right-of-way. 11. What about the other two trees that are in front but on private property? A. There are two trees at the southeast corner of the property that are not Siberian Elms that are to be removed. These are the two trees that will require the 9.5 mitigation trees. 12.Could you plant a second street in the parkway after construction? A. Yes, we will consider planting a second street tree. 13.As the manager of Park View, I see homeless people in the alley. You should be aware. A. Thank you for alerting us to the activity in the alley. We have a mutual concern for safety. We intend to provide sufficient security and lighting for our building and parking area so that both of our properties have a safe environment. 3 54 3. How will the site drain? Do you have a grading and drainage plan? A. The site will be graded so that stormwater flows west to east to follow the natural contours. 4. I'm the property manager for the Park View Apartments located immediately to the south. The side yard setback along the south property line looks tight. Will you be able to construct the south wall of the building without trespassing on our property A. Yes, our general contractor, Dohn Construction, has built in urban conditions and will access the site from the front and rear and be able to construct the south wall without disturbing the neighboring property. 5. I'm concerned about headlights shining into Park View Apartments. Which way will the parked cars face? A. The parked cars will face north. Note that the south wall of the apartment building to the north is blank with no windows. 6. Park View presently has a six foot solid wood fence along the shared property line. This fence is effective at preventing homeless people from sleeping on our property. We need to coordinate so that our fencing continues to be effective. We may want to retain our fence. A. We are willing to work with you on fencing details so that your property remains protected in the manner that you describe. 7. As you know, Park View has apartments with north -facing windows. We are concerned about privacy for our residents. A. We are aware of this condition and we will try to place our second and third floor windows so they are offset with your windows so there is no direct line of sight. 8. As the manager of Park View Apartments, we are concerned about the overall design of the project. The design needs to be sensitive to our residents A. We agree and our client intends to design a building that will be complementary to the character of Park View Apartments and the needs of its residents. 9. What is your construction schedule? A. We would like to go through the City's review process this summer and then obtain a demolition permit by the end of the summer. We would then begin construction and hope to finish up by July of 2016. 2 53 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: 215 Mathews Street — Office Building Redevelopment LOCATION: 215 Mathews Street DATE: May 20, 2015 APPLICANT: Brad and Tracey Oldemeyer CONSULTANTS: Greg Fisher, Architect CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. As proposed, the existing house would be demolished and replaced by a three-story office building. The building would be approximately 9,000 square feet in size. Parking would be at -grade and comprise the first floor with two stories of occupied space above. Access to the parking would be from the alley only as the existing driveway would be removed allowing for additional on -street parking spaces. An office building is a permitted use in the N-C-B, Neighborhood Conservation District zone district. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicants and consultant. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS 1. What will happen to all the trees? A. All the trees on private property will be removed. Most of these are Siberian Elms for which no mitigation is necessary as these are considered to be a nuisance species. For the trees that are considered by the City Forester to be significant, there will be mitigation. Per the City Forester, the loss of the significant tree(s) will yield 9.5 mitigation trees. Since there is no room on this parcel, under the redevelopment scenario, for 9.5 new trees, the mitigation trees will be located in Library Park. 2. What is the height of the building? A. The building is three stories. With the requirements of commercial construction, the ceiling heights will be nine feet. There will be about two of space between each floor. We think the height will come in around 33 feet. Site Plan / Main Level Floor Plan r. e uoYrx Land Use Data E J.Yry bNy NCB N.YMv�ml CuiFV.6T BNftl Pr©a.]IrO U.. d1e.-PMN.enY Slb 9.MFv fa.nW rlep�e,e it „Jx .v4igePM /w ..aR r l.leu cl R.ex amr.V.M I.eeetllexcl z,.n ea rlmr �, sx irr 5a r, LIs s� , nm me INN dv.A 1p YIN r.Idr:III N.v wllp ltl 101Ym 1JA00Y. M P�pry V.nM P.rme Y.pYee ,ROII.RO/=.IP Ma%I. VVLLY IYWM n...0 en.,. 1YY 0 OA.G O aTY PwW P.wiG.1 4..1 ¢uw l Building Data le, es tiv Y� ,plM lVtl b4lM e,M1 p ttl eW eesor Btl�e,ItlierY,iae aave. wNeeeaeWrq,MgY 3s f 51 b. Regarding compatible character -defining features, the design of the entrance has been improved to provide more harmonious visual ties with the apartment building to the south. c. The building's extensive use of brick on the facade, appropriate window patterns on the south half of the facade, and horizontal alignment of brick patterns with those found in the adjacent historic apartment building to the south are compatible elements. The addition of a second material on the facade mitigates the previous design's resemblance to a historic school building. To achieve compatibility with the historic properties on Remington, the rear of the building has been enhanced with additional use of brick. d. Neighborhood focal points connected to this project would be the Carnegie Library Building and Library Park, as well as Old Town. The proposed design maintains visual and pedestrian connections to these focal points. e. The project preserves historic and mature landscaping to the maximum extent feasible. 3) At its December 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 5-0: Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker approval of the 215 Mathews Office Building development proposal as presented at the December 9, 2015 meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission, finding that the proposed building complies with the code requirements in Section 3.4.7 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code and based upon adoption of the findings of fact set forth in the staff report. Mr. Lingle seconded. Motion passed S-0. - 2 - 50 ,F�rt�'ns DATE: December 17, 2015 Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- tax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board TH: Tom Leeson, Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services Ted Shepard, Chief Planner FIR: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the 215 Mathews Office Building Project As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the Landmark Preservation Commission's Findings of Facts and its motion for this project. 