HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE OVERLOOK - PDP - PDP160011 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (22)Agenda Item 000
ATTACHMENTS
1. Zoning Map (PDF)
2. Aerial Map (PDF)
3. Applicant's Planning Objectives Narrative (PDF)
4. Applicant's Height Analysis (PDF)
5. Site and Landscape Plan (PDF)
6. Building Elevations (PDF)
7. Building Materials Exhibit (PDF)
8. Shadow analysis and Buffer Section (PDF)
9. Lighting Plan (PDF)
10. Plat (PDF)
11. Utility and Drainage Plan (PDF)
12. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (PDF)
13. Resident Letter (PDF)
14. Letters of intent from adjacent property owners (PDF)
15. Traffic Impact Study (Summary) (PDF)
16. Ecological Characterization Study (PDF)
Item 000 Page 21
Agenda Item 000
4) The use of brick on the building envelope and on adjacent retaining walls contributes
a great deal to reducing the apparent mass of the building and gives the building a
warmer, more comfortable scale when viewed from the ground level and from nearby
windows. The combination of warm and cool color patterns helps the building relate to
existing buildings to the east and west which incorporate similar brick and color tones.
5) The use of brick is the most extensive on the east -facing building facades, also
wrapping around Wing 2 and contributing to the scaling down of the building mass in
this area.
3. Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was held on September 2, 2015 at the Harmony Presbyterian Church and the
meeting notes are attached with this staff report. The four primary concerns raised at the meeting were:
• Concern with potential cut -through traffic from Landings Drive, through the private parking
areas east of the proposed development.
• Concern with views of the mountains being blocked by the proposed development.
• Concern with the 5-stories of building presented on the east side of the proposed
development.
• The potential for overflow parking into the surrounding residential neighborhoods to the
east.
4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating the proposed Overlook Project Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of
fact.
A. The PDP complies with process located in Division 2.2 — Common Development Review
Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 — Administration.
B. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 — General Development
Standards.
C. The P.D.P. complies with the relevant Employment District (E) standards in Division 4.27 of
Article 4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval with the following motion: Approval of The
Overlook Project Development Plan - PDP160011 based on the Findings of Fact on page 20 of the staff
report.
Item 000 Page 20
Agenda Item 000
sufficient space remaining on these roofs to install an adequate solar system if the
owner(s) elect to do so. In terms of the effects of shadowing on adjacent landscaping
and the potential for the accumulation of snow and ice, staffs opinion is that the
proposed building wings are too far away from the eastern property boundaries to
influence these factors.
4) Section 3.5.1(H) Land Use Transition.
When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed abutting
each other and where gradual transitions are not possible or not in the best interest of
the community, the development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve
compatibility through the provision of buffer yards and passive open space in order to
enhance the separation between uses.
Staff Comments:
Because the property is located in a transition area and along the JFK Parkway
corridor and with zoning that allows for a mixed -use development with residential
uses located in a multi -story project, staff agrees that a more gradual development
transition at this location is unlikely, which would require utilizing less of the site,
either horizontally or vertically, to provide a more gradual transition with less building
envelope. Given this context and the fact that surrounding uses are multi -family and
commercial in the same zone district, the focus has been on achieving appropriate
compatibility though buffer treatments to enhance the separation between uses to the
maximum extent feasible. Mitigation elements including the building design, buffer
landscaping and perimeter fencing are discussed in detail in the staff report section
above that addresses Section 3.2.1(E)(1) Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and
Activities.
J. Section 3.5.3 — Mixed -Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings.
1) The building design provides a high level of quality that satisfies the building
requirements of this section. The extensive articulation of the building form and
generous use of brick and metal panels contribute to a high quality appearance that is
consistent with the high quality architectural design expected within the JFK corridor
in the Employment District.
2) Variations in massing, juxtaposed materials and forms with varied patterns of
recesses and projections provide vertical and horizontal interest in conformance with
Section 3.5.3(E)(2), breaking down the overall scale of the building.
3) Entrances are clearly identified and articulated with an entrance canopy as a
sheltering element and with a change in mass related to the building entrance in
conformance with Section 3.5.3(E)(4).
Item 000 Page 19
Agenda Item 000
Staff analysis:
Both the shadow analysis and applicant's summary of key conclusions are attached
with this staff report. This height analysis section requires a higher level of review for
projects that propose buildings greater than forty feet in height. While the bulk of
staff's analysis is included in the compatibility, buffer, privacy, and shadowing
comments on previous pages of this staff report, some additional comments based on
the height criteria above may be helpful for the Board's review.
In terms of shadowing, Section 3.2.3(E) — Shading also requires that the development
plan be designed to mitigate shadow effects on adjacent buildings, more specifically:
The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum
extent feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto
structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast
by a twenty -five-foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the
rp oiect between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21.
