Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS HOTEL (DOWNTOWN HOTEL) - PDP - PDP150008 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS116116 4) At its September 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 8-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, the approval of the development proposal for the Fort Collins Hotel located at the corner of Chestnut and Walnut Streets, finding that it complies with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. 2- 115115 Planning, Development & Transportation j City Of Community Development & Neighborhood Services F 281 North College Avenue ort Collins P.O Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fa fcgov.com MEMORANDUM DATE: September 10, 2015 TO: Planning and Zoning Board TH: Tom Leeson, Interim Dire f Community Development & Neighborhood Service Seth Lorson, City Planner FIR: Karen McWilliams, Histori, servation Manager RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Fort Collins Downtown Hotel 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 Commission's Findings of Facts and its motion for this project. 1) The development project known as the Downtown Hotel is located adjacent to the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District, which is a designated Fort Collins Landmark District as well as a National Register of Historic Places District; and to the Armory Building, which is individually designated on the National, State, and Fort Collins historic registers; additionally, it is adjacent to properties that have been officially determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. 2) At its September 9, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the development project known as the Downtown Hotel, and as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6), made the following findings of facts: That the project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic context for the following reasons: a. The project design uses traditional proportion and historic modules typical of like adjacent historic buildings. b. The project uses massing location and appropriate step -backs to mitigate height, relative to the historic context, as well as to the Mitchell Block. c. The building uses historically scaled materials, and colors of materials, that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. d. The project uses compatible solid to void window pattern, typical of the adjacent historic context. e. The pedestrian scale of the main floor of the proposed project is compatible with the historic context. 3) The Commission specifically discussed in its deliberations the applicants' request for modifications to two Standards, relative to the building's height and setback, specifically: Section 4.16(D)(2)(a), which permits a maximum height of four stories or 56 feet; and Section 4.16(D)(4)(a), which requires a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth floor and the property line. 114114 A: Good question. If someone from Sage was here they'd have a better answer. I can follow up with you about that. Q: Can you make an estimation? Are you trying to make a nicer, more upscale property than the Hilton? A: I would love to answer, but I just don't know. That's Sage's expertise. Q: I'd like to thank Bohemian Companies, McWhinney Enterprises, and Sage Hospitality for carrying forward this vision and getting it this far. DDA is available and ready to explore partnerships to make sure it gets across the finish line. 10 years ago when the first alley enhancements were underway, never thought that a significant project like this would be talking about putting their front doors on the alleys. A significant gesture, and a signal that this alley enhancement concept is worthy of investment. Q: Jeff Mihelich: Heard comments about parking. Heard about need from property owners. We agree that this is an opportunity to do a shared parking structure. We are having good, fruitful conversations about that. It's more than just talk and hope we can get it to the finish line. Q: What are your decision points for lot vs. structure? A: Jeff Mihelich: From an urban design standpoint makes sense, opportunity to share cost with applicant as partnership. At the end of the day it's about the agreement and financing. Hope to have more info later in the summer. Q: What is expected build time? A: About a 12 month build from when we begin. Potential to break ground in January 2016 (first quarter). Q: Entryway into City on Jefferson - any consideration to "Quonset Row" as a source of parking? Is this the time to address that again? A: At this point, this is the general location for these two hundred extra spaces in the plan. That area doesn't allow for a parking structure, so we're not looking there right now. Q: What about a ped bridge from Jefferson to parking garage? Jefferson is a tough road to cross. A: We encourage people to cross at Linden. There will be some improvements coming to Jefferson. As far as ped bridge goes, that's more of a CDOT project. 113113 A: It wants to not be branded, designed around the patterns that come out of Fort Collins. What brand it is doesn't influence the architecture. Q: 2"' floor mezzanine area — what's that about? A: A quiet guest amenity — events, functions. Capacity for 50 people, so not large. More of a lounge/oasis elevated off street level. Q: BizWest — this project will be a boutique hotel vs. Holiday Inn. I'm behind that and this project. Is that a fair statement? Will this be a hotel of that caliber? A: Architecturally, yes. We did the Julian hotel too, so that's a measure of our craft and sensitivity. Q: What's the city's parking requirement for a project like this? A:.5 spaces per room min, 1 space per room max. 162 rooms, so 98 surface lot does meet city requirements. Q: Banquet and meeting space 20,000 sf on ground floor (read in paper) — renderings don't look like that. Does it have the capacity to bring in conventions and new business to downtown? A: I don't know where the 20,000 came from. We've always been around the 5,000 sf range. This was not intended to be a convention center. Q: More of a comment. Have had businesses in downtown since the 70s. Parking is, as far as we're concerned, one of the primary concerns. Wholeheartedly encourage you to consider as big a parking garage as you can. Third structure (as Old Town Leaders planned in years past) has never been built. The idea of TOD is good, but a hotel is getting people coming by car. All I can do is encourage the parking structure because you've seen the problems (e.g. the Summit). Have you given thought to a 4-level with one level underground? A: There's a lot of water under there. Cost prohibitive to go underground, either for parking or hotel program. A: (Staff) City will be rolling out a city conversation about parking in the near future. We recognize that it's a problem and want innovative solutions. Q: I second what that gentleman just said. And in the drawing, looks like some spaces will be taken from Chestnut. Also Armadillo is acting like a parking lot, and it will lose spots too. Seems like 98 is insufficient. Encourage anyone involved to build as large a structure as you can. Physics is there's not enough parking spots in Old Town — worth every penny, even though they're costly. A: Thank you. Q: Massing on the parking- would it step down to Jefferson? A: It'd be 2.5 stories on Jefferson. Not all that tall when you look at what's happening in the vicinity. Q: Any retail like Civic Center Garage? A: We're talking about that — when you add retail you take away parking, but this is something we're discussing. Q: What is the size of the restaurant? A: 3500 sf front -of house Q: We have two big -box hotels already. What's your target market for the hotel? We're at 60% occupancy with what we have now. 112112 Fort Collins Hotel Neighborhood Meeting June 11, 2015 15:30-7:30pm Mountain Room, I" Bank Attendance: approx. 50 (not including staff and applicants) Staff: - Seth Lorson, City Planner - Meaghan Overton, Planning Intern - Joe Olsen, Traffic Engineer - Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager City Presentation: • Overview of development process, where we are today. This meeting is before applicant submits an official application. • Preliminary Design Review (PDR) already completed, went to LPC • Submitting application on June 23 • Looking for P&Z approval in September • Parking will be lot or structure. If structure, 200 of 300 spaces for public use. In conversation with applicant right now. • Site context — close to Old Town Square, close in to historic fabric • Proposing 162 rooms, bar/rest/lounge, meeting space, 98 parking spaces in lot Applicant Presentation: • Stu with Bohemian Companies +Sage Hospitality+ McWhinney +4240 (did Crawford Hotel at Union Station in Denver) • Context: unique opportunity, catalytic to River District, Old Town Square, etc. • History: First hotel in Fort Collins, Auntie Stone's mess hall and hotel — a hub for everyone in the city. How can we create a "modern version of something that's beloved?" • Galvanizing and activating a neighborhood and community • Hotel wants to be inviting —to guests, residents ... a "living room" to the community and an ambassador (of sophistication, design, culture) • Questions: How can a grand building can be intimately scaled? How can a grand building feel hand-crafted? How can a grand building be humane? o Detailed and refined architecture — from the street to the guest room o Activated pedestrian scale (e.g. FC alleys) • Old Firehouse Alley will be maintained, improved, activated as part of project • Hotel lobby and bar faces