1) The development project known as the 215 Mathews Office Building is located abutting the Laurel School National Historic District. Additionally, it is adjacent to the following properties that are individually designated as local landmarks: 200 Mathews, 148 Remington, 202 Remington, and 220 Remington. Five additional properties within the defined area of adjacency have been determined individually eligible for landmark designation in 2008: 221 Mathews, 210 E. Oak, 215 E. Oak, 218 Remington, and 230 Remington. At its December 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 5- 0: Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark preservation Commission accept as the adjacencies for the 215 Mothews Office Building an area of one-half block in each direction from the block upon which the building is proposed, including specifically those properties that are individually designated or individually eligible, under LUC 5.1.2. Ms. Dunn seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 2) At its December 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the development project known as the 215 Mathews Office Building, and as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6), determined that the project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic context for the following reasons that demonstrate compatibility with LUC Section 3.4.7: a. The height, setback, and width of the new structure are similar to the existing historic structures along Mathews Street, i.e., the Park View Apartments and the Carnegie Library. In particular, the adjusted setback of 9 feet is compatible with the existing historic structures in the area of adjacency. The height of the building has been lowered to 36/38 feet with an eave height of 30 feet, which is also a significant improvement over the previous design. 215 Mathews St Fort Collins, CO 80524 ■ Y �t^'K ■ � N k h Sam NNW ■ - - MEN UNIN ■ -_ NEW MEN NINE Im In NEW ENIMM! WIN NNN M WON WIN! _ `WWI WIN NNW _ NINE MEN NNN INN NNW WIN immlllil .■liiii �■ `per ■ 0� �� M■ ■ � ■ it li ■�111■ ii T 49 CCR rn Mh Site Zoning ® River Downtown Redevelopment(RDR) O Neighborhood Conservation BufferiNCB) Community Commercial (CC) QParcels Transition (T) Low Density Residential (RL) ® Public Open Lands (POL) ® Downtown (D) Community Commercial Poudre River (CCR) Limited Commercial (CL) Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) CnY OF FOR COLLN S ❑r0GW W: NWO HON SYS itN MAP MOOOLIS i1GrNabPb v[a G16n CXYa1:M CeNnrbklmamY pVppb erry l Abrmm prO,Ne '� A City of ...1q°°an an.fu emJbynEao LyvanNtnq.apuLM ilu fp m4a:ro rpnnmibnm +mananm v urrpsmar.MnpabuSr, namnaeYln Wxry ar bp4pq C6nwlenr ui,pepuq biMaaa,mphnlM NlnEun /wYmapM1YdOgnn iNF CR10i fOT W �,fJ^'f/`nL,{� E Fort Collins 66AN NOMRVRYOi iaEllCIWROHIPY OF MTY fOgiIlNE66Oi 6 i0q PSMCLILeq NPP01E F1PgE65E0Oq W U. WRN g.E61F7I:tiO TIEEENY PgOG1¢I9 Oq LN6 iwEnir�xo».:.�q. m•°w.n:eamur'..�a'u: `naX.r®I�mwwmo bamar.'°al".n°gnine°aee:em6rw M�v �'r*+0 aenarim°exm'r'era"i°a "en°nmm..«wwim°.w.:ra°.x. a m�mn`u"q� rm�N°�:m: m�.er Feat r` l�gar:�» `w� 0 250 500 Printed: December 1' , 2�015 No Text 47 Agenda Item 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Aerial Parcel Map (JPG) 3. Landmark Preservation Commission Memorandum (DOCX) 4. Alternative Site Plan - Under Structure Van -Accessible Space (PDF) 5. Neighborhood Meeting Summary (DOCX) 6. Statement of Planning Objectives (PDF) 7. Request for Modifications (PDF) 8. Applicant's Presentation: Context, Photos, Site, Landscape, Architectural Perspectives (PDF) �, I�-a � M ,►�,.� �--Wit,.-- ���.- fs-.. ,�,�,�-� - i��.,..r� u, T',& L -o EQP (,-o C— oar Item # 3 Page 18 46 Agenda Item 7. Modification Four, Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d): Minimum side yard width (north) shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. For Modification Four, Staff finds that the two components of this Modification comply with Section 2.8.2(H)(1) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the P.D.P., as proposed with a five foot setback for the full height of both the north and south walls will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a plan which otherwise complies with the standard. This is because the building's height, mass, bulk and scale are proportional relative to the two adjoining buildings. The building is well -articulated with an emphasis on brick with stone accents. The overall design of the building is of high quality and found to be compatible with the established character in the surrounding area. There are no negative impacts on the abutting properties as a result of this Modification. 8. Modification Five, Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(b): The location of handicap parking spaces shall be located as close as possible to the nearest accessible building entrance, using the shortest possible accessible route of travel. For Modification Five, Staff finds that Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H)(1) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the P.D.P., as proposed with a van -accessible, on -street handicap parking space will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a plan which otherwise complies with the standard. This is because the on -street, handicap parking space will be more visible and more available to general public than would a space located on -site under the structure. Also, the on -street public space would be equidistant to entrance as would an on -site space. If only seven standard spaces were provided on -site, then two tenants would be competing for two on - street public spaces on a daily Monday -through -Friday basis. On -street, van -accessible, handicap parking is a common occurrence in the City's urban environment where there is typically no on -site parking. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the five Modifications of Standard and approval of 215 Mathews Street Offices P.D.P. #PDP150020, based on the findings of fact on pages 18 - 21 of the staff report, subject to the following condition: At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the applicant shall provide an alternate parking lot layout showing one on -site, van -accessible, handicap parking space. Item # 3 Page 17 45 Agenda Item 3 For Modification One, Staff finds that the P.D.P., as proposed with the 1.7:1 FAR complies with Section 2.8.2(H)(4) because the granting of the Modification will not be detrimental to the public good and the P.D.P., as proposed with an increase of 4,898 square feet, will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. This is because overall, the project is well designed especially with regard to screening the entire parking field. Had this parking been arranged in a surface parking lot, the area would not have counted towards the floor -to -area ratio. Also, relative to the overall context of the block face, the additional 4,898 square feet as represented by the Modification is compatible with the context of the