Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLARIMER COUNTY COURTHOUSE OFFICES - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 37-98C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 22 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Torgerson moved for disapproval of the County Court House Offices. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-2 with Members Torgerson, Craig, Carpenter and Gavaldon voting for the motion and Members Bernth and Colton voting against the motion. • Member Torgerson commented that the location is generally consistent with what we would like to see and what our plans show. However, when you look at it specifically, it is not compatible and is on the wrong side of the block. It is only on that side of the block so that the building that is existing to the south can be utilized during the construction period, which appears to be a short -sided design constraint. To locate the building facing south and away from the Civic Center, essentially for that reason and to orient it towards Horsetooth and the historical location of the 1886 Courthouse seems short sided. The 1886 plan in 1959 was deemed obsolete and could not be renovated in any way, so they tore it down. In 1959, they built a building that was going to be the Courthouse for the next 100 years and was apparently designed to have another story on it, so it could be expanded. Apparently their thinking in 1959 was short -sided enough that we are now tearing it down and building a new Courthouse for the next 100 years with a design constraint that really only lasts a year or two. Locationally, it seems specifically incompatible. The building should be on the south side of the block with a public plaza on the north side as it was envisioned in the Civic Center Plan. In terms of extent, it seems entirely compatible. The height is compatible with the area; the square footage is compatible. His specific concerns relate to character, especially the framework of the Civic Center Master Plan, the open space spines are truly the backbone of the Civic Center. The County is only minimally addressing that with somewhat a backdoor and a very amorphous curvilinear plaza that is really addressing a linear arrangement of the Civic Center. The character in that respect seems totally off. It is also cutting a half a block off of what is only a three block long spine of the Civic Center spine. The City has already lobbed off the eastern wing of the cruciform area of the spine. Therefore, the City and the County are sort of equally to blame for what he sees as the destruction of the Civic Center Master Plan. This block also has no reference to Mason Street except that it is a loading dock and that is entirely incompatible with the Mason Street Corridor Plan and the Civic Center Plan. This would effectively eliminate it as a pedestrian friendly zone, one of the four blocks on the west side of the Civic Center that are on Mason Street. The County Justice Center has already done the same Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 25 • Member Carpenter commented that there are many things that she likes about the building. She likes the cost as a taxpayer. She believes that even within that cost it is a great landmark building and it could really add to downtown. That said, she could not support the building. She believes the spirit of the Civic Center Plan and the Mason Street Corridor Plan are not met and the fatal flaw is the orientation of the building. She felt that as citizens there was a lot of time put into these plans and she did not think that it has to cost a lot to orient and work. She understands about leaving the buildings in place, but if this building were just turned to face the Mason Street Corridor and the Civic Center spine with the parking in the back of it, it would give us the pedestrian feel that we need and she thinks it could work. She regrets the way that it is oriented now and that she cannot support it because there are many things she does like about it. Member Carpenter would not be supporting the project. • Member Craig commented that one of the things that disappoints her is the County stood up here and told us all the time and thought that went into this project, so they obviously have been working on this for a long time, yet they did not invite the City to the table at the very beginning. She thought that many good things could have come out if the City were at the table at the beginning in regards to the building orientation, etc. Member Craig would not be supporting the project. • Member Colton commented that one of the things that concern him was the limited amount of public input. The public does not see the buildings until the end. He feels that the City and County should be working together to make sure the Civic Center Master Plan would happen. He feels that it is too late in the stage to be doing things like reorienting the building. He would like to see some of the money go away from the southwest entrance tower and put into the Mason Street side of the building. He thought it would be pointless to oppose it now. Member Colton would be supporting the project. Other Business There was no other business The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Approved February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 24 relocating the loading dock to maybe the southside of the building and accessing it from the area that was vacated by the drive. He urged the County Commissioners to relocate the transformers and generators from a spine the City is really trying to promote. The County appears to be considering the convenience of their employees and their budget and the project itself more than its customers. The customers will ride on the Mason Street Corridor Plan, they will come in on mass transit, and they will have to pass a loading dock and come in a side entrance to get into the building. In closing, just because the County does not have to comply with the Code, it does not mean they should not. The Code we are talking about was driven by large groups of citizens in Fort Collins and it represents their views. The fact that the only public outreach that was done was to the County employees and the DDA, illustrates that they are designing a building for themselves and not for the citizens of Fort Collins. He would not be supporting the project. • Member Bernth commented that he sees Member Torgersons certain points. It is really difficult that sometimes you cannot have it both ways. One of the biggest complaints with the City building was the cost. This is a much simpler building than some of the buildings we have seen that the City has completed, but at a $180 a square foot versus what we have looked at traditionally at $250 and above. He thinks that there is a bit of responsibility to the citizens there also. From a double move standpoint, the last thing that you want to do is move twice. He does not think the project adheres to the Civic Center Plan, especially