alley • Includes retail tenant space, ideally breakfast/lunch — accessible from both hotel and street • 5,000 sf restaurant space — not a hotel restaurant. Can't be accessed from hotel. • Outdoor roof deck accessible through lobby bar/alley area — dedicated elevator • Height -very comparable to Mitchell Building across the street • Predominately masonry construction, brick meets stone with more glass to let light in Q: Flagging the hotel — has there been consideration to going toward a more "signature" collection approach? Zoning: Building mass "built to" Walnut St. at Floors 1-3. Floor 4 steps back at 35-degrees, per zoning. Max. height below 56' limit. Experiential: West facing courtyard does not address Walnut Street. Limited sunshine into upper floor terrace. Solid build- ing mass at corner of Walnut & City Parcel creates abrupt and anonymous transition towards Old Town. DoanWn Fat c"X Haw 40 LK S WAW page 24 111111 Hotel Massing Evolution Theoretical Massing Allowed by Zoning Yaord, Story Setka<k WwrW Story Setback In the Old City Center Subdistrict Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over three [3] stories). Old City Center: The fourth story of a building shall be set back at a thirty -five -degree angle measured at the ihtersection of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the public street frontage. See Figure ig. EXHIBIT B 110110 Request for Modification — Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) — Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/18/2015 This narrative requests that the decision maker approve a modification of the set -back standard that for the Downtown Fort Collins Hotel —which would be to set -back at a thirty -five -degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fifth story and the property line along the public street frontage. Please see the text below of LUC Section 4.16, (13)(4)(a) below: The fourth story of a building shall be set back at a thirty -five -degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the public street frontage. ExDlanation of need for modification: Included for explanation and reference is page 38 of the 30 June 2015 presentation to the LPC (Exhibit A) as well as pages 24 through 31 of the presentation to the Landmark and Planning Commission on 10 June 2015 (Exhibit B.) Justification for modification: In our effort to create an arrival gateway to Old Town at Walnut Street, we contend that the hotel should approximate the massing and set -backs, in terms of absolute vertical dimensions and not specifically the number of stories, of the Mitchell Building located directly across Walnut Street. The Mitchell Building stands four -stories in height and steps back above the third story adhering to the zoning requirements put forth in the Land Use Code. Consequently, as the floor -to -floor of the office building differs from that of a hotel, the alignment of set -backs best occurs at two different corresponding floor levels. As we viewed the comparative massing of the buildings to be more important than the number of stories, we have located the hotel's set -back at the fifth floor to better align with the Mitchell Building's set -back at their fourth level. Given the existing building massing, this solution provides a more complementary gateway than would be allowed by the Land Use Code. The modification requested is based on a modification of standard that does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(4) — Nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. Allowing the set -back at a thirty -five -degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane to occur at the floor plane of the fifth story is a nominal and inconsequential change when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. For all the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests a modification of the standard in LUC Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) to allow for a building set -back at a thirty -five -degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fifth story and the property line along the public street frontage. The Applicant proposes that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, promotes the purposes of the standard as least as well as a plan could comply with the set -back at a thirty -five -degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the public street frontage, and results in a nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. Top Base Fifth story pulled away from Walnut Street and expressed indifferent 109109 Hotel Massing Articulation Nalnut Street Bar Corner , . Restaurant _ Retail Corner From Old Town Historic District Design Standards: One Building broken into smaller masses 5.10 Establish a sense of human scale in a building design. Use vertical and horizontal articu. lation techniques to reduce the ap• parent mass of a larger building and to create visual interest. LPC Ub. ren cans. N.e.l 4ago xsuror page 31 Variety in single facade: Maintain historic proportions and heights EXHIBIT A Top iurcreLI Base Fifth story expressed in different material steps back from Hotel _II -:J—.. �.. J: �.:..:..L ,.......I �........� 11....... h..el ........�.... fse.l...L. 108108 Massing Articulation Zhestnut Street Entry E Retail Corner )( Stairs )E Meeting Rooms Expression ) EHotel Low From Old Town Historic District Design Standards: One Building broken into smaller masses 5.to Establish a sense of human scale in a building design. Use vertical and horizontal articu- lation techniques to reduce the ap- parent mass of a larger building and to create visual interest. nowntown Fort Calling Ho l 4240 LPCSubmbtd page 30 Variety in single facade Maintain historic proportions and heights Old Firehouse Alley EXHIBIT A 107107 Hotel Massing Evolution Introduction of Partial Fifth Floor na.:. 1 Top Level Stepped back from Masonry Facade / 'Top Level Stepped back from Masonry Facade OOV �- Street Level Stepped back from Masonry Facade �rw page 29 EXHIBIT A Zoning: To reduce the presence of the partial Fifth Floor along Walnut and Chestnut, the primary upper floor building step back occurs between Floors Four and Five, rather than between Floors Three and Four, per zoning. Walnut elevation line maintained Mass stepped back to create transition to existing Walnn4 C4 claxi +inn Four story mass aligns with Top Level mass is pushed to alley side 106106 Hotel Massing Evolution Introduction of Partial Fifth Floor Mitchell Building mass Experiential: The Fifth Floor is envisioned as a penthouse with ma- terial changes and additional fenestration to lighten the uppermost mass. Facade articulation at the Fifth Floor is simple, with more craft, detail and architectur- al refinements reserved for lower floors. :epped back ,eet EXHIBIT A Zoning: Hotel program recaptured with partial Fifth Story added to mass. Upper floor to floor heights reduced from standard 10-6" to 9'-8- to minimize incremental height. Resultinq building is 1 story and minimally over Zonino heiaht allowance. tloors. ue.mFW canm �w 4z4o Lvcwamam page 27 105105 Hotel Massing Evolution Introduction of Partial Fifth Floor Looking North at Mitchell Building and Hotel massing from Mathews Street EXHIBIT A Zoning: Upper floor massing is reduced at west wing to become more compatible with neighboring single story buildings. Asymmetric massing along Walnut Street Building begins to better stitch into site and reconcile overlapping city grids in unique way. Hotel program is lost as a result. VISUdt. LUINIULLIU115 UtLWttfl ULU IUVVII d[?U rlULtL dit strengthened. Views to & from site are enhanced. F� COMM HaW 4j' 4o LK SuD^Ibtl page 26 104104 Hotel Massing Evolution West Wing Shortened The Walnut Street facade maintains the scale established by the adjacent existing buildings and connects the new Hotel massing visually with Old Town Zoning: Rotating massing towards Walnut Street creates better massing articulation along public edge and introduces more sunshine onto terrace. Floor 4 steps back in a similar way, building height still under 56' max. Experiential: Guests using the upper terrace can become part of the "street life" along Walnut Street. C•onWn F• Callan•H•Etl �4Q LPC Submltw - page'25 103103 Hotel Massing Evolution Theoretical Massing Allowed by Zoning 5.6 Convey the traditional size of historic buildings in new construction as it is perceived at the street level. 