This provision shall not apply to structures within the following high -density
zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial, and Transit -Oriented
Overlay District.
Staff Comments:
Based on the architect's shadow analysis, some shading does occur on adjacent
properties, but this shading is not greater than the 21 foot hypothetical wall, in
compliance with this standard.
With buildings taller than 40 feet, further review is required base on the criteria
described above. The criteria requires that buildings or structures greater than forty
(40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact
on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property.
Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property
sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare
such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation
of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and shading of windows or
gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow
impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure
on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building mass or redesigning a building
shape.
As can be seen on the shadow study exhibits, shadows are cast onto the roofs of the
adjacent eastern buildings during portions of days on and near December 215f
however only a portion of these building roofs are affected, and there appears to be
Item 000 Page 18
Agenda Item 000
natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts
include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to
preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as
reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow
and ice during the winter on adjacent property and shading of windows or gardens for
more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of
a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot,
increasing the setbacks, reducing building mass or redesigning a building shape.
2. Privacy. Development plans with buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet
in height shall be designed to address privacy impacts on adjacent property by
providing landscaping, fencing, open space, window size, window height and window
placement, orientation of balconies, and orientation of buildings away from adjacent
residential development, or other effective techniques.
3. Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height
shall be compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in
terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass and building or structure scale
to human scale.
(b) Submittal Requirements. All development plans proposing building or structure
heights in excess of forty (40) feet shall, at a minimum, include the following
information:
1. a shadow analysis that indicates, on the project development site plan, the location
of all shadows cast by the building or structure (with associated dates of the year);
2. a summary of the key conclusions of the shadow analysis, and steps to be taken to
comply with the review standards set forth above.
(c) Modification of Height Limits. To provide flexibility in meeting the height limits
contained in Article 4 of this Code, such height limits can be either increased or
decreased by the decision maker in the development review process for the following
purposes:
1. preserving the character of existing residential neighborhoods;
2. allowing architectural embellishments consistent with architectural style, such as
peaked roof sections, comer turrets, belvederes or cupolas;
3. defining and reinforcing the downtown areas the major focal point in the
community;
4. allowing for maximum utilization of activity centers;
5. protecting access to sunlight;
6. providing conscious direction to the urban form of the City through careful
placement of tall buildings or structures within activity centers;
7. allowing rooftop building extensions to incorporate HVAC equipment.
Item 000 Page 17
Agenda Item 000
• Four of the eight balconies predominantly face north, and do not directly face the
existing 2-story multi -family dwellings;
• On two of the lower balconies, brick is used to and provides a tighter frame
around the east portions of the balconies, providing more screening and
seclusion;
• The 6' privacy fencing and upsized evergreen trees are placed in the buffer area
to provide screening. Evergreen trees are upsized to an 8 foot height at the time
of planting;
• As an additional second layer of screening, four shade tree are placed around the
east end of Wing 2 to further soften views;
• With the design of the existing 2-story multi -family buildings, the majority of the
windows and all exterior doors of these buildings face north and south because
the fronts and backs of these buildings are oriented north/south, and the sides of
these existing units face north,
• The building footprint for Wing 2 is offset a bit and does not line up entirely with
either of the nearest multi -family buildings. This helps create some breathing room
and additional sense of separation,
• All exterior lighting, including porch lights for the proposed balconies, are installed
on the building walls, and not on the balcony ceilings, and are fully shielded
fixtures.
3) Section 3.5.1(G)(1) Building Height Review and Special Height
Revie w/Modiff cations.
The purpose of this Section is to establish a special process to review buildings or
structures that exceed forty (40) feet in height. Its intent is to encourage creativity and
diversity of architecture and site design within a context of harmonious neighborhood
planning and coherent environmental design, to protect access to sunlight, to
preserve desirable views and to define and reinforce downtown and designated
activity centers. All buildings or structures in excess of forty (40) feet in height shall be
subject to special review pursuant to this subsection (G).
(a) Review Standards. If any building or structure is proposed to be greater than forty
(40) feet in height above grade, the building or structure must meet the following
special review criteria:
1. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall
be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of
Item 000 Page 16
Agenda Item 000
Staff Analysis:
As discussed in previous sections of this staff report, the major focus of staffs review
is the building design and buffering in the southeast portion of the property where
Wing 2 is closest to adjacent multi -family buildings. While the buffer components have
been discussed, the building is also designed to address the criteria in section 3.5.1.