the spine. He would rather have a tree, than to be exactly oriented to exactly what we need to do on the Civic Center Plan. He does think that there has been some compromise and some work with the staff and it sounds like everyone is cooperating making as good of project as they possibly can for a reasonable price. He would be supporting the project. • Chairperson Gavaldon commented that he was concerned about cutting more of the Civic Center spine off. The Mason Street Corridor Plan and Civic Center Plans are guidelines and are meant to guide the future. When a building comes to the City as ready as this one here. We are trying to design something that is already a beautiful model, and that model cannot be changed, because the model is already set up. The County has been responsible with their budget, but he believes that the budget can be in tact and that the City and County could work together as a staff to design the building. He believes if they would have stayed within the scope and spirit of the plans, they would have a class A building. He believes the architect had the documents and should have worked within the plans and should have come up with a building that would have been properly positioned for the next 100 years. Member Gavaldon would not be supporting the project. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 23 thing by putting a 6-foot stone wall along Mason Street and large overhead doors. The success of the retail spaces in the parking garage attest to how successful that works in addressing those pedestrian areas. The Civic Center talks about being civic anchored. This project is adjacent to the Civic Center, but it has its backdoor to the Civic Center and is not addressing the Civic Center in any substantial way. This vision statement of the Civic Center Master Plan talks about tree lined streets with buildings being built close to the sidewalk to provide a comfortable sense of enclosure for pedestrians. This building is not built close to any street, except Mason Street, but the comfortable sense of enclosure that it is offering pedestrians there is a loading dock that we are trying to screen. By the County's own admission, they are trying to disguise what we consider to be an ugly entrance. Two of the four blocks are not addressing Mason Street and that will lead to the demise of the livelihood in the Civic Center area along Mason Street. The vision statement in the Civic Center Plan also talks about parking demands that is to be met by mixed -use parking structures. The County participated in the Parking Structure but appears to want to do a large surface lot, which seems totally incompatible with the project too. In terms of the Mason Street Corridor Plan, the vision statement says the plan envisions opportunities for redevelopment along the corridor. Historically development has turned its back to the corridor, it is envisioned that future development would be oriented and take advantage of the rare opportunities provided by transit, walking and cycling activities. This building is clearly turning its back to Mason Street and is clearly is doing exactly what the vision statement asks new development not to do. In terms of positives, he appreciates that the County had addressed some of the staff suggestions and concerns. He thinks that the changes that have been made are very positive. However, it is a Band-Aid to what he believes is the wrong orientation. It minimizes the concerns, but it is not something that can be done by "tweaking" a drive or adding some trees here and there. In terms of character, the positives are that they are keeping the large trees, the building massing provides a good landmark, and the idea of this being the center of the County and the tower are all positive. The reuse of the stone in the walls and walks are positive. However, when he looks at all the positives and negatives, the loading area on Mason Street is a deadly blow to the Mason Street area of the Civic Center. The generator and the transformer, seems unacceptable to him that they are just thrown onto Mason Street. Member Torgerson urged the County Commissioners to step back and continue to work with staff and consider more substantial changes, like Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 21 Member Colton recommended approval of Modification request for Section 4.4(E)(2)(c) for height. He cited staffs finding B and C. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Colton moved for approval of the Mason Street North Major Amendment, #4-98B with two conditions: 1. The developer must provide (to the City for review and approval) sufficient design of a proposed median, with pedestrian refuge, in Cherry Street mid -block between North Mason Street and North Howes Street. This median will align with the proposed pedestrian spine in the Mason Street North development plan and the pedestrian spine to the south of Cherry Street as part of the City's Downtown Civic Center Master Plan. The design of the median must be accepted by the City prior to the final Mason Street North development plan being approved, recorded, and filed. 2. That the Plat for the project be drawn to include all of the 6 space parking lot facility and related sidewalk and pedestrian trail located to the northwest of the Mason Court cul-de-sac. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: Larimer County Courthouse, Site Plan Advisory Review, #37-98C Project Description: Request for a new 150,000 s.f. office building that will replace the current Larimer County Offices Building at 200 West Oak Street. The building will be five stories, with a tower element of 104 feet in height. The property is zoned D, Downtown, and is within the Civic Center Subdistrict. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Bernth, Craig, Torgerson, Carpenter, Colton, and Gavaldon. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Joy, Wamhoff, Reavis, Reiff, Jackson, Shepard, Barkeen, Olt, Stringer, Phillips, Stanford, Moore and Deines. Election of Officers: Member Carpenter nominated Member Gavaldon for Chairperson. Member Craig nominated Member Torgerson for Chairperson. There we no other comments. The vote tied 3-3. Member Colton moved to postpone election of officers until the February 7, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Member Craig seconded the motion. The vote was approved 6-0. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. #36-96F Mulberry — Lemay Crossings, Phase Three, K.F.C./Taco Bell — Project Development Plan. 2. #43-01 Webster Farm Annexation & Zoning. 3. #33-01 Fossil Lake Annexation No. 1 (Continued) 4. #33-01A Fossil Lake Annexation No. 2 (Continued) 5. #33-01B Fossil Lake Annexation No. 3 (Continued) Discussion Agenda: 6. Recommendation to City Council for the South College Access Plan Update. 7. #4-97B Mason Street North — Major Amendment 8. #37-98C Larimer County Courthouse Offices — Site Plan Advisory Review. Other Business: 9. Resolution PZ02-01 — Easement Vacation