5.7 The overall height of a new building should be compatible with the historic district. * 56' maximum height limit in this district Variety in single facade: INWINW., elevation of Mitchell Building parapet: 60' - 6" +/- elevation of Mitchell Building Setback: 49' - 6" +/- elevation of hotel parapet: 60' - 0" +/- elevation of Hotel Setback: 49' - 2" +/— 102102 Dmm FM Calliv He 4240 LKSubmfm page 33 EXHIBIT A 102102 elevation of Mitchell Building parapet: 60' - 6" +/- elevation of hotel parapet: 60' - 0" +/- elevation of Mitchell Building Setback: elevation of Hotel Setback: 49' - 6" +/- 49' - 2" +/- o..me.m Pon C.1W. Now 4�40 MS.bmMl page 33 EXHIBIT A 101101 Request for Modification — Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) — Building Height Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/18/2015 This narrative requests that the decision maker approve a modification of building height standard for the Downtown Fort Collins Hotel — which would be to allow a five -story building of approximately 60' in height to be built in Old City Center District. Please see the text below of LUC Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) below: Buildings in the Old City Center shall not exceed four (4) stories or fifty-six (56) feet in height Explanation of need for modification: The Applicant has proposed a building that best meets the needs for the site as it relates to the Mitchell Building directly across Walnut Street. Included for explanation and reference is page 38 of the 30 June 2015 presentation to the LPC (Exhibit A.) ustification for modification: The proposed hotel building would approximate the height of the existing Mitchell Building across Walnut Street, which helps to create a "gateway" into Old Town from Mountain Ave. Effort has been placed on reducing the apparent mass of the fifth level by stepping back along Walnut and Chestnut Streets and locating the bulk of the mass along Old Firehouse Alley. The modification requested is based on a modification of standard that does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(4) — Nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. Increasing the number of stories to five (5) and height of the building to sixty feet (60') are nominal and inconsequential changes from the perspective of the entire development plan. For all the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests a modification of the standard in LUC Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) to allow for a five -story building of approximately 60' in height to be built in Old City Center District. The Applicant proposes that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, promotes the purposes of the standard as least as well as a plan could comply with the four-story and 56' height limit, and results in a nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. 100100 Request for Modification — Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) — Site Design Standards Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/ 12/2015 LUC Sec. 2.8.2(H)(4) — Nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. Not locating the parking lot behind a building along Jefferson Street is a nominal and inconsequential change when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. The proposed plan design activates Jefferson Street and creates a more welcoming environment for pedestrians walking along the street. The location of the parking lot is inconsequential, given that it will have a planting area and 30" high wall between the parking lot and sidewalk. The plan, with the requested modification, continues to advance the following purposes of the LUC: innovative land development and development of vacant properties in established areas. For all the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests a modification of the standard in LUC Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) to allow for the parking lot to be adjacent to Jefferson Street and not located behind a building. The Applicant proposes that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, promotes the purposes of the standard as least as well as a plan could comply with parking lot location requirement, and results in a nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. 14*01*61 Request for Modification — Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) — Site Design Standards Downtown Fort Collins Hotel S/ 12/2015 This narrative requests that the decision maker approve a modification of the site design standard regarding the parking location for the Downtown Fort Collins Hotel — which would be to allow the surface parking to be located along an arterial, rather than behind a building. Please see the text below of Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) below: 3.2.2(J) Setbacks. Parking lots. Parking lots shall not dominate the frontage of pedestrian -oriented streets, interrupt pedestrian routes or negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods. Parking lots shall be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks, in side yards, underground or in a parking structure, to the maximum extent feasible. Explanation of need for modification: The Applicant has proposed a site plan that best meets the needs for the site given the constraints of the existing location coupled with the parking requirements. An additional building on the site adjacent to the hotel to solely meet the LUC standard would be a detriment to the public because the applicant would not be able to meet the required parking count for the project as a whole. Justification for modification: As the overall project parking requirements are significant and the project site is constrained as an infill/redevelopment site, the current configuration represents the highest level of feasibility and activates the downtown core intersection of Walnut St., Chestnut St. and Mountain Ave. Efforts have been made to improve the streetscape condition along Jefferson St. and screen parking, however, the project cannot accommodate additional building frontage along Jefferson St. without sacrificing required parking quantities. The required number of stalls for the project is a 114 spaces, this takes into account the TOD zone overlay that the project is within. The surface parking lot will provide 106 spaces. If additional building frontage is required for the site, the project will not be able to provide the number of stalls listed above. The plan does not dominate the frontage of the street, interrupt the pedestrian route or negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood in any way. The plan activates the street frontage and provides ample site and landscaping to screen the parking lot. The modification requested is based on a modification of standard that does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. Request for Modification — Section 3.2.2(J) — Setbacks (Parking) Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/ 12/2015 For all the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests a modification of the standard in LUC Section 3.2.2(J) to allow a reduced setback for the parking lot along Jefferson Street. The Applicant proposes that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, promotes the purposes of the standard as least as well as a plan could comply with the 15-foot setback requirement, and results in a nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. 9797 Request for Modification — Section 3.2.2(J) — Setbacks (Parking) Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 This narrative requests that the decision maker approve a modification of the parking setback for the parking lot proposed for the Downtown Fort Collins Hotel — which the setback would be less than the general 15' from an arterial road. Please see the text of Section 3.2.2(J) below: 3.2.2(J) Setbacks. (J) Setbacks (parking). Any vehicular use area containing six (6) or more parking spaces or one thousand eight hundred (1, 800) or more square feet shall be set back from the street right of way 15' along an arterial street. Explanation of need for modification: As an infill site, the project is spatially constrained and providing the requisite number of parking spaces is a difficult task without making an inoperable/inefficient layout that would be a detriment to the project and the public good. The required number of stalls for the project is a 114 spaces, this takes into account the TOD zone overlay that the project is within. The surface parking lot will provide 106 spaces. Justification for modification Reducing the parking setback along Jefferson Street will not be detrimental to the public good. A 5' landscaped setback to a 30" cast -in -place concrete wall is shown along the Jefferson Street ROW. The buffer wall effectively provides screening of the parking area from the street, accomplishing the intent of the 15' landscaped setback, while accommodating a required number of parking spaces. In addition, plazas are depicted at either corner of the property, framed by concrete seat walls with an enhanced finish. Seatwalls are also shown in equal spacing as raised planters along the streetscape to add visual interest and add additional planting area. The project creates an enhanced streetscape, with a combination of quality materials, landscaping and design. The modification requested is based on a modification of standard that does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. LUC Sec. 2.8.2(H)(4) — Nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. Reducing the setback for the parking lot is a nominal and inconsequential change when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. The proposed plan design activates Jefferson street and creates a more welcoming environment for pedestrians walking along the street. The parking setback is an inconsequential part of the site plan, given that it will have a planting area and 30" high wall between the parking lot and sidewalk. The plan, with the requested modification, continues to advance the following purposes of the LUC: innovative land development and development of vacant properties in established areas. Fm Request for Modification — Section 3.2.2(K)(1) — Parking Standards Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 c c�r�ery MS[t7y -am6 � �61 190i iN6 Ptr iAT Anna' a 165.30 I" IMA 511/ AprU Moo" TM6 S333 U617 3M 17M PR Alta ! 