In terms of size, height, bulk, mass, and scale, Wing 2 provides a height reduction
and a reduction in building mass at the east end of the building envelope. In this area,
the 4t' story of the southeast portion of the building is stepped back 35 feet from the
south and 50 feet from the east, and in the place of a dwelling unit in this space, a
rooftop patio is incorporated. This step -back significantly reduces the mass and height
effects of the building in this area. Additionally, the generous use of the warm -toned
brick is extended 2'/s stories, emphasizing and subdividing this portion of the building
mass as it relates to the height of the existing two-story multi -family buildings to the
east.
In terms of height, the east end of Wing 2 is approximately 46'- 6" to the floor of the
roof deck (not including the height of the railing). The height of the nearest adjacent
2-story multi -family building is approximately 27' to the roof peak. In terms of setbacks
from property lines, the east end of Wing 2 is set back approximately 30' from the
east boundary, and the nearest adjacent multi -family building is approximately 10'
from this shared boundary. This increase in setback to 30' helps compensate for the
increase in building height in this area, in combination with the fencing and buffer
landscaping provided that also soften the building mass in this area and reduce the
scale of the building.
2) Section 3.5.1(D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall
be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project
and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the
development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without
sacrificing privacy or security.
Staff Analysis:
Again, the transition area in the southeast portion of the site is the primary focus for
privacy and mitigating design factors. The building design does include eight
balconies along the east edge of Wing 2. While there may be some back -and -forth
views between tenants in this area, privacy infringement is minimized though the
following:
• An increase in the building setback to 30 feet for Wing 2;
Item 000 Page 15
Agenda Item 000
E. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting.
A photometric plan was submitted for the project. As proposed, the project complies with
the lighting design standards in Section 3.2.4. Parking lot, drive aisle and exterior building
lighting is provided by down -directional and sharp cut-off fixtures.
F. Section 3.2.5 — Trash and Recycling Enclosures.
The project provides two fully screened trash enclosures with walk-in access to recycling
and waste containers in accordance with the requirements of this section. The enclosure
is finished with brick with panelized metal doors, which provides a durable, high quality
appearance consistent with the building design.
G. Section 3.3.1— Plat Standards.
The lot's orientation provides direct access to JFK parkway at two locations. The layout
of roads, driveways, utilities, drainage facilities, and other services are designed in
accordance with the City's engineering standards. The plat demonstrates proper
dedication of public rights -of -way, drainage easements and utility easements that are
needed to serve the area being developed. Letters of Intent are provided for necessary
off -site utility connections.
H. Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features
The property currently undeveloped and is planted with weedy and urban -adapted
species as well as 12 existing trees, most of are less desirable Siberian Elm or Russian
Olive that are in fair or poor condition.
The Larimer Canal #2 runs along the southern edge of the property and qualifies as a
natural habitat feature and wildlife corridor. Because the project is within 500' of this
natural habitat, a natural habitat buffer zone is provided along the southern boundary of
the project.
To meet the buffer standards associated with Section 3.4.1, the project proposes to apply
the performance standards contained in Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code. Staff
finds that the project meets the standards in Section 3.4.1 by incorporating additional
native trees, shrubs, and grasses in the designated buffer area to enhance the ecological
value of the adjacent natural habitat.
L Section 3.5.1— Building and Project Compatibility.
1) Section 3.5.1(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. Buildings shall either be
similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that
is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block
face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property, opposing block face or cater -comer
block face at the nearest intersection.
Item 000 Page 14
Agenda Item 000
The bus stop on JFK parkway shall be upgraded to current City standards as a
requirement of this project and this is noted on the site plan.
Minimum off-street parking quantities required for the project are based on the number of
bedrooms for the multi -family dwellings, and 2 parking spaces per 1000 gross square feet
for the commercial area. The west portion of the ground floor of Wing 1, facing John F.
Kennedy Parkway, includes 8,100 square feet of commercial space. The remainder of
both Wing 1 and Wing 2 includes 105 residential dwelling units. 70 of these units are one -
bedroom, 60 are two -bedroom units, and 5 are three -bedroom units, for a total of 145
bedrooms. 168 parking spaces are required for the multi -family units and 17 spaces are
provided for the commercial space, for a total of 185 spaces required. 187 off-street
parking spaces are proposed in compliance with the minimum parking requirements. 82
of these spaces are within the basement level of Wings 1 and 2.
Per the LUC, the 2 per 1000 ratio is the minimum required for a variety of potential
commercial uses that may occur on the site including medical office, retail, personal
businesses and services, and financial services. The general office minimum is 1 space
per 1000 GSF.
C. Sections 3.2.2(C)(6) and (7) — Direct On -Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle
Connections; Off -Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections
The only off -site connection that staff is recommending is to complete the small off -site
sidewalk segment along the private drive between the existing office buildings to the east.