surrounding area. 5. Modification Two, Section 4.9 (D)(5): Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. For Modification Two, Staff finds that the Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H)(4) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the P.D.P., as proposed with a 1.36 rear -half FAR, will be equal to or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which the Modification is requested, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. This is because there is no negative impact generated by the proposed additional 3,612 square feet and the resulting .89 FAR on the rear one-half of the subject parcel due to the existing context of the two abutting properties. The standard was intended to protect existing rear yard outdoor spaces but there are no private open spaces on the two adjoining lots which were developed prior to the adoption of the standard. There is no coherent pattern of rear lot floor -to -area ratios within the entire block face. While strict enforcement of the standard would be more applicable within the core of the residential neighborhood, the subject parcel is located in a transitional area that is well buffered from the residential area. 6. Modification Three, Section 4.9 (D)(6)(b): Minimum front yard setback (Mathews Street) shall be fifteen (15) feet. For Modification Three, Staff finds that Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H)(4) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the P.D.P. with a 9.66 front yard setback, will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. This is because the proposed setback is found to be compatible relative to the established character of the entire block face, primarily the two existing buildings on either side and the pending Townhomes at Library Park. The prominent entrance promotes a pedestrian scale and contributes to the walkability of the neighborhood. The parkway and Bur Oak will remain. The proposed front setback does not break any established symmetry. Item # 3 Page 16 C�J ✓� 44 Agenda Iten All nine under -structure spaces would then be available to tenants, which allow two tenants to not have to park on the street on a Monday -through -Friday basis thus freeing up two on -street spaces for the public. Finally, it is not unusual for handicap parking to be placed on the street in an urban environment as is the presently the case throughout Downtown where most commercial properties developed without on -site parking. Customers and clients requiring access will find the on -street handicap space to be highly visible and close to the building entrance. In order to accommodate a potential tenant or employee that may need an on -site handicap parking space on a daily basis, Staff recommends that the under -structure parking be designed in such a way as to allow for the future provision of such a space. Should an employee need the accommodation, the owner of the building must re -stripe the under -structure parking. By making the alternative parking layout part of the Final Plan, a Minor Amendment would not be necessary. Accordingly, the following condition of approval is recommended: HL,`"or r7'Fa . At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the applicant shall provide an alternate parking lot layout showing one on -site, van -accessible, handicap parking space. For the Fifth Modification, Staff finds that the plan as submitted would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, P.D.P., as designed with nine standard spaces under the structure and one public handicap parking space on the street, will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. This is because the on -street, handicap parking space will be more visible and more available to general public than would a space located on -site under the structure. Also, the on -street public space would be equidistant to the entrance as would an on -site space. If only seven standard spaces were provided on -site, then two tenants would be competing for two on -street public spaces on a daily Monday -through -Friday basis. On -street, van -accessible, handicap parking is a common occurrence in the City's urban environment where there is typically no on -site parking. Findinas of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating 215 Mathews Street Offices P.D.P. and five Modifications of Standard, Staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The P.D.P. complies with the overall intent of the East Side Neighborhood Plan and Refill Fort Collins Strategic Plan. 2. The P.D.P. complies with the Land Use and Development standards of Section 4.9, the NCB zone, with four exceptions for which Modifications are requested and are described below. 3. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards with one exception, Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(b), for which a Modification is requested and also described below. 4. Modification One, Section 4.9(D)(1): Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5, 000) square feet. (This also referred to as a 1:1 floor -to -area ratio.) Item # 3 Page 15 43 Agenda Item 3 Finally, it has been established that there is no clear pattern of building -to -lot size relationships in the surrounding area that require a level of adherence. There is a hybrid character to the immediate surrounding area. The proposed building demonstrates a high level of variety and interest that contributes positively to both the urban character of Downtown district and the residential character of the N-C-B district. For the Fourth Modification, Staff finds that the plan as submitted would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, P.D.P., as designed with the building relationship to the two sideyard setbacks, will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. This is because the building's height, mass, bulk and scale are proportional relative to the two abutting buildings. The building is well -articulated with an emphasis on brick with stone accents. The overall design of the building is of high quality and found to be compatible with the established character in the surrounding area. There are no negative impacts on the abutting properties as a result of this Modification. 