177. T7 3" imm 57. n JF3! Mme"Tam 41Q a23C ml 1329 RT 139OD 214.33 M70 N.30 M"VyTOM 51S4 103M Am 1651 PR 166.E MG 10 1130D 53A OCbW M"Vy TOMS M 7933 2319 15% itr tart 1I610 2SI.69 76 1 sin De�nOer M"" TOM S707 10257 no I Pt Antra 167 W 3>a 27 IORA 59.B 9595 Request for Modification — Section 3.2.2(K)(1) — Parking Standards Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 Since the applicant is providing 94% of the required parking spots per LUC, the applicant feels the impact is a nominal and inconsequential change when considered from the perspective of the entire development and location in Old Town. The hotel operator plans to have a mix of valet and self -parking options which will allow them to park more cars than the 106 spots provided. The plan, with the requested modification, continues to advance the following purposes of the LUC: innovative land development and development of vacant properties in established areas. Additional information and actual capture rates: When talking with the hotel operator (Sage) about current operations at existing Hotels with a mix of uses (restaurant, retail and conference/meeting), they on average see a 30%-35% ovemight capture rate on parking on their downtown hotels with a program similar to the project being proposed. With a 163 room hotel and assuming a 72% stabilization occupancy and a 30% capture rate, there will be about 35 overnight cars (163 x 72% x 30%). And for the peaks days when the hotel is 100% booked and assuming a 35% capture rate on 163 rooms, the project will see about 57 ovemight cars (163 x 35%). The two hotel projects that Sage is referring to in order to come up with the capture rate are: • The Nines (Portland, OR) — 336 rooms, 2 destination restaurants,13,500sf of meeting space (see below parking data counts) Overnight Parking Capture Rate: 35% (average 99 spaces per day) Other Parking (restaurants + meetings + other): 50 spaces per day • The Courtyard Portland City Center (Portland,OR) (— 256 rooms, 1 destination restaurant, 5,300sf of meeting space Overnight Parking Capture Rate: 29% (average 65 spaces per day) Other Parking (restaurants + meetings + other): included in number above Based on the data provided by the hotel operator from current operations, the applicant feels the project is adequately parked to serve the needs of the hotel guests as well as anyone traveling to the project. While the applicant knows you cannot count offsite public parking as part of the requirement, there are 20 public spots that are currently abutting the project site that will provide extra spaces for guests. Also, the City currently has a public parking structure on Mountain Ave adjacent to the intersection of Mountain, Chestnut and Walnut which is currently being proposed as the entrance to the hotel off Mountain Ave. With the existing public spots and the parking structure surrounding the project and our 106 stalls, the hotel operator feels there is more than enough parking for the project especially in a downtown environment. 9494 Request for Modification — Section 3.2.2(K)(1) — Parking Standards Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 site due to the nature of being downtown and the site constraints they are faced with. On top of that, the City already provides free paring on the streets and has 2 parking garages located within t/4 mile of the project. Justification for modification: The project is proposing 163 rooms, 5,391 sf of restaurant, 830 sf of retail, a 1,480 sf rooftop bar and 3,541 of conference/meeting space. The project is located within the TOD designation for Fort Collins and per the land use code, we are required to have 113 parking stalls but due to site constraints, we are able to provide 106 stalls of the 113 stalls required for the project (see calculation below for TOD reduction). Car Parking Program SF/rooms Req Stalls W/TOD reduction Restaurant 5391 27 4993 27 5/1000sf Retail 830 1 769 1 2/1000sf Sky Bar 1480 7 1371 7 5/1000sf Conference 3541 4 3280 3 1/10005f Hotel 163 82 151 75 0.5/room Total 120 113 avg room size 345 aggregate sf 5000 TOD reduction (sf) - based on SF Breakdown SF % 5,000sf aggregate % Restaurant 5391 7.96% 398 Retail 830 1.23% 61 Sky Bar 1480 2.18% 109 Conference 3541 5.23% 261 Rooms 56496 83.40% 12 room count based on avg room size Total 67738 842 The applicant feels that the supplied parking spots, while not meeting the LUC, is adequate for the project based on communication with the hotel operator about what they typically see at their downtown hotels with a similar mix of programs (see attached parking capture data). In addition there are twenty public parking spots that abut the project and two public parking garages within ''A mile of the project that will provide additional spaces for patrons visiting the project that are not hotel quests. While the applicant knows you cannot count public spaces as part of your project, the 106 spots being provided and the additional public parking spots will provide adequate parking for the project the project is only seven parking spaces short to meet the LUC. The modification requested is based on a modification of standard that does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. The applicant is supplying 94% of the required parking per the LUC based on an innovative land development and development of vacant properties in established areas. LUC Sec. 2.8.2(H)(4) — Nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. 9393 Request for Modification — Section 3.2.2(K)(1) — Parking Standards Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 Fort Collins Hotel This narrative requests that the decision maker approve a modification of the site planning and design standards regarding the parking requirements for the Downtown Fort Collins Hotel — which would be to allow the applicant to build 106 parking spots versus the required 113 parking spots. (2) Nonresidential Parking Requirements: Nonresidential uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces, and will be limited to a maximum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards defined below. (a) The table below sets forth the number of minimum required and maximum allowed parking spaces based on the square footage of the gross leasable area and of the occupancy of specified uses. In the event that on -street or shared parking is not available on land adjacent to the use, then the maximum parking allowed may be increased by twenty (20) percent. (c) TOD Overlay Zone Exemption: If new development is proposed within the Transit - Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone, twenty-five (25) percent of the square footage of gross leasable area of such new development, but not to exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in the aggregate, shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. The exemption shall be distributed proportionally among the uses contained in a mixed -use development. Use Minimum Maximum Parking Spaces Parking spaces Restaurants a. Fast Food 7/1000 sq. 15/1000 sq. ft. b. Standard ft. 10/1000 sq. ft 5/1000 sq. ft. Bars, Taverns, and 511000 sq. 10/1000 sq. ft. Nightclubs ft. General Retail 2/1000 sq. 4/1000 sq. ft. ft, General Office 1/1000 sq. 3/1000 sq. ft. or .75/employee on the largest shift or 4.5/1000 sq. ft. if all additional parking ft. spaces gained by the increased ratio (over 3/1000 sq. ft.) are contained within a parking garage/structure Lodging EstablishmentsT0.5/unit I/unit Explanation of need for modification: The Applicant has proposed a site plan that best meets the needs for the site given the constraints of the existing location being in Old Town and surrounded by development. Most new developments and or redevelopments in Old Town are not able to provide parking for their aC � # e 4240 9292 m a,S k� iila,�aw dMUUu m wmm s ter,«•,.. _ �. J View of Hotel Along Old Firenouse Alley View of Hotel Along Walnut Street 4240 9191 Mi V2-. m 4240 9090 Zy� �lt� ' Mfg Nil (Y{ Y Y g, OF w. View of Hotel Along Walnut Street d M: 000 1000 100 00100 of foe Igo 'All ,i�rN11� $A umow., View of Hotel Entrance Along Chestnut Street - Day 4240 8888 8787 ,A 4 Ab� --ALz Aerial View Looking West v 8585 Bohemian Companies Sage Hospitality McWhinney Downtown Fort Collins Hotel (PDP1 Re -Submittal Fort Collins, Colorado 4240 26 August 2015 ALUMINUM ' INTERLOCKING ' ALUMINUM' PREFINISHED WINDOWS ZINC PANEL WINDOWS ALUMINUM PANEL (COLOR 3) (COLOR 3) (COLOR 4) (COLOR 4) Dnwnbwn FM Collin. Hm 4240 LK Submittal page 5 BRICK i ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL PARAPET (COLOR 4) 8484 Hotel Materiality BRICK 3 SERVICE ALLEY ELEVATION HOLLOW METAL OVERHEAD GROUND FACE INTERLOCKING PREFINISHED DOORS (COLOR 6) METALCOILING CMU BLOCK ZINC PANEL PERFORATED DOORS (COLOR 5) (COLOR 3) ALUMINUM (COLOR 6) SCREEN - (COLOR 4) BRICKi BRICK BRICK INTERLOCKING (COLOR i (COLOR 2 (COLOR 2 METAL PANEL - TEXTURED) TEXTURED) SMOOTH) (COLOR 3) ZINC METAL PANEL - (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM �Y PRECAST OR CAST STONE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU (COLOR 5) ALUMINUM - INTERLOCKING PRECAST OR PREFINISHED' WINDOWS ZINC PANEL CAST STONE METAL RAILING (COLOR 3) (COLOR 3) PARAPET CAP (COLOR 4) Dowa . FartC Iias Ho ,.. LK Submittal page 4 ALUMINUM ' PREFINISHED WINDOWS ALUMINUM (COLOR4) PANEL (COLOR 4) 8383 Hotel Materiality BRICK3' OLD FIRE HOUSE ALLEY ELEVATION PRECAST OR ALUMINUM ALUMINUM COMPOSITE GROUND FACE CAST STONE STOREFRONT PANEL (COLOR 4) CMU BLOCK PLANTERS (COLOR 4) (COLOR 5) BRICK i BRICK 2 BRICK 3 INTERLOCKING (COLOR i (COLOR 2 (COLOR 2 METAL PANEL - TEXTURED) TEXTURED) SMOOTH) (COLOR 3) ZINC METAL PANEL - (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM r i lujimika-77 PRECAST OR CAST STONE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU (COLOR 5) ALUMINUM COMPOSITE' ' ALUMINUM ' BRICK 3 ' BRICK i ' ALUMINUM ' BRICK i 'BRICK 2 ' INTERLOCKING PANEL PARAPET (COLOR 4) WINDOWS WINDOWS ZINC PANEL (COLOR 4) (COLOR 3) (COLOR 3) PREFINISHED PERFORATED ALUMINUM SCREEN (COLOR 4) PAINTED STEEL COMPOSITEZINC COMPOSITE ALUMINUM CUT LIMESTONE COLUMNS PRECAST OR PRECAST OR ALUMINUM TRELLIS SYSTEM PANEL (COLOR 3) PANEL (COLOR 4) WITH PAINTED STEEL CAST STONE CAST STONE STOREFRONT (COLOR 4) PROFILES AND HEADER PLANTERS PARAPET CAP (COLOR 4) (COLOR 4) BRICK 1 BRICK 2 BRICK 3 INTERLOCKING METAL PANEL - (COLOR t (COLOR 2 (COLOR 2 METAL PANEL - (COLOR 4) TEXTURED) TEXTURED) SMOOTH) (COLOR 3) ALUMINUM o nt-FO CdIin. Had ZINC 4240 Frc sunmm.i -" page 3 8282 Hotel Materiality WALNUT ST. ELEVATION PRECAST OR CAST STOK PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU (COLOR 5) ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL PARAPET (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM BRICK3' 'BRICKt 'BRICK WINDOWS (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM WINDOWS (COLOR 3) PREFINISHED PERFORATED ALUMINUM SCREEN (COLOR 4) 8181 Hotel Materiality INTERLOCKING CHESTNUT ST. ELEVATION ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) PREFINISHED ALUMINUM ALUMINUM CUT LIMESTONE CUT LIMESTONE COLUMNS PRECAST OR ALUMINUM (COLOR 4) CANOPY STOREFRONT PLANTERS WITH PAINTED STEEL CUT STONE STOREFRONT (COLOR 4) (SMOOTH TE)(TURE) PROFILES AND HEADER PARAPET CAP (COLOR 4) (COLOR 4) Oowmo�n Fo CdImn Ha 4240 Inc s b-i l page 2 BRICK t BRICK z BRICK 3 INTERLOCKING (COLOR t (COLOR 2 (COLOR z METAL PANEL - TE)(TURED) TEXTURED) SMOOTH) (COLOR 3) ZINC METAL PANEL - (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM PRECAST OR CAST STONE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU (COLOR 5) 8080 Bohemian Companies Sage Hospitality McWhioney Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Digital Material Board Fort Collins, Colorado 4240 24 August 2015 • ImS11M IU[fIiit 1•slKn1ER ma IMUL aortc wvnna, - artn am oac aaax a)ac x]em. Ir OW rmc vat sell Wv{rrnsme We wnWc 1(aR Wffi,]A - antra am wlt NPt ■fal I(BIP IS I I{flNl)aI1.RA: R)B Ua11Y4 IlaCfl.' )L)65TIM-0EL] 911]! P(ILf aaa! 9)tl( I wl[ xtlort: Is I SFf IW4i)1:]UOIi 9F6BUIa6 FU! ]61NIAIQI IECLVYE1tl4ie6 I n PEDESTRIAN UGHT �Y >ol.e IWOUCM1tlA: w Lenllla I IIaA: K[Dmelo-aaa, alw wlc .caw: aux I Port lea). I> ] ffE W)I!/CIUF4'S 4ELYYYeS FOq NSIMIITCM fdNYYEFdie6 *46 fel OO,em eY Ow ♦I{ ♦H W V M M 1Y \Y •m {O ♦tl {a. nY ♦y M NI ♦Y JI - Y • N- 1Y - ♦ ���� 11f�1 11f Yn tllf Ylf Itltl ILY IOU YfY IYY )•fU 7sU WY yY )QY !11 0Y ltl if MU .11 tlll] WI] Wlf IIfA(LI�IfD OEG{F I$Y IfU 111 t].]f flit 1\U U WU IYY 1))Y IOY E)Y Dllf )YY )S if )WY MY )W if ltllf tAll MII 111.11 Y)Y Nn ala[BIAII ,E%III® %1 OVERALL LIGHTING PLAN f ACM xa's sncau, mn )6]IIIR)MI IEcalat)el]Wxs s�J •,h /1 LANDSCAPE UGHT ml{ w, ran consrnu:ron �Jr O w �a LL 0zw Z=_o �; 0 ZNo J ,O Oh o U. 0 OU3 0 ma{ �� H1BW iarn.n �Irslall ugtlang nan LL101 An..Nm L.- N &DE�CIWREE PLANTING 1R YII, p1 � IOP M IIQ. r[N w} Q InQt xraNl N nn W,ON,.N, r,An Mn141VS[4W _ QAAS.O� OQIN A i1i � YG TREE PROTECTION $ ,: Nn d��T.y� NYYRiA®Ix�Y}01P L6 �'4w�-�A%N 11N1 V.AII II NNI M �016 N ro... MIYm4i� RWR AYT YIA ®Q ��1•rYQ /1ORNAMENTAL GRASS/PERENNIAL PLANTING .1 M.1Q .1LL y � WW ( @IIYn Irl �r NhQFN I.IWYi Nr.r.WIR m NI uA N �R A .i IR MA1 rOOMaf Q MVBON AI NNiA.1♦QNQQ���nn dQ H�RU� PLANTING DO O 0 TRIANGULAR SHRUB SPACING ven r-ram.. 1ps WTFO CON4I M`noN 4240 A 6ftotum INC F- 0� J F 0LwLyN U r 7 O Ow Z F=_P, ai Z ~o Z J c� 0 Qo OU3 0 Yll®0�1r {/�pIR LP501 saw i l OVERALL PLANTING PLAN r, , ® _ m0 11 J ... ry ®s eir.w.e .,:.u.'. �iM.. N 7FM rrr xw Overall Planting Plan LP102 ,: a m�i srHo m. M rsis P M awaai no mrP v. ms Ma. u(a Mwonnm mllc re. Ma suH a �Pmri` er.w s wo e� nwu�a �T � u wonom onH nm Hw. H rH.m m M orr a Mn muH Mon n.rm rrt rs r m. a.0 H IVOOm P..T� MY MH6.OA.Yr Or.6 rl.r WI! •VIEr cur¢ HR i@� P 0. • np m s vs �. •woH av H mrnv NJ.M uaRttm ILK tRrs w ad w.Hrn m H P Own RpO . rw v w W rm w won. How .rx mw '-BR. rO ¢0➢11 Mr s nl rill ra M rnw Oi M-wu mPMo. u...vw.aml MH swu.s 51PC P ipYrR P fOMv. alsl O� P N Hlm` M N34 Mi riOtfP rO[ 1 OAC MI @61M:IW Y9Q P HgP.Orf. M IMlba 9W. RIHM M Ol.wt P IAHHa P wrA4 P M mY¢ M a waH vnr aPr a wH u awns. iwwl. .a�"siw M'o�`P �c o °�non�mc ra w mw Q ri¢ and msanr. c son P nH.rs w.. r+nia a w. smnm � pl a ua ows�wn� w P.a�M o-w.m"°'riommm�r f/OOd15 M H Tbm T,• wMlr M1M Efri AYM1CIM rod wowm m r¢ a im.m . secm�>, sc m-M-sm was M ana rP..rta P � .H.a m orr� w wms imsi ucs�mr Hvm riwr�s losrn6 nu s YYMHN P i VN M YOP iT(u 6 HML1fO (RPIC row Ml .Pu M .W. O6w4! dWd rd rx[ r.¢ V M M[ (HMr M1 M OwPP Y Rtl. •.W n ®O. M Ofl Oi isr. io rs-H n l ILL 141OOIw f4. u H OM[rm Ong p M N04 mo�icn�aax. M ie..mon. aae. P Mrs ■�001��1 .mmo© :gym®0 .mm�o .o�oo .Om00 .mm©© .mo®0 .r�—®©a .�- - ©©o .�®©o rr�—m©a oa�m©o ors®©o :a�mvo :aim©o .�©oo .mmoo .�mo® .moo .moo0 .00va >,n �H rww 424o Amhft wrc Inc VMA �mY M curs rsam. �_ as�r®wisP s.Hsma e ��s rsmnm�`mr urr sue�o F— W J� Owme LL H 78 OZ ao Z=_0 N p J �- rL L Jwo �pJ0 O U; 0 1Mas Midgagon Plan LP101 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - LANDSCAPE SUBMITTAL DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL SKLI'xW PLANNING CERMATE iPoo� mYFe SIFf] - IaDUMR same Lr+01 M MMDEM wx M02 mcna. w G nu✓ LMI useSfJ/[ OE ' MCa.w.Af tl e�rismml-mot (sra a Maw,,a A 9a0am NO 5ON 10 ![ l5af M5 M a a . V asMM W W pE MiOY 4.t RL�f@H� 0a�f f�IL e.arto a w ooanw a vrwn otKLwew a xucxew.000 xwxs (mxq Or ff r np en a ran cauwz memo. ne a w«. 9O'IR'S"06 ° ,.. Al I+. FORT COLLINS HOTEL' tw.! cur ,wxw✓#.x ., _ � u ' aep. rrx. M r �J O w r rnN LL. �- _ j Z = W U 5 U� U _ 0 Z u! p J o 0 0 Qo OU3 0 xnww Cover Sheet Landscape Submittal CONTEXT MAP LP001 — f• 9LL-1nYu m. — V1nnF14 h4A N REeVI IfmmIC1 • 15' oC. — o'xc�em nmxc — %• wus IM9En wmGm — 04 l5 Rmw coxnxlmrs — BSi CRI1Fx:IFD SIIRGM¢ -0' Yx 2'4' I'-6' t'-0' Y-C Wi f• eRl-MAD Rlof m. UIY11 SMOYM'I 511ROx FRp1- W not WOIB MLRTAR: uomux 1IRIE: wx OFmRIERI/pWINRII YR5 m x w a sxwx x Fuvaiarl - sEF FLWS roR LAW I/P' xw-xosFR - m �K xu-xvsfR - m SP•RflFA xoRs 1. Rem m Wnc x5xourm l5unw Ir favMl5lan AM/9GR'HGIm oE1FRRFM 1p:1t916. INpA,VF IA}xRl m FR1p 4kAM1Y AIM IA1dlt xlGA1W1WL - sonxwR x-RRnrt FRroR m wxsmicnw. ,!1 CONCRETE SEATWALL IMUF FUR: M IltRnxo .0 NEM M-MEU Elm PIXf mm R 401E MOONn 15' SfC 1141111LIUIRS SpEtIF Illlm m 11 "11(In P[W VEIgtp6 l of PARKING LOT LIGHT WMUFM R: W19 IIGnRC YWFl: xIDSt)x1-pxfCf xMv Fnl£ fpY[ BUIX PnIE MElglf: IS' 9i 6~RCIIIRER'S SPCCIfIG1eN5 FM IMStx1AIIG, REC(Yrypol(NS rLEDESTRIAN LIGHT V vu n w mrRn um 1YUIIFILTL u MLIeL WML o IID RMSb➢E IN CSLpf: BIAIX R%IURFD SF£ R,x1K�Ws SFlL1F Iltm Fm MTNulpx MCOIxfxGnexS U aatwAN LDSCAPE LIGHT w wmww inns [LWNn': IM6SGPE f01N5 IICOFL RIIE Fes: $fIAlFD SRR s¢ IUFRRrnI.xFR's �F,orlGnSxs NR xsrxumx R[CGRlwomoxs E BIKE RACK web m NOTFW NN3111UCIMNI 4a4o ARhiK m Inc F— pw~ N N LL � � , OZ w Z=_0 U � O °° Z Z tia z j J z� OU3O O C) YES >LVI SRe Detafle LS502 r 4N 9➢IK = war .awwc swA �[N NNNFACI11FNs NcmIMCNNMroa CgICIAIC NN.10E FID/a90M AMR � ENFM FAO SpVllf aEl, CONIN0. AMR EYEIM m spas an / lI mw ro ess ma rmL Nficn ro pxN[Mr ¢o-rtw xmam rw suaw>E or:rrar UNIT PAVER MIT sur ru,u w PNG wti.N u�r Mpq e' NxC r NEIOEIle AT MNe;x r/r NIgYe roN mcq vMNAF roam s AM1 Nr meac u.0m..x. MMKww /. RB WM YIpAeE SM6 /4 sNamN oms A mm ax[ sa NV2: iM6N pVOE NLYLEMf m COIN:RIE MUOEN SN4.E H fLYSN MIN a IkM IF IfICER MN ORVlP¢ m ICON N]NI53 XE.➢fP 6 CONCRETE HEADER srwMp VICE No an Iam m wR i pM NNNN �M IId NYr NMN ALLEY SECTION V Yy: VY.YT D IF Mwnrn M. naM aoolx BUL-Np3p M. :! M .Vf{ C(MpErC ANN R6M SIWM Inns saE Np NF9.n �M NOTMMI 424o Amhftw mInc. O W NO N LL F- 70 O Zm Z = =U ON O Z �_ yO J �a O°` 0 LL OU3 �s�Mnw NNYIN IVNNMIY NueM NMI M0M LS501 n O O • ■ ■ ■ O � rei 7 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - SITE SUBMITTAL DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL PLMNPIG CExnFICArE WET NUI cmi aM SRT - 41F S Awk M01 OLfPNL w TINT Li50� 9R wMui �40t 4r[ 0TTM �uomme�oeym�mrmm mVaaxwwmmxu �r.� sn'rrwm sv �'-ilwai w'v. mrn w Va .� x mma �EF�mW[ n. m 1 As suarnxa wo wm m a wms m rc a. w aIm w nse so arssn sa rlaxs a x nnoa ma,a a maven uvuv . rme®® am (mm a x m a rm mus maa eIN o�ata 1 �e S FORT COLLINS HOTEL tw�� F d � •eNrM...,.ew 4 I 111 \ f '..M IT 55 n.vf.+�1 •y.xM - W l rw.e � � �WY H•^"wWII.I..�_ [5�FF C .2 NaA Yw.YAi.�` CONTEXT MAP na4TN 1 T1. {s.Io A[<hitMure Inc s_ alroww"- �w Ms��ma •a[a e � �91 v Yv a us- �.auw•� w[mora �aemamm IFYRM Cover Sheet Site Submittal LS001 6767 Agenda Item 4 8. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code with the exception of the requested modifications of standards. 9. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Plan (PDF) 2. Landscape Plan (PDF) 3. Lighting Plan (PDF) 4. Elevations (PDF) 5. Digital Material Boards (PDF) 6. Perspective Renderings (PDF) 7. Modification Request #1 - Vehicle Parking (PDF) 8. Modification Request #2 - Parking Setback (PDF) 9. Modification Request #3 - Parking Location (PDF) 10. Modification Request #4 - Building Height (PDF) 11. Exhibit A - Building height mod (PDF) 12. Modification Request #5 - 35 Degree Setback (PDF) 13. Exhibit B - 35 degree setback mod (PDF) 14. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (PDF) Item # 4 Page 13 Agenda Item 4 at the floor plane of the fourth floor but, like the hotel, is also stepping back at 49 feet in height. Therefore the height and mass, which this standard aims to mitigate, is the same as a project that complies with the code. Please see the applicant's request for modification and accompanying exhibit. FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008, staff makes the following finding of fact and conclusions: 1. The request for a modification of standard to permit 106 parking spaces instead of the required 111 parking spaces (Section 3.2.2(K)(1)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way as the proposal is providing 96% of the requirement and many other public parking options are conveniently close to the project site. 2. The request for a modification of standard to permit a reduced parking lot setback from 10 feet to 7 feet and from 15 feet to 5 feet (Section 3.2.2(J)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that the proposal provides adequate buffering with a 30 inch wall, extra dense landscaping and pocket plazas that make the parking lot more pedestrian friendly and add visual interest. 