Initial plans proposed an additional connection to the off -site parking lot to the southeast
of the project, however this sidewalk was eliminated based on a comment from a nearby
tenant. Privacy was deemed more important in this area, and the sidewalk connections to
the east allow neighbors to the east to walk through and around the development. An
informal path also exists along the canal berm.
D. Section 3.2.3(E) — Shading
This section requires that the development plan be designed to mitigate shadow effects
on adjacent buildings, more specifically:
The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent feasible,
located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property
greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty -five-foot hypothetical wall
located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm,
MST, on December 21. This provision shall not apply to structures within the following
high -density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial, and Transit -Oriented
Overlay District.
The applicant has provided a detailed shadow analysis. Based on this analysis, some
shading does occur but this shading is not greater than the 21 foot hypothetical wall, in
compliance with this standard. Further shading analysis is also required as part of the
Special Height Review criteria in Section 3.5.1 and is discussed further in subsequent
pages of this staff report.
Item 000 Page 13
Agenda Item 000
8) 3.2.1(H) Placement and Interrelationship of Required Landscape Plan
Elements.
In approving the required landscape plan, the decision maker shall have the authority to
determine the optimum placement and interrelationship of required landscape plan
elements such as trees, vegetation, turf, irrigation, screening, buffering and fencing,
based on the following criteria:
(1) protecting existing trees, natural areas and features,
(2) enhancing visual continuity within and between neighborhoods;
(3) providing tree canopy cover;
(4) creating visual interest year round,
(5) complementing the architecture of a development;
(6) providing screening of areas of low visual interest or visually intrusive site
elements;
(7) establishing an urban context within mixed -use developments;
(8) providing privacy to residents and users;
(9) conserving water;
(10) avoiding reliance on excessive maintenance,
(11) promoting compatibility and buffering between and among dissimilar land
uses;
(12) establishing spatial definition.
Should it be determined that additional landscaping is warranted to satisfy the criteria
above, this LUC section provides the decision maker with some flexibly in the
arrangement of landscaping on the site. This provision can also be applied at the Final
Plan phase if the situation is warranted as the plans (including utility plans) are finalized.
B. Section 3.2.2 — Access, Circulation and Parking
In conformance with the Purpose, General Standard, and Development Standards
described in this section, the parking and circulation system provided with the project is
adequately designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles,
bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from
surrounding areas.
Walkways are provided that allow convenient access to the building entrances and to
allow good circulation opportunities within the site. A small off -site sidewalk segment is
included which completes the connection along the private drive between the existing
office buildings to the east.
Item 000 Page 12
Agenda Item 000
(b) Ornamental Trees: 2.5" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent-
(c) Evergreen Trees: 8' height balled and burlap or equivalent.
Additionally, the tree protection standards of this section provide exemptions from the
replacement requirements for trees that meet one or more of the following criteria:
(a) dead, dying or naturally fallen trees, or trees found to be a threat to public
health, safety or welfare,
(b) trees that are determined by the City to substantially obstruct clear visibility at
driveways and intersections;
(c) Siberian elm less than eleven (11) inches DBH and Russian olive less than
eight (8) inches DBH;
(d) Russian Olive and Siberian Elm of wild or volunteer origin, such as those that
have sprouted from seed along fence lines, near structures or in other unsuitable
locations;
(e) Russian Olive and Siberian Elm determined by the City Forester to be in poor
condition.
Staff Comments:
In order to address the tree mitigation requirements outlined above, the PDP has
submitted a tree mitigation plan. The plan describes the species, condition, and size of
the existing trees and assigns a mitigation value (0 through 6) for the existing trees.
A total of 12 significant existing trees are located within or near the project's limits of
development. Of this total, 8 are proposed to remain. The majority of the trees that are in
an acceptable condition to be retained are in locations along the perimeter of the site, and
these trees aid in the visual transition of the proposed parking and building. Additionally,
two mature cottonwood trees are located in the buffer space along the Larimer Canal.
These were originally proposed to be removed and will now remain based on staffs
recommendation.
The project satisfies the mitigation requirements by providing one mitigation tree on -site,
this is in addition to the upsized trees that are provided along the east and southeast
boundary of the project.
Based on the existing tree evaluation process and aspects of the site plan configuration
outlined above, staffs opinion is that the project satisfies the tree protection and
replacement standards of this section by preserving and protecting existing significant
trees within the Limits of Development to the extent reasonably feasible, and by providing
an adequate number of new upsized mitigation trees in locations and with species
selections that are suitable to provide a long-term contribution to the City urban tree
canopy.