5. Fifth Modification - Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(b) - Handicap Parking A. Standard This standard requires that the location of handicap parking spaces shall be located as close as possible to the nearest accessible building entrance, using the shortest possible accessible route of travel. Staff has interpreted this standard to require that the handicap parking space be located on -site. B. Proposal and Extent of the Modification The proposed van -accessible handicap parking space would be located on Mathews Street directly in front of the building. A walkway and ramp would be provided connecting the space to the entrance. C. Applicant's Justification The applicant contends that if the handicap space was located on -site, under the structure, the geometric requirements (length, width and turning radii) would result in the loss of two standard parking spaces from nine to seven. Such a reduction would cause the P.D.P. to fall out of complying with the minimum required number of spaces per Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) thus requiring a Modification of Standard from nine to eight. Further, the proposed on -street location would be more visible and approximately equidistant to the building elevator/entrance as would a space under the structure. The applicant concludes that the public is best served by offering nine on -site standard spaces that will be used on a daily basis versus seven standard spaces plus one handicap space that may be use with less frequency. D. Staff Evaluation As noted, by closing the existing driveway and taking sole access via the alley, four new, on -street, diagonal parking spaces are created all of which would be available to the public. The proposed handicap space would be one of these spaces and also be highly visible and available to the public on a daily basis. Item # 3 Page 14 42 Agenda Item 3 C. Applicant's Justification The N-C-B zone district is intended as a transitional district between more intense downtown commercial uses and the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. The subject property happens to fall on edge of the Downtown District and, in many ways, the subject block face more closely resembles the character and intensity of the Downtown District more so than the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. The existing single-family home is the last remaining on the block face and is sandwiched between two much more intense and dense multi -family residences with an approved even more intense single family attached project. the Townhomes at Library Park, approved but not yet constructed, at the south end of the block. The existing adjacent buildings, and certainly the approved Townhome project, exceed many of the zone district standards but do so in what seems to be an appropriate manner given the proximity to downtown and the lack of immediate proximity to single-family homes. As noted, neither of the adjacent projects complies with this standard as the general character of this block is more like the Downtown District in this regard. It should be noted that the setback for the project to south varies with the easternmost portion at the required setback and the western portions setting back significantly further, which helps provide additional buffer. And, it should also be noted that the project fagade to the north contains no windows that would be impacted. Given this surrounding context, it is argued that the proposed solution is nominal and inconsequential. Furthermore, it seems as if this standard was intended to apply more to single-family residential projects, like those found further to the east of this project. Most two story or taller office buildings, other than those in former houses, would not comply with this standard. This is demonstrated by most office uses in the adjacent Downtown zone district. Since this zone district is intended as a transition area and since this particular block is more adjacent to and more closely resembles the intensity of the Downtown district, this standard does not seem as appropriate as it might elsewhere within the district. D. Evaluation of the Applicant's Request The essential basis for the Modification, as mentioned, is that this block face shares more urban attributes with the Downtown zone district than with the core residential area of the of the N-C-B which is well buffered by open space (Library Park) and public buildings (Carnegie Library and Poudre River Library). While zoned N-C-B, the site is located on the western edge of the East Side Neighborhood and abuts the Downtown district. The nearest single family detached homes in the N-C-B are approximately 500 feet to the northeast and 400 feet to the southeast both of which are across two streets. It is noteworthy that the proposed building is designed and scaled appropriately for the immediate context of the surrounding area. The three story height (30 feet to the eave) is flanked by 2 '/2 and 2 story buildings. The height, mass bulk and scale are comparable to the adjoining properties which were both constructed prior to adoption of the standard. The use of brick, sandstone, stucco, pitched shingled roofs contribute to compatibility. The applicant correctly points out that the south wall of the northerly building contains no windows. On the other side of the lot, the north wall of the south building is setback from the shared property line by five feet near the front, 18 feet for most of the length, and by 13 feet towards the rear. Given the mix of land uses and the size of buildings within the immediate context of the area, the P.D.P represents a creative design solution that effectively mitigates its height, mass, bulk and scale. Item # 3 Page 13 41 Agenda Item 3 Furthermore, the front building elevation is enhanced by the inclusion of a high-grade building material palette similar to the surrounding buildings. This elevation is proposed to be constructed entirely of masonry (brick and stone) with the exception of the windows, which are similar in character to the apartments. As well, the ground plane is treated with extensive landscaping all serving to further mitigate the reduced front setback. Lastly, the proposed project will greatly improve the streetscape and pedestrian experience through the removal of the existing driveway which presently disrupts the pedestrian flow across the site. D. Staff Evaluation of the Third Modification As noted, the subject parcel is only 50-feet wide. In contrast, the lot to the north is 100 feet wide and the lot to the south is 105 feet wide. The proposed reduction in the front setback by 5.34 feet, along a 50- foot wide lot, situated along a 400-foot block face, does not disrupt an established pattern of building placement. Staff is persuaded that there are a number of enhancements that contribute to mitigating the slight divergence in front setback. These include the overall use of brick, a well -articulated entrance (brick with stone accents) and a pitched roof with an eave height of only 30 feet. The parkway and existing Bur Oak will be preserved. In other words, the proposed building will fit into the existing context of the block face in an attractive manner. For the Third Modification, Staff finds that the building, with a 9.66-foot front setback along Mathews Street, is not detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that the P.D.P. as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Uses Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 (Purposes of the Land Use Code). This is because the proposed setback is found to be compatible relative to the established character of the entire block face, primarily the two existing buildings on either side and the pending Townhomes at Library Park. The prominent entrance promotes a pedestrian scale and contributes to the walkability of the neighborhood. The parkway and Bur Oak will remain. The proposed front setback does not break any established symmetry. 