3. The request for a modification of standard to permit a parking lot located along street frontages as opposed to behind buildings and at the interior of the block (Section 4.16(E)(1)(a)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that the proposal provides adequate buffering with a 30 inch wall, extra dense landscaping and pocket plazas so that the parking lot does not interrupt pedestrian routes or negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods. 4. The request for a modification of standard to permit a building height maximum of 5 stories instead of the required maximum of 4 stories (Section 4.16(D)(2)(a)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that, when considered in the context of the area, the building is no taller than a building which complies with the standard. 5. The request for a modification of standard to permit a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fifth floor instead of at the fourth floor (Section 4.16(D)(4)(a)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that when considered in the context of the area, the proposed 35 degree setback is at the same height (49') as the building across the street that complies with the standard. 6. The request for an alternative compliance bicycle parking plan that, instead of providing 51 bicycle parking spaces, provides 25 spaces and future spaces in the Walnut Street ROW accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.2.2(C)(4) equally well or better than would a plan that complies by creating greater "safety, efficiency and convenience". 7. The Project Development Plan contains permitted uses and complies with the applicable land development standards of the Downtown District — Old City Center Subdistrict in Article 4, Division 4.16 of the Land Use Code. Item # 4 Page 12 6565 Agenda Item 4 neighborhoods. Parking lots shall be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks, in side yards, underground or in a parking structure, to the maximum extent feasible. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). • The parking lot is not located behind buildings and in the interior of the block because of the constrained nature of infill lots, combined with the amount of space needed to provide the minimum amount of parking required. The project is proposing screening walls, landscaping, bike racks, and pocket plazas to ensure that this modification does not negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods nor interrupt pedestrian routes as noted in the standard. Considering these additional elements of the parking lot when viewed from the perspective of the entire development plan, the street -fronted location does not diverge from the purpose of the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. Building Height Modifications Modification Request — Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) 4. The applicant requests a modification to the standard that permits a maximum height of four stories or 56 feet. The project is requesting a maximum height of five stories and 60 feet. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). • When considering the perspective of the entire development plan in the existing context, the proposed additional story does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. This is because the proposed hotel has reduced their floor -to -floor height to 9 feet 8 inches. The code permits up to 25 foot floor -to -floor height for commercial buildings. The Mitchell Block (60'-6") directly across the street at four stories is actually taller than the proposed hotel (60'-0"). Please see the applicant's request for modification and accompanying exhibit. Modification Request — Section 4.16(D)(4)(a) 5. The applicant requests a modification to the standard that requires a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth floor and the property line, the project is requesting to provide the 35 degree setback at the floor plane of the fifth floor. Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). • This modification is an outcome of the previous modification request for an additional story. The proposed 35 degree setback will occur at the floor plane of the uppermost story as intended; however in this case. it is between the fourth and fifth stories. When viewed from the perspective of the entire development plan in the existing context, the proposal to provide the 35 degree setback at the floor plane of the fifth story does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. This is because the proposed hotel has reduced their floor -to -floor height to 9 feet 8 inches. The code permits up to 25 foot floor -to -floor height for commercial buildings. The Mitchell Block directly across the street complies with the required setback Item # 4 Page 11 6464 Agenda Item 4 or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified 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 Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Parking Modifications Modification Request — Section 3.2.2(K)(1) 1. The applicant requests a modification to the standard that requires the project to provide 111 parking spaces; the project is requesting to provide 106 parking spaces. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). Providing 106 parking spaces of the required 111 parking spaces provides 96% of the required spaces. • Additionally, the hotel operator's experience is that the proposed hotel can expect 35 — 57 vehicles per night by virtue of not always being fully occupied and some guests taking shuttles. • The proposed hotel is also in close proximity (approximately 400 feet) to the Old Town Parking Garage and has 20 on -street parking spaces abutting the site. • One final consideration is the valet service provided by the hotel will park cars in a more efficient manner than individuals parking in a lot. Modification Request — Section 32.2(J) 2. The applicant requests a modification to the standard by proposing a five foot landscaped setback from Jefferson Street ROW instead of the required 15 feet, and a 7 foot setback along Chestnut Street instead of the required 10 feet. Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). • When considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, the reduced setbacks are nominal and inconsequential because additional landscaping is provided along both frontages and a 30 inch high wall along 77% of the Jefferson Street frontage. Also, plazas with seatwalls are being proposed at both corners of the Jefferson Street frontage. All of these additional amenities make the parking lot more pedestrian friendly and add visual interest. Modification Request — Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) 3. The applicant requests a modification to the standard that requires parking lots to be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks; the project is requesting to locate the parking lot at the corner of two streets (Jefferson and Chestnut). The standard reads as follows: Parking lots shall not dominate the frontage of pedestrian -oriented streets, interrupt pedestrian routes or negatively affect surrounding Item # 4 Page 10 6363 Agenda Item 4 Section 3.4.7 — Historic and Cultural Resources Section 3.4.7 (F)(6) states: "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been deter -mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object or district." • The Landmark Preservation Commission is reviewing and making a recommendation on this project at its September 9 meeting. A memo will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board with findings and recommendation prior to the beginning of the hearing on September 10. Section 3.5.1 — Building and Protect Compatibility: Standards in this Section require compatibility with the context of the surrounding area in terms of building size, massing proportions, design character and building materials. Where the established character of the relevant area is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code, projects must set an enhanced standard appropriate for the area. The proposed hotel is larger than the typical building downtown. However, the design is made to emulate the rhythm and spacing of storefronts found in downtown's historic frontages. The Walnut Street facade is one-story in height for approximately 2/3 of the frontage and modulates into historic proportions as seen in the downtown context. The larger massing of four and five stories is stepped back toward the alley side effectively establishing a human -scale sidewalk experience. The applicant's modification request for height provides an exhibit that clearly outlines how the proposed building's massing is compatible with the existing context. 