Item 000 Page 11
Agenda Item 000
per twenty-five (25) lineal feet along a public street and at a ratio of one (1) tree
per forty (40) lineal feet along the side lot lines of parking setback areas, and
along walkways and drive aisles. Trees may be spaced irregularly in informal
groupings or be uniformly spaced, as consistent with larger overall planting
patterns and organization.
Staff Comments:
The plan includes an interior surface parking area of 42,756 square feet, requiring
a minimum of 2,565 square feet of interior landscape space. 3,701 square feet of
interior space is provided, in compliance with this section. Of the 2,565 square
feet of interior landscaping required, 17 of the interior trees provided are within or
near parking lot islands and can be counted to meet the 150 square foot ratio as
required per this section.
Perimeter and interior landscaping are provided in accordance with the minimum
standards of this section. The views to the parking lot and to perimeter trash
enclosures are adequately screened. Interior parking islands are provided at the
ends of all parking bays. For perimeter landscaping along parking bays, along
interior drive aisles and along JFK parkway, trees are provided in excess of the 40
foot minimum spacing standards.
7) Section 3.2.1(F) Tree Protection and Replacement.
This standard requires that the project preserve and protect existing significant trees
within the Limits of Development to the extent reasonably feasible, and that these trees
may help satisfy the landscaping requirements of the development. Streets, buildings
and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to significant existing trees
All required landscape plans shall accurately identify the locations, species, size and
condition of all significant trees, each labeled showing the applicant's intent to either
remove, transplant or protect.
A significant tree is defined in Article 5 as any tree that has a DBH (diameter at breast
height) of six inches or more. Any affected tree that is removed shall be replaced with not
less than one (1) or more than six (6) replacement trees sufficient to mitigate the loss of
value of the removed significant tree. The rated value of the trees is determined by the
City Forester in conjunction with the Applicant's certified arborist.
The mitigation value of each existing tree is determined by a number of factors, including,
but not limited to: shade, canopy, aesthetic, environmental and ecological value of the
tree to be removed and by using the species and location criteria in the most recent
published appraisal guide by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
Replacement trees shall meet the following minimum size requirements
(a) Canopy Shade Trees: 3.0" caliper balled and burlap or equivalent.
Item 000 Page 10
Agenda Item 000
accommodate a more varied planting screen. Boulders will be added to this
area with the final plan review. The minimum parking setback is 7 feet along
the southeast side of the project and in this area the screen fence is also
provided. Parking lots islands are placed along the east side of Wing 1, and
two of the islands are wider to accommodate water quality basins, and these
islands are placed adjacent to the existing office building to also help with
screening and to minimize head -in parking near this building.
• Existing Trees: In addition to the buffer planting, 14 existing trees are located
along the eastern side of the property and these trees work in tandem with the
placement of the buffer trees.
• Screening of headlights: The drive aisle placement between Wings 1 and 2
may cause some headlight impacts directed towards the existing multi -family
building aligned to the east. Three upsized evergreen buffer trees and privacy
fencing are placed directly along the east end of the drive aisle to screen
headlights.
Staff findings:
In summary, staff finds that the landscape and fencing plan provides sufficient
screening to satisfy this standard. Additionally, the overall proposed placement of
buildings and location of parking parking, both under the buildings and to the east of
Wing 2, help provide transition and open space, allowing the building wings to be
further from the eastern boundary. In areas where parking and buildings are closer to
existing uses to the east, privacy fencing is used in conjunction with upsized trees and
trees adjacent to Wing 2. Parking lot perimeter screening is enhanced and parking
setbacks are wider than the 5 foot minimum. Holistically, the landscape design,
fencing and building setbacks provide a good transition that recognize and respond
appropriately to the adjacent multi -family and commercial uses. The building design,
in particular Wing 2, also helps provide an adequate transition to the eastern uses,
and this is discussed in detail on subsequent pages of this staff report.
6) Sections 3.2.1(E)(4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping and 3.2.1(E)(5) Parking
Lot Interior Landscaping.
• 3.2.1(E)(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping: For parking lots with less than 100
spaces, six percent of the interior space of the parking area shall include
landscaping.
• 3.2.1(E)(5)(b) Maximized Area of Shading. Landscaped islands shall be evenly
distributed to the maximum extent feasible. At a minimum, trees shall be planted
at a ratio of at least one (1) canopy shade tree per one hundred fifty (150) square
feet of internal landscaped area with a landscaped surface of tun`, ground cover
perennials or mulched shrub plantings.
• 3.2.1(E)(4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping and 3.2.1(E)(5)(d) walkways and
driveways. This section requires that trees be provided at a ratio of one (1) tree
Item 000 Page 9
Agenda Item 000
• Site design and building placement: The placement of Wings 1 and 2 on the
site are helpful. These building footprints are placed as far west as possible.