4. Fourth Modification - Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) - Minimum Sidevard Width: A. Standard This standard has two components. First, the minimum interior sideyard setback shall be five feet for the first 18 feet. Second, there must be one foot of additional horizontal setback for every two feet, or fraction thereof, of additional vertical height over 18 feet. B. Proposal and Extent of the Modification The building is placed five feet from both the north and south property lines. For the building wall height of 31 feet, the required side yard setback above 18 feet is required to be setback an additional seven feet (31 - 18 = 13 / 2 = 7) for a total of 12 feet from property line. The proposed setback above 18 feet remains at five feet, same as the first 18 feet of height, seven feet short of the standard. Item # 3 Page 12 40 Agenda Item 3 private enjoyment of the backyards would not be negatively impacted by new buildings that would loom over back yard patios, gardens and private outdoor space. The subject parcel, however, is located mid -block between two existing apartment buildings neither of which has a backyard. By placing an additional 1,953 square feet on the rear one-half of the lot, no private space is being impacted. The proposed building would be three stories and situated between a 2'/2-story building to the south and a 2-story building to the north so there would be no looming over condition. For Modification Two, Staff finds that the P.D.P., featuring 4,767 square feet on the rear one-half of the lot for a floor -to -area ratio of 1.36, is not detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that the P.D.P. as submitted will be equal to or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which the Modification is requested, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Uses Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 (Purposes of the Land Use Code). This is because there is no negative impact generated by the proposed additional 3,612 square feet and the resulting 1.36 FAR on the rear one-half of the subject parcel due to the existing context of the two abutting properties. The standard was intended to protect existing rear yard outdoor spaces but there are no private open spaces on the two adjoining lots which were developed prior to the adoption of the standard. There is no coherent pattern of rear lot floor -to - area ratios within the entire block face. While strict enforcement of the standard would be more applicable within the core of the residential neighborhood, the subject parcel is located in a transitional area that is well buffered from the residential area. 3. Third Modification - Section 4.90)(6)(b) - Minimum Front Yard Setback: A. Standard The required minimum front yard setback in the N-C-B zone is 15 feet. B. Proposal and Extent of the Modification The majority of the proposed building front setback is 9.66 feet with a minority portion at the main entry setback at 9.00 feet. The result is a front setback that is 5.34 feet less than otherwise required by the standard. C. Applicant's Justification As with the previous two Modifications, the applicant again emphasizes that the block face along Mathews Street, while zoned N-C-B, abuts, and is more closely influenced by, the character of the Downtown zone than the surrounding single family neighborhoods. In addition, the lot is located between two existing apartment buildings neither of which meet this standard. The building to the north is setback approximately 14 feet. The building to the south property is setback approximately two feet at the eastern -most masonry piers of the main entry, approximately eight feet at the main entry wall and approximately 11 feet for the remainder of the building. Viewing these three properties, a nice undulation pattern of facades is developing in a mild in -and -out fashion. It is argued that the proposed solution is nominal and inconsequential given the surrounding context. Item # 3 Page 11 39 Agenda Item 3 For Modification One, Staff finds that the proposed P.D.P. is not detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that relative to the 56,000 square foot total block face and with only 50 feet of linear feet of the block face frontage, that the P.D.P. as submitted will not cause the building to appear incongruous relative to the immediate context. In addition, the P.D.P. as proposed will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Uses Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 (Purposes of the Land Use Code). This is because the project is well designed especially with regard to screening the entire parking field. Had this parking been arranged in a surface parking lot, the area would not have counted towards the floor -to -area ratio. Also, relative to the overall context of the block face, the additional 4,898 square feet, as represented by the Modification, is compatible with the context of the surrounding area. 2. Second Modification - F1oorArea Ratio (FAR) 4.90)(5): A. Standard This standard requires that the floor area ratio (FAR) be a maximum of 0.33 on the rear 50% of the lot B. Proposal and Extent of Modification The rear one-half of the lot contains 3,550 square feet with an allowable FAR 0.33 which equates to 1,155 square feet. The proposed building would contain 4,767 square feet on the rear one-half of the lot which exceeds the standard by 3,612 square feet and which equates to 1.36 FAR. C. Applicant's Justification The applicant contends that, as with the Density standard, that the N-C-B zone district is intended as a transitional district between more intense downtown commercial activity and the surrounding single- family residential neighborhoods. The context of the neighborhood is unique, with a public library (recently enlarged), community creative center (former museum) and public park adjacent to the east. As with the Density standard, this particular block face is more closely associated with the block face to the west, across the alley, zoned Downtown, than with the residential core of the N-C-B neighborhood. The applicant also contends that this standard was intended to apply more to single-family residential projects allowing them to have a back yard area and also to maintain the quality of the adjacent back yard areas. Since the Apartment project to the south does not have a back yard area and likely exceeds this criteria, and since the apartment project to the north places a parking lot at the rear half of its lot, it would seem that there would be no benefit to the adjacent projects in holding the subject property to the standard. D. Staff Evaluation of the Second Modification This N-C-B standard was adopted in 1991 prior to the construction of the two adjoining apartment buildings. The original intent of the standard was to restrict out -of -scale, new, infill re -development in the back yards of existing uses which would potentially impact the character of the adjoining lots and the neighborhood. Where