4. Compliance with Modification of Standards (Division 2.8) The decision maker is empowered to grant modifications to the General Development Standards contained in Article 3 and the Land Use Standards and Development Standards contained in Article 4 and any separation or proximity standards that are established as a specific measurement of distance in the District Permitted Uses contained in Article 4. In order to grant a modification of standard, the decision maker must find that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted 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; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness Item # 4 Page 9 6262 Agenda Item 4 (2) Nonresidential Parking Requirements. This standard requires a minimum and maximum number of parking spaces per use as shown in the following chart: Use Minimum Parking Maximum Parking Minimum Requirements for Spaces Spaces Proposed Hotel and Accessory Uses Restaurants 5,391 s.f./1,000("5) = a. Fast Food b. Standard 7/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. 15/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. 27 spaces 1011000 sq. ft. Bars, Taverns, and 5/1000 sq. ft. 1,480 s.f./1,000('5) = Nightclubs 7 spaces 4/1000 sq. ft. General Retail 2/1000 sq. ft. _ 830 s.f./1,000('2) _ General Office 1/1000 sq. ft. 3/1000 sq. ft. 2 spaces 3,541 s-f-/1,000('1) _ (conference) 4 spaces Lodging 0.5/unit 1/unit 162 units"(0.5) _ Establishments 81 spaces TOTAL 121spaces Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(c) permits an exemption in the TOD Overlay Zone of 25% of 5,000 square feet (distributed proportionally among uses). Below is the breakdown of the permitted reduction in parking: Use Percentage of Overall Square Minimum Requirements with Footage Applied to 5,000 S.F. TOD Reduction per Use Exemption Restaurants 7.96% (-5,000) = 398 s.f. 5,391 s.f. — 398 s.f. = 4,993 s.f. /1,000 *5 = 25 spaces Bars, Taverns, and Nightclubs 1.23% (-5,000) = 62 s.f. 1,480 s.f. — 62 s.f. = 1,418 s.f. /1,000 'S = 7 spaces General Retail 2.18% (-5,000) = 109 s.f. 830 s.f. - 109 s.f. = 721 s.f. /1,000 "2 = 1 $ ace$ General Office (conference) 5.23% ("5,000) = 262 s.f. 3,541 s.f. — 262 s.f. = 3,279 s.f. /1,000("1) _ 3 spaces Lodging Establishments 83.40% ('5,000) = 4,170 s.f. 162 units — 12 units = 150 units 4,170 s.f. / 345 s.f. (ave. room '(0.5) = 75 spaces s.f. = 12 units TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT 111 spaces The project is proposing 106 parking spaces in the parking lot where 111 parking spaces are required. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting: The purpose of this section is for a project to ensure that the functional and security needs are met in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties and neighborhood. All lighting is down -directional with cutoff fixtures. Item # 4 Page 8 6161 Agenda Item 4 In reviewing a request for an alternative number of bicycle parking spaces, the decision maker must consider whether the proposed land use will likely experience a lower than normal amount of bicycle traffic. Factors to be taken into consideration in making this determination may include, but need not be limited to: (i) the nature of the proposed use; (ii) its location in relation to existing or planned bicycle facilities or infrastructure; and (iii) its proximity to natural features that make the use of bicycles for access to the project infeasible. • The applicant's alternative compliance request letter is attached, in which it states that the hotel use, as conveyed by the operator — Sage Hospitality, does not generate the amount of bicycle parking required by the code: "Through experience, the hotel operator does not see many guests travel to the hotel on bikes or with bikes and does not feel the required stall count is needed, especially for a hotel that is a destination where the majority of guests travel by car or public transit." In addition to requesting fewer bicycle parking spaces on the grounds that the demand is not generated by the hotel use, as noted in Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(c)(2)(i) as a consideration for permitting alternative compliance, future bicycle parking will be placed in the bulb -out islands in the Walnut Street ROW via FC Bikes, the hotel may provide a bicycle check-out/rental service for their guests, and the City has asked the hotel to consider hosting a bicycle share station which is forthcoming to Fort Collins. The stated purpose of this section is "to ensure that the parking and circulation aspects of all developments are well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas." The proposed amount of bike parking is less than the minimum requirement but the hotel operator informs us that, due to (i) the nature of the proposed use, the hotel will not generate a bicycle parking demand as great as the minimum requirement. The additional bicycle amenities, both proposed and considered, will provide a greater amount of options and more dispersed locations for bike parking. This proposed scenario will allow cyclists to park closer to their locations with less sidewalk crossings and thus decrease the amount of conflict with pedestrians and automobiles. Therefore, the proposed alternative compliance accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan that complies by creating greater "safety, efficiency and convenience". (J) Setbacks. The standard requires parking lots to be setback as follows: Minimum Average of Entire Minimum Width of Setback Landscaped Setback Area (feet) at Any Point (feet) Along an arterial street 15 5 Along a non -arterial street 10 5 Along a lot line 5 I: • The project is proposing a five foot landscaped setback from Jefferson Street ROW instead of the required 15 feet, and a seven foot setback along Chestnut Street instead of the required 10 feet. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. (K) Parking Lots — Required Number of Off -Street Spaces for Type of Use. Item # 4 Page 7 6060 Agenda Item 4 Section 3.2.2 — Access, Circulation and Parking (C) Development Standards: (4) Bicycle Facilities. This standard requires bicycle parking space to be provided per use as follows: Use Categories Bicycle Parking Space I Minimums Nonresidential Parking Requirements Restaurants a. Fast food 1.5/1,000 sq. ft., minimum b. Standard of 4 1/1,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 Bars, Taverns and Nightclubs 1/500 sq. ft., minimum of 4 General Retail General Office (conference space) Lodging Establishments TOTAL 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 1 per 4 units % Enclosed Bicycle Parking/ % Fixed Bicycle Racks 0%/100% 0%/100% 0%/100% 20%/80% 20%/80% 60%/40% 25 enclosed spaces / 26 fixed racks Requirements for Proposed Hotel and Accessory Uses 5,391 s.f./1,000 = 5 spaces 1,480 s.f./500 = 3 spaces 830 s.f./4,000 = 1 space 3,541 s.f./4,000 = 1 space 162 units/4 = 41spaces 51spaces • The project is proposing to provide 20 fixed racks at the south corner of the parking lot and 5 enclosed spaces for employees at the back -of -the -house. As this does not meet the minimum requirement, the applicant is requesting alternative compliance as permitted in Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(c) as follows: (c) Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative number of bicycle parking spaces that may be substituted in whole or in part for the number that would meet the standards of this Section. 1. Procedure. The alternative bicycle parking plan shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for bicycle parking plans. Each such plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purposes of this Section than would a plan that complies with the standards of this Section. 2. Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alterative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan that complies with the standards of this Section. Item # 4 Page 6 5959 Agenda Item 4 • The proposed building provides a setback at a 35 degree angle at the intersection of the fourth story and the property line for a portion of the Walnut Street frontage and a portion of the Chestnut Street frontage. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. (5) Building Character and Facades. This standard requires that buildings have architectural interest, encourage outdoor activity, and are constructed with high -quality materials. • The hotel is proposed to be constructed with multiple colors of brick, stone, ground face CMU, interlocking metal panels, and a perforated aluminum screen as an accent. • The hotel design encourages outdoor activity by providing a large outdoor patio on the second floor that overlooks Walnut Street and improvements to the Old Fire House Alley with pavers and Tivoli lights. Section 4.16(E) — Site Design Standards: (1) Site Design. a. Parking lots. This standard requires that parking lots not dominate the frontage of pedestrian - oriented streets and shall be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks, in side yards, underground or in a parking structure, to the maximum extent feasible. • The 106-space parking lot for the hotel is located at 363 Jefferson Street at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. 