Additionally the placement of Wing 2 is slightly offset and does not line up
directly with the adjacent multi -family buildings to the east.
• Buffer space and building placement: This is a situation where the site design
must work with an existing change in grade, which makes the transition from
west to east more challenging. This grade transition causes the buildings to be
taller on the east side. On the other hand, the site grades ensure that
detention will be located along the east side of the property, which is beneficial
in providing a natural buffer for the project and some breathing room between
existing and proposed buildings. With this in mind, Wing 2 is offset from the
eastern property line approximately 30 feet, and Wing 1 is offset 103 feet and
71 feet at a minimum. These offsets are significant and help mitigate views of
the taller building, provide more separation for privacy, and space to
accommodate building shadows on -site.
• Proposed Buffer Trees: Evergreen trees are placed in a varied pattern along
the eastern property line to increase privacy, soften views, and provide visual
interest. Some deciduous trees are also used. 25 of these trees have been
upsized to be at least 8 feet in height (for the evergreens), and upsized to 3
inches in caliper for the deciduous trees. Of these 25 upsized trees, 14 are
evergreen trees. 4 additional evergreen trees are located along the eastern
property line in between the adjacent multi -family units, and these trees are
the standard 6 foot height. The intent with this is to provide some level of
height variation to increase visual variety at the time of planting. It is possible
to obtain evergreen trees that are taller than 8 feet, should the Board decide
that some of these trees should be upsized further to provide more initial
screening. Additionally, along the eastern border where Wing 2 is closest to
the existing multi -family 4-plexes to the east, a second layer of trees are
provided closer to the building to provide additional screening. With these
trees and the buffer trees, a total of 15 trees are planted directly to the east of
Wing 2.
• Proposed Buffer Fencing: Fencing is placed intermittently along the eastern
and southeastern boundary to provide additional privacy. The intent is for the
fencing and buffer tree placement to work cumulatively to provide screening
and variation. A detail of the fence design is shown on the attached site plan.
The fence design provides variation in the spacing of the screen panels so
that areas to the south are more open and areas to the east are more opaque.
This provides additional variation in the design and more views of the
landscape screening in strategic locations west of the fence.
• Placement of parking, parking design and parking lot landscapina: The shape
of the surface parking areas helps with the eastern transition. To the
southeast, the parking edge has been curved to allow more buffer space, and
compact parking spaces are placed in this area to allow additional room for
tree growth along the eastern parking perimeter. Additionally, though several
design iterations, the parking buffer along the perimeter of the project, east of
Wing 1, was deepened to 11 feet to provide more buffer space and
Item 000 Page 8
Agenda Item 000
5) Section 3.2.1(E)(1) Buffering Between Incompatible Uses and Activities.
This section states: In situations where the decision maker determines that the
arrangement of uses or design of buildings does not adequately mitigate conflicts
reasonably anticipated to exist between dissimilar uses, site elements or building
designs, one (1) or more of the following landscape buffering techniques shall be
used to mitigate the conflicts.
(a) Separation and screening with plant material: planting dense stands of evergreen
trees, canopy shade trees, ornamental trees or shrubs;
(b) Integration with plantings: incorporating trees, vines, planters or other plantings
into the architectural theme of buildings and their outdoor spaces to subdue
differences in architecture and bulk and avoid harsh edges;
(c) Establishing privacy: establishing vertical landscape elements to screen views into
or between windows and defined outdoor spaces where privacy is important, such as
where larger buildings are proposed next to side or rear yards of smaller buildings;
(d) Visual integration of fences or walls: providing plant material in conjunction with a
screen panel, arbor, garden wall, privacy fence or security fence to avoid the visual
effect created by unattractive screening or security fences;
(e) Landform shaping: utilizing berming or other grade changes to alter views, subdue
sound, change the sense of proximity and channel pedestrian movement.
Staff analysis:
This standard is mainly intended to address adequately mitigating conflicts where the
arrangement of uses or design of buildings does not adequately mitigate conflicts
reasonably anticipated to exist between dissimilar uses, site elements or building
designs. Typically, staff does not consider that this standard reasonably applies to
transitions where existing multi -family homes (in this case the 4-plexes located to the
east) are adjacent to similar proposed multi -family uses. There are also other code
sections (such as 3.5.1) that offer guidance on achieving sufficient design
compatibility between uses and mitigating privacy or transition concerns. Section
3.5.1 is more typically used to discuss these concerns.
However, staff finds this particular buffering standard in 3.2.1(E)(1) Buffering Between
Incompatible Uses and Activities, is applicable given the context — although the
proposed uses are not dissimilar to the existing multi -family and commercial uses to
the west, the intensity of the proposed use is dissimilar and requires buffering per the
criteria in this section.