there were established residences with backyards, there was an expectation that Item # 3 Page 10 38 Agenda Item 3 Modifications of Standard First Modification - Section 4.9(D)(1) - Density: A. Standard This standard requires that the minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building but not less than 5,000 square feet. This is typically referred to as a 1:1 floor -to -area ratio or F.A.R. B. Proposal and Extent of the Modification The existing lot area is 7,000 square feet. The proposed total floor area is 11,898 square feet resulting in an increase of 4,898 square feet and a floor -to -area ratio of 1.7:1. C. Applicant's Justification I l The applicant contends that the N-C-B zone district is intended as a transitional district between more intense downtown commercial uses and the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. The subject property happens to abut the Downtown District along the west property line, and the subject block more closely resembles the character and intensity of the Downtown District than the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. The existing adjacent buildings, as well as the approved Townhomes at Library Park (approved but not yet constructed), also exceed many of the zone district standards but do so in what seems to be an appropriate manner given the closer proximity to downtown and the lack of immediate proximity to single-family homes. Finally, the applicant contends that the magnitude of the increase is only 5,340 square feet compared to the 56,000 square foot block face. Therefore, the Modification is justified as being Nominal and Inconsequential when considered in the larger context of the project and the immediate surrounding area. D. Staff Evaluation of the First Modification Contextually, the P.D.P. represents only 7,000 square feet of the 56,000 square foot block face and only 50 linear feet of lot width within the middle of a 400-foot long block face. These metrics represent one - eighth of the block face. The two existing apartment buildings on either side were constructed prior to the adoption of the N-C-B zone district and both exceed the Density standard. The northerly parcel includes a surface parking lot. The P.D.P., in contrast, hides the parking under the structure. From an urban design perspective, under -structure parking is a superior design than surface parking lots. Staff finds that applying a strict interpretation of the standard for a parcel that is only one -eighth of the total block face, particularly along a block face where no other building complies, has no practical advantages in promoting the public purpose of the N-C-B zone. Further, staff is persuaded that the general character of the block face is maintained and that the building scale provides an appropriate transition between the Downtown zone district across the alley and the residential core of the neighborhood which is located further east and also buffered by the Poudre River Public Library and Library Park. In terms of overall scale, the P.D.P. is flanked by larger parcels and buildings on either side. Item # 3 Page 9 37 Agenda Item 3 individually eligible for consideration as a Fort Collins Landmark. Consequently, the project was presented to the Landmark Preservation Commission at a worksession on May 13, 2015 and at a hearing on December 9, 2015. The L.P.C. found that the new building is sensitive to the adjacent historic structures and recommends approval of the P.D.P. (Memorandum attached.) E. Section 3.5.1(B)(C)(D)(E) -Building and Project Compatibility The specific test for compatibility with the nearby historic buildings has been met by the L.P.C. finding compliance with the preceding standard. Within a broader context, however, the P.D.P. complies with the overall compatibility standards in the following manner: The architecture is complementary to the eclectic, yet established character of the surrounding area; The placement and orientation of the building respects the rhythm and pattern along the Mathews Street block face; The extensive use of brick, pitched roof, eave height of 30 feet and prominent entrance are derived from the neighboring context; The building size, height and articulation are proportional relative to the size of the parcel and the smaller than the two abutting buildings. The size of the mid -block parcel and scale of the building are contextual relative to the three larger existing and proposed developments on the block face. ection 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service A Transportation Impact Study was waived because adding 8,550 square feet of new office space at this location would not impact any Levels of Service at the adjacent intersections. The site is strategically located on Transfort Route 15 and three blocks from the MAX Bus Rapid Transit. 7. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on May 20, 2015 and a summary is attached. In general, the project was well -received. The primary concerns were the overall quality of the project, providing adequate parking, tree mitigation and privacy. In response, the applicant has selected brick as the primary exterior material. The architecture is well - articulated with a prominent entry and an arch to reflect the arches on the Carnegie Library. Parking is provided at -grade and under the second floor. Four new public parking spaces will be added along Mathews Street as a result of closing the existing driveway. The existing Bur Oak in the parkway will be preserved. Most trees are Siberian Elms and will be removed. Overall, 9.5 new trees are required for mitigation and will be placed in Library Park per the City Forester. Regarding privacy, the windows on the south elevation will be placed such that the second and third floor windows will be offset from the adjacent windows of the Park View Apartments so there is no direct line of sight. Item # 3 Page 8 36 Agenda Item 3 G. Summary of Article Four Standards With regard to applying these six standards to redevelopment along the west side of Mathews Street, Staff has commented in the past that these standards are intended to ensure building compatibility as if the new building were being inserted into or next to the heart of the established residential neighborhood or the "Preservation Area" as noted in the East Side Neighborhood Plan. In fact, this is not the case. The subject property shares a boundary line with the Downtown zone district and is separated from the core area by the historic Carnegie Library, the Poudre River Public Library and Library Park. The site, therefore, has a more significant relationship with the activity, scale and form of Downtown versus the residential area. It is next to a 2 '/z story building on the south (Park View Apartments) and a two story building on the north Library Park Apartments. It is in the vicinity of the D.M.A. Plaza and the Webster House, a former funeral home now serving as an office building for the Poudre Library District. To the northeast, along East Oak Street, there are two churches, a 3 '/2 story apartment building and a variety of businesses and services located in converted houses. The nearest single family detached homes in the NCB are approximately one block (400 feet) to the southeast (315 E. Olive Street) and one block (500 feet) to the northeast (330 E. Oak Street). While the project complies with these standards, a case could be made that due to location and context established by surrounding uses, such standards are not directly applicable. 6. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping The City Forester has evaluated all 42 trees (24 of which are Siberian Elm) most of which are in fair, poor or dead condition. Over the years, the trees have not been maintained and have been seriously neglected. Based on the Forester's assessment, 9.5 mitigation trees will be required. Most importantly, one existing Bur Oak, located in the parkway, will be preserved. B. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) - Bicycle Parking In accordance with the standard, there will be four bicycle parking spaces with one space being covered. C. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) -Required Number of Off -Street Parking Spaces For an 8,550 square foot office building, one space per 1,000 square feet is required. Nine spaces are provided at -grade, under the structure, thus complying with the standard. Please note that by closing the existing driveway, four new, diagonal, on -street spaces will provided, one of which will be handicap van -accessible, and available to the public. These spaces are not counted towards the required minimum. D. Section 3.4.7(F)(6) -Historic and Cultural Resources -New Construction The P.D.P. is adjacent to, but not included within, the Laurel School Historic District, located across Mathews Street. As noted, the P.D.P. is across from the Carnegie Library and Museum Cabins, which are Fort Collins Landmarks. The Park View Apartments adjoins the P.D.P. along the south property line; the eligibility of which has not been officially determined, but it is likely that it would be potentially Item # 3 Page 7 35 Agenda Item 3 required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. For a building height of 31 feet, the required side yard setback above 18 feet is required to be an additional seven feet (31 - 18 = 13 / 2 = 7) for a total of 12 feet from side property line. The proposed setback above 18 feet remains at five feet, the same as the first 18 feet of height, seven feet short of the standard. Fifth - Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(b): The location of handicap parking spaces shall be located as close as possible to the nearest accessible building entrance, using the shortest possible accessible route of travel Staff has interpreted this standard to require that the handicap parking space be located onsite. The proposed handicap space is located on Mathews Street. 5. Compliance with Section N-C-B Dimensional and Development Standards Not Covered by the Seven Modifications: There remain six applicable dimensional and development standards that are not covered by the aforementioned five Modifications. These are: A. Section 4.9(D)(6)(a) - Minimum Lot Width The lot is 50 feet wide which complies the required minimum lot width of 50 feet. B. Section 4.9(E)(1)(a) - Building Design - Exterior Walls All exterior walls are parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines of the lot. C. Section 4.9(E)(1)(b) - Building Design - Primary Entrance The primary entrance to the building faces Mathews Street and includes prominent entry features. D. Section 4.9(E)(1)(d) - Building Design - Second Floor The second floor does not overhang the lower floor front or side exterior walls. E. Section 4.9(E)(1)(e) - Building Design - Front Porches As an office building, the front entry does not include a front porch but rather a portico with a recessed front door. F. Section 4.9(E)(1)(g) - Building Design - Roof Pitch The primary building mass is three stories. The building features a 6:12 pitched roof that, from the street level, will appear to cover the entire building. Hidden within the center of the roof, however, will be flat deck for mechanical equipment. Item # 3 Page 6 34 Agenda Item 3 The Plan identified that "Small and/or oddly -shaped lots common in infill and redevelopment sites create difficulty for the accommodation of utilities." In response, the parcel is 50' x 140' for a total of 7,000 square feet, and the P.D.P. includes a new 9' wide easement dedication along the frontage for underground utilities. The Plan identified that: "Redevelopment projects require flexibility; most redevelopment areas allow a number of uses." In response, the P.D.P. includes five Modifications that have been factored into the overall design of the project. 5. Summary of the Five Modifications: A summary of the five Modifications is provided. Each one will be discussed in detail in subsequent sections of this report. First - Section 4.9 (D)(1): Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. (This is also known as a 1:1 floor -to -area ratio.) As noted, the lot is 50' x 140' for a total of 7,000 square feet which allows for a total building square footage of 7,000 square feet. The proposed building would contain 11.898 square feet which exceeds the standard by 4,898 square feet for a floor -to -area ratio of 1.7:1. 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. The rear one-half of the lot contains 3,550 square feet with an allowable FAR 0.33 which equates to 1,155 square feet. The proposed building would contain 4,767 square feet on the rear one-half of the lot which equates to 1.36 FAR. J h «N -1 J "marl -rr►e GF-ov�u FL.c,a c , Third - Section 4.9 (D)(6)(b): Minimum front yard setback (Mathews Street) shall be fifteen (15) feet. The proposed front yard setback is 9.66 feet which is 5.34 feet closer to the front property line. Fourth - Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d): Minimum side yard width 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 Item # 3 Page 5 33 Agenda Item 3 According to the ESNP: "The Buffer areas are intended to provide a "cushion" between the Fringe and Preservation areas. The predominant land uses to be encouraged in the buffer areas are home occupations, office or other low intensity (non -retail) non-residential uses, multi -family housing including higher density residential uses, and other residential uses providing special housing needs such as boarding or group homes, and low/moderate income housing projects." "Although a wider range of land uses is appropriate in the buffer area, all existing structures contributing to the character of the Neighborhood should be preserved if possible. The exterior treatment of renovated structures or any new construction should be compatible with the existing character of the Neighborhood." "Use Conversions - Although a wider range of land uses is appropriate in the Buffer Areas, preservation of existing structures to the extent possible, and compatible exterior treatment and architectural style of renovated structures or any new construction is of great importance. " "Setbacks should be allowed to be consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood." "Any change of use determined to be appropriate in the Buffer Areas should be allowed if the proposal conforms to the intent of this Plan; is compatible with the surrounding environment; and, can be shown to create no significant traffic, noise, or other land use conflicts with adjacent Preservation Areas. Under those criteria, appropriate changes in use would include... office buildings..." 