3. Compliance with Article Three — General Development Standards: Staff finds that the Fort Collins Hotel complies with the applicable General Development Standards, with the exception of two modifications of standards, as explained below. Section 3.2.1(E) — Landscape Standards: Standards in this section require a fully developed landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the street, the building, abutting properties, and users on site. • All areas of the site not paved for pedestrian and vehicular access are landscaped. • Street trees are provided along Walnut, Chestnut, and Jefferson Streets. (4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. Parking lot perimeter landscaping shall provide one tree every 25 feet along public streets and every 40 feet along side lot lines. Screening shall be provided for 70% of the length of the street frontage. • The parking lot is providing a 30 inch high screen wall for 77% of the Jefferson Street frontage and one tree for every 21.5 feet of frontage. • Extra dense landscaping is being provided along the Chestnut Street frontage. (5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. Ten percent of the interior space of the parking lot is required to be landscaped. • The proposed parking lot is 36,335 square feet which requires 3,633 square feet of interior landscaping. The project is proposing 3,710 square feet of interior landscaping. Item # 4 Page 5 5858 Agenda Item 4 The Downtown District is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, office and cultural uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing. It is divided into three (3) subdistricts as depicted on Figure 18. The development standards for the Downtown District are intended to encourage a mix of activity in the area while providing for quality development that maintains a sense of history, human scale and pedestrian -oriented character. • Hotel as a use is specifically cited in the purpose statement for downtown. The proposed hotel provides additional uses such as restaurant, bar, and retail along the pedestrian frontage to encourage activity. Additionally, the project will improve the Old Firehouse Alley consistent with the DDA alley improvement projects around downtown to further engage pedestrians. Section 4.16(B) - Permitted Use: The proposed lodging establishment and accessory uses of restaurant, bars, and retail are permitted in the Old City Center Subdistrict by review from the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 1). Section 4.16(D) — Building Standards: (1) Setback from Streets. This standard requires setbacks shall be compatible with established setbacks of existing buildings on the same block face. • Existing buildings along both Walnut and Chestnut Streets have been developed with no setback from the ROW. The proposed hotel also has a zero lot line setback. (2) Building Height. (a) The maximum building height in the Old City Center shall not exceed four (4) stories or fifty-six (56) feet in height. • The proposed building is five stories and 60 feet in height. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. (4) Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over three [3] stories). This standard requires the fourth story of a building shall be set back at a thirty -five -degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the public street frontage. See Figure 19. .Figure 19 - Fourth Story Setback AREA c ------ Floor Planc V swr z- stom t Slor\' Fourth Story Setback in the Old City Center Subdistrict Item # 4 Page 4 5757 Agenda Item 4 COMMENTS: 1. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses Northwest Downtown (D) Old City Center Retail and Restaurant uses on the ground Subdistrict level; residential and office on upper levels. Northeast River Downtown Redevelopment (RDR) Across Jefferson Street are industrial and office uses, and the Fort Collins Rescue Mission. Across Linden Street is the Mitchell Block (A.K.A. Bohemian Building) which is an office Southwest Downtown (D) Old City Center use and across Mountain Avenue is the Old Subdistrict Town Parking Garage and the Goodyear Tire store (which is proposed to redevelop into a mixed -use retail & office project). Southeast Downtown (D) Old City Center Across Chestnut Street are industrial, Subdistrict restaurant, retail uses, and the Lyric Cinema. I I�w �s i -Jn $TRLETPARK l Walnut - 2. Comoliance with Division 4.16 - ADDllcable Downtown Zone District Standards. Staff finds that the Fort Collins Hotel complies with the applicable standards in Division 4.16 Downtown District — Old City Center Subdistrict, with the exception of three modifications of standards, as explained below. Section 4.16 (A) Purpose: The purpose of the Downtown District is as follows: Item # 4 Page 3 5656 Agenda Item 4 Buildings proposed to be demolished for this project are the former Armadillo restaurant and a small garage structure on the hotel site, and the lasis church on the parking lot site. The hotel and parking lot sites are both located in the Downtown (D) District — Old City Center Center Subdistrict and the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The proposed sites are just outside the Old Town Historic District, abutting the southeast side of its boundary. Lodging establishments are permitted in the Old City Center Subdistrict through review by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). The project is requesting five Modifications of Standards and one Alternative Compliance: Modifications of Standards Parking 1. Section 3.2.2(K)(1) requires the project to provide 111 parking spaces. The project is requesting to provide 106 parking spaces; 2. Section 3.2.2(J) requires the parking lot setbacks of 10 and 15 feet respectively from the ROW. The project is requesting seven and five foot setbacks; 3. Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) requires that parking lots be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks. The project is requesting to locate the parking lot at the corner of two streets (Jefferson and Chestnut); Building Height 4. Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) permits a maximum height of four stories or 56 feet. The project is requesting a maximum height of five stories and 60 feet; and 5. Section 4.16(D)(4)(a) requires a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth floor and the property line. The project is requesting to provide the 35 degree setback at the floor plane of the fifth floor. Alternative Compliance Section 3.2.2(C)(4) requires the project to provide 58 bicycle parking spaces. The project is proposing an alternative plan to provide 25 bicycle parking spaces. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed design is a result of a thoughtful context -sensitive approach by the developer. Although the project is outside of the Old Town Historic District, the design team utilized the Old Town Historic District Design Standards to inform the building and site design. At the time of writing this staff report, the project had twice been presented to the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) and has received very positive feedback. The project will be asking for an official recommendation at the September 9 LPC meeting — the day before the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board Hearing. A memo will be forwarded to the P&Z Board with the outcome of that meeting. The project has been through two rounds of staff review and staff finds the proposal highly compatible with the existing fabric of downtown, despite the requests for modifications. The hotel provides building articulation which emulates the historic building facade width and spacing. The proposed high quality masonry material is a cornerstone of downtown character and will contribute to the future vitality in the area. Staff finds that the proposed development complies with all standards of the land use code, with the exception of the requested modifications of standards which are considered nominal and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. Item # 4 Page 2 5555 Agenda Item 4 PROJECT NAME FORT COLLINS HOTEL - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN #150008 STAFF Seth Lorson, City Planner Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT: Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 APPLICANT/ OWNER: Stu MacMillan Bohemian Companies 262 East Mountain Avenue Fort Collins CO. 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes to construct a 117,665 square foot, 5-story mixed -use hotel with 162 rooms, a restaurant, two bars, and 3,541 square feet of conference space. Parking is proposed in a 106 space, surface parking lot at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets (363 Jefferson Street). Presently, a coordinated effort to construct a three -level public/private parking garage on the same lot is being pursued and may be considered in the near future. Proposed at the corner of Chestnut and Walnut Streets (354 Walnut St.), the hotel entry and porte-cochere (pick-up and drop-off) will be on Chestnut Street. The porte-cochere will allow for hotel guests to drop-off and check -in, and other hotel functions such as valet parking. The restaurant will be on Walnut Street with an entrance from the street to ensure it does not feel like a "hotel restaurant'. To help activate the space, the hotel lounge and retail spaces will face onto Old Firehouse Alley which is proposed to be improved with pavers and Tivoli lights. All the proposed improvements in the right-of-way (ROW) require an encroachment permit through City Engineering. This project will connect Chestnut Street through to Mountain Avenue and Walnut Street with right -turn -only lanes through what is currently a sidewalk flanked with grass and trees. The intersection of Chestnut and Jefferson will be limited to right -in, right -out movement to comply with the recommendations from the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project. Consistent with the context of downtown, the building is not set back from the ROW and directly contributes to the urban design of the street and sidewalk. The massing along Walnut Street will be one story along the northwest side and climbs to four stories as it moves to the southeast and wraps around to Walnut Street. The building is five stories along the alley. The hotel is proposed to be constructed with multiple colors of brick, stone, ground face concrete masonry units, interlocking metal panels, and a perforated aluminum screen as an accent. Item # 4 Page 1