One of the focus areas with staffs review of the project is the development's transition
to the east. The criteria listed in section 3.2.1(E)(1) provide some guidance for
methods to mitigate the potential impacts of proposed larger buildings and more
intensive uses that are in near proximity to smaller existing buildings with less
intensive uses. The following summarizes the aspects of the proposed design that
help provide buffering between these uses:
Item 000 Page 7
Agenda Item 000
removed and will now remain to help provide more seclusion from JFK Parkway as well as
additional bird habitat in close proximity to the amenity. The second space includes plaza areas
along the JFK frontage west of Wing 1. This area is intended to provide flexible space for outdoor
seating and activities, with separation from JFK provided with low brick walls match the building
fagade as well as landscaping along the edge of the plaza. The third gathering space is provided
along the east side of Wing 2 and incorporates benches and outdoor tables along a crusher -fines
path within a 24' x 190' area along the building.
3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards
The project is compliance with all applicable General Development Standards with the
following relevant comments provided:
A. Section 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection
1) Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) Full tree stocking. Canopy shade trees, evergreen trees and
ornamental trees are provided around the perimeter of the proposed building in
accordance with the minimum spacing requirements of this section. At least 38 trees
are planted around the perimeter of the building within 50 feet of the building faces.
2) Section 3.2.1(D)(2) Street trees. Canopy shade trees are provided at approximately
40-foot intervals along the project's JFK Parkway frontage, in accordance with the
standards of this section. There will likely be some adjustment of the pattern shown in
order to accommodate street lights with the Final Plans.
3) Section 3.2.1(D)(3) Minimum Species Diversity. The project must provide not more
than 15% of any one tree species in compliance with this standard and this will be
confirmed at a final plan review stage should the project move forward.
4) Section 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) Foundation Plantings. The project complies with this section
by providing building foundation planting along all high -use and high -visibility areas at
least 5 feet in width along at least 50% of such walls. There are some areas of the
plans that exceed this standard, mainly along the eastern and southern portions of
Wing 2, where landscaping is used to transition to neighboring properties. This
provides some compensation for the north -facing wall of Wing 1 which generally only
meets the minimum requirements. On the whole, foundation planting is generous and
with a good quality landscape design. The applicant has also agreed to incorporate
boulders into the landscape beds with the final review of the proposal.
Landscape retaining walls are also high quality, using brick that matches the building
for walls near the building envelope, and a modular wall system with an enhanced
ashlar pattern on all other site walls, to give the development a richer, more
residential feel, as opposed to standard interlocking modular wall systems with a
textured running bond pattern that are used on many commercial developments
throughout the City and seem ubiquitous. A detail of the modular wall pattern is
provided on the attached site plan.
Item 000 Page 6
Agenda Item 000
6. Storm Drainage. When integrating storm drainage and detention functions to satisfy
this requirement, the design of such facilities shall not result in slopes or gradients
that conflict with other recreational and civic purposes of the park.
Gathering Space Locations Proposed:
i.>vHr HfNHr,nv oneew.. :
I
❑In.,la
i
M t 717 _.-
r
TOTAL GATHERING
1�
SPACE AREA:
13,829 S.F.
/ i I
Staff Comments:
The project meets this requirement by providing over 13,000 square feet of gathering spaces in
three areas within the property, in locations that meet the applicable criteria described above in
terms of size, location, accessibility, visibility, and inclusion of appropriate amenities within the
gathering areas.
In terms of size, location and accessibility, the three gathering spaces provide distinct
opportunities for gathering and respite that provide a significant contribution to usable outdoor
spaces in the area. The areas are intended to be accessible to residents, visitors and the public
as a whole without signage or fencing that would block such access. The location of the spaces
are publicly visible and can be monitored and observed from the adjacent streets drives, with the
intent that the spaces are secure by being open visually and that the amenities provided in the
spaces are noticeable and inviting.
The three spaces provide different and distinct opportunities for gathering and activities. The
space to the south along the Larimer Canal provides an enhanced habitat area with irregular
walkways and a soft trail area that will be surrounded by natural plantings to provide additional
tree canopy for birds and other wildlife. Two outdoor tables and benches are provided in this
area. The area also includes two birdhouses in the planting areas surrounding the tables and
benches. Two cottonwood trees located off -site along the ditch were originally proposed to be
Item 000 Page 5
Agenda Item 000
B. Section 4.27(B)(2)(a)(1) — Permitted Uses
Mixed -use dwellings are a permitted use in the Employment District, in this case subject to
Type 2 Planning and Zoning Board review because the proposed structure is greater than
50,000 square feet.
C. Section 4.27(D)(4) — Land Use Standards — Maximum Height
The proposed building is in compliance with this standard which requires that the maximum
building height be not more than four (4) stories. This requirement excludes the basement
parking level which is not defined as a building story per City Building Code.