3. Evaluation of Compliance with the East Side Neighborhood Plan: The E.S.N.P. emphasizes that the primary purpose of the Buffer Areas is to provide a level of protection to the Preservation Areas from the more intense activities of the Fringe. As a three-story office building, the Mathews Street Offices would fulfill this function. The street -facing entrance and the emphasis on brick building facades contribute to the residential character of the Preservation Area. Placing the parking under the structure hides the parking and promotes neighborhood compatibility. At 8,550 square feet, the size of the building will not create significant traffic, noise or other conflicts with the adjacent Preservation Area. 4. Refill Fort Collins - Strategic Plan: Refill Fort Collins was adopted in 2005 to address the challenges associated with redevelopment within the built-up urban areas of the City. The plan reemphasizes the City Plan Principle GM-8: "The City will promote compatible infill and redevelopment in targeted areas where the general agreement exists that these activities are beneficial within the Community Growth Management Area Boundary." In response, the P.D.P. is located within the East Side Neighborhood Plan which is identified by the Plan as an additional targeted redevelopment area. Item # 3 Page 4 32 Agenda Item 3 To further describe the surrounding area, it is notable that the former museum in the historic Carnegie Library Building, directly across the street at 200 Mathews, has been repurposed as the Community Creative Center. The creative center concept includes flexible, inexpensive spaces for the community to rent to support their creative endeavors. The building is now fully renovated and houses galleries, performance space, classrooms, innovative think spaces, and a digital classroom. The building is currently offering rental gallery space and serving as the home to the Arts Incubator of the Rockies (AIR) and Beet Street's professional development program for creativity and innovation. Also, the Fort Collins Public Access Network (FCPAN) leases a studio in the basement allowing more community access to the cable station. The existing, one-story house is currently occupied. It has been determined to not be eligible for local landmark designation and demolition is expected. The subject site is flanked on both sides by multi -family apartment buildings on larger lots. In addition, the Townhomes at Library Park was recently approved at the south end of the block for ten dwelling units in two buildings. Work to date on this project includes the demolition of the former commercial building and site preparation. By way of comparison, the 7,000 square foot is a small lot, located in the middle of the block face that is characterized by existing and proposed development at a larger scale: Townhomes at Library Park 12,600 square feet lot size 3 & 4 stories Park View Apartments 14,700 square feet lot size 2 Yz stories Library Park Apartments 14,000 square feet lot size 2 stories The site abuts, but is not included within, the Laurel School Historic District. The alley along the west property line divides the Downtown and N-C-B zone districts. 2. East Side Neighborhood Plan: The East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP) was adopted in 1986 and divided the study area into three general land use areas: The commercial "Fringe Areas" along College Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Lemay Avenue and Mountain Avenue; The predominantly residential "Preservation Area" that comprises the majority of the Study Area; The mixed use "Buffer Areas" between the Preservation and Fringe Areas. Both the Townhomes at Library Park, located at 220 East Olive Street, and Mathews Street Offices are located within one of these Buffer Areas. In fulfillment of the E.S.N.P., the Buffer Areas were rezoned to Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, NC- B in 1991. The East Side Neighborhood Plan (1986) preceded the adoption of the Downtown Plan (1989). Subsequently, the "Fringe Area" was rezoned Downtown. As mentioned, the alley along the west property line is the dividing line between the Downtown zone and the subject site zoned N-C-B. Item # 3 Page 3 31 Agenda Item 3 For one of the Modifications, a condition of approval is recommended regarding the future conversion of one parking space to a van -accessible handicap parking space. to W rtf COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: N-C-B Existing 2-story multi -family building (Library Park Apartments) S: N-C-B Existing 2 '/z story multi -family building (Park View Apartments) E: N-C-B Community Creative Center (Carnegie Library) and Library Park W: D Existing mix of commercial and residential Item # 3 Page 2 30 Agenda Item 3 PROJECT NAME 215 MATHEWS STREET OFFICES, #150020 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner L4 41 �i 3cj8 3)3L12 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 f i APPLICANT: This is a request for a P.D.P. for redevelopment of 215 Mathews Street for a three-story office building containing 8,550 square feet. The existing house would be demolished and the driveway would be closed allowing for four new public parking spaces to be placed on the street. Sole access would then be gained via the alley to nine, at -grade, under -structure parking spaces. The mid -block parcel is 7,000 square feet in size and zoned Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB). There are five requests for Modification of Standard. Two relate to maximum allowable floor -to - area ratios, two relate to building setbacks, and one relates to the location of the handicap parking space. Mr. Greg D. Fisher Architect, PLLC 3115 Clyde Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Scout Leasing c/o Greg D. Fisher, Architect, PLLC 330 South College Avenue, Suite 300 Fort Collins, CO 80524 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the five Modifications of Standard, with one being subject to a condition, and approval of the P.D.P. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project complies with the East Side Neighborhood Plan. The project complies with the Refill Fort Collins Strategic Plan. The project complies with the N-C-B standards with four exceptions. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Standards with one exception. Five Modifications of Standard have been reviewed and evaluated and recommended for approval in compliance with the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H). Item # 3 Page 1