D. Section 4.27(D)(7) — Access to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering Space
This section requires that —
Within any development proposal that contains a residential component at least
ninety (90) percent of the dwellings of a residential development proposal shall be
located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one -quarter[''/.] mile)
of either a neighborhood park, a privately owned park or a central feature or gathering
place that is located either within the project or within adjacent development, which
distance shall be measured along street frontage without crossing an arterial street.
Such parks, central features or gathering places shall contain one (1) or more of the
following uses:
(a) Public parks, recreation areas or other open lands.
(b) Privately owned parks meeting the following criteria:
1. Size. In development projects greater than two (2) acres in gross area, such private
parks must be a minimum of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. In development
projects with a gross area of two (2) acres or less, such private parks must be a
minimum of six (6) percent of the gross site area.
2. Location. Such parks must be highly visible, secure settings formed by the street
layout and pattern of lots and easily observed from streets. Rear facades and rear
yards of dwellings shall not abut more than two (2) sides or more than fifty (50)
percent of the perimeter frontage of the park.
3. Accessibility. All parts of such parks shall be safely and easily accessible by
pedestrians, and open to the public.
4. Facilities. Such parks shall consist of multiple -use tun` areas, walking paths, plazas,
pavilions, picnic tables, benches or other features for various age groups to utilize.
5. Ownership and Maintenance. Such parks may, in the discretion of the City, be
acquired by the City (through dedication or purchase), or be privately owned and
maintained by the developer or property owners' association.
Item 000 Page 4
Agenda Item 000
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction
Zone District
Existing Land Uses
North
Employment District (E)
Commercial — U.S. Bank branch.
South
Employment District (E)
Larimer County Canal #2, Landings Bay Multi -family
East
Employment District (E)
Shores Office Park; Wharf at the Landings Multi-
family PUD.
West
Employment District (E)
Commercial and retail uses
The property was annexed in 1973 as part of the Fort Collins National Bank Annexation. The site is
currently undeveloped.
2. Compliance with Applicable Employment (E) District Standards of the Land Use Code:
The project complies with all applicable Employment District standards:
A. Section 4.27(A) — Purpose
The Employment District is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces
including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and
institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that
complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants,
convenience shopping, child care and housing.
Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development of
planned office and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and
construction of buildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes, to
direct the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities
and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
The proposal is consistent with the stated purpose of the Employment District, by providing a
high quality architectural, site and landscape design with attractive, functional, visibly open
amenities and outdoor spaces available for residents and customers. The project contributes
to the broad mix of uses in the vicinity with primary (commercial) and secondary (residential)
land uses proposed, with the proposed commercial and outdoor spaces providing a quality
contribution to the options available to nearby neighborhoods.
Item 000 Page 3
Agenda Item 000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Overlook PDP complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land
Use Code (LUC), more specifically:
• The PDP complies with process located in Division 2.2 — Common Development Review
Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 — Administration.
• The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 — General Development
Standards.
• The PDP complies with the relevant Employment District (E) standards in Division 4.27 of
Article 4.
VICINITY MAP
The Overlook N
800 400 o aoo Feet wE
s
Item 000 Page 2
Agenda Item 000
PROJECT NAME
THE OVERLOOK, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN — PDP160011
STAFF
Jason Holland, City Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan on a 3.3 acre site
located on the east side of John F. Kennedy Parkway, 350 feet south
of Horsetooth Road. A mixed -use building is proposed, with two wings
connected by an elevated walkway which includes a fitness room for
the residents. The west portion of the ground floor of Wing 1, facing
John F. Kennedy Parkway, includes 8,100 square feet of commercial
space. The remainder of both Wing 1 and Wing 2 includes 105
residential dwelling units. 70 of these units are one -bedroom, 60 are
two -bedroom units, and 5 are three -bedroom units. 187 off-street
parking spaces are proposed. Three outdoor gathering spaces are
proposed as well as buffer plantings along the Larimer Canal to the
south of the project. To the west, detention areas are proposed which
provide open space that buffer and transition the vehicle areas and
building mass. Along the west edge of the detention, a combination of
fencing and evergreen trees is proposed to provide screening and
softening of views into the property. A number of these trees are
upsized to provide greater height and screening at the time of planting,
and the upsized locations are directly noted on the landscape plan. A
4-story building height is proposed, located above 78 covered parking
spaces in a basement level. This site is zoned (E) Employment and is
adjacent to the (TOD) Transit Overlay District.
APPLICANT: Brent Cooper
Ripley Design Inc.
419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNER: Stockover Investments
1806 Westview Road
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
Item 000 Page 1