HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNCOMMON (310 S. COLLEGE) - PDP - PDP150013 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (15)promise that everyone will ride their bikes, and then they don't. We also don't want to build more
parking than we need.
A: Every CSU student gets a free transit pass as part of tuition. They're using transit, but many still bring
their cars. (Martina)
A: We did a TOD study and ended up INCREASING our parking requirements (Seth)
Q: Security in parking garage?
A: CCTV on sidewalks, parking garage, courtyard, public areas. We take that very seriously. Fob access to
lower levels of garage and doors into stairwells, unit entries, elevators.
Q: Are the units leased by the bedroom?
A: Currently, our model is per -bed. If we go back and do a study and find that 4 beds aren't the solution,
we might look at that.
Q: Less concerned with type of units, traffic... more concerned with sheer mass of building. As you drive
north you come by Safeway. This is a 75-foot high Safeway. I'm ok with the length, but concerned about
single mass with single architectural style — it's overwhelming. I go to Old Town every day, own a
business in Old Town.
A: The City is very concerned about this too (Seth). Markets change. Uses can change. That massing is
really important to get right because it doesn't change. This is a very prominent location, more of a
gateway piece. Staff is working hard to work with the applicant to bring the project to the pattern of
downtown. We'll have a design charrette tomorrow with the applicant to help with this.
A: We understand that we're coming in to be part of the community (applicant)
Q: I also perceive this as the entrance to Old Town. The size is a buffer zone, not welcoming. It says
"stop." How does this relate to the philosophy of Old Town? Family friendly, etc.
A: Not fully formed yet, but I'd say it's in 3 parts. First, we're trying to bring the pedestrian experience
forward. The second part is following what's established in the land use code to lighten mass, provide
angles, provide green space, etc. Third....
Q: How do this people you're marketing to fit in with the family -centric feel?
A: We will allow families and small kids. How do we divide some of the units? Noisier people (students
or families) on lower levels.
Q: Moratorium on new development pending the completion of the Downtown Plan?
A: No. But we'll be looking at urban design as part of the Downtown Plan.
Q: Is it possible you won't get it right if we let the building start construction?
A: That's why compatibility is so important. Our code isn't super clear— says its 85 feet in height, but we
need to work closely with developers to make sure that they can't just build a huge block that's 85 feet
high.
Q: Encourage you not to underestimate the urban sophistication of downtown Fort Collins. It's
traditional, historic, trendy... not all that different from the Pacific Northwest (re: earlier reference to
Seattle)
A: Thank you. That's great to hear. As we meet more people, that's becoming more apparent.
Q: I'm a pedestrian. That whole area is treacherous at times. I'm nervous about all the traffic coming in
off the alley. Is that access to the south accessible for citizens?
A: yes.
Q: I'm concerned about the intersection of Remington and Olive. How many more cars and bikes will I
have to dodge to get a cup of coffee?
Q: Is there in-house management?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you going to look for staggered use of retail space?
A: What we don't want to do is tie our hands. There could be a restaurant, but we really don't know yet.
We have extra parking capacity available to help with that.
Q: Retail geared toward the residents?
A: Not necessarily. More as an extension of College Ave.
Q: Hearing that they're furnished makes me think huge student population. I'm surprised that the
gateway to Downtown's historic area we want a huge student housing project. Are we short on student
housing in Fort Collins? Is that what we want as our gateway? Is that fair? "Pathetic way to go."
Professionals and professors don't want 4 bedrooms, they want affordability. They don't want furnished
units.
A: Per fair housing laws, we can't tell people who they can or can't house. (Seth)
A: I don't know about the furnishings. (applicant)
Q: Where will the children play?
A: Showed outside areas.
Q: Furnished units: if I were moving there, I'd like to bring my furniture with me!
A: If you want to bring your own furnishings, that's ok. The reason for mentioning it was to bring relief to
the idea of move in and move out. Also we tend to see more wealthy international students who don't
want to buy a car or furnishings.
Q: (Seth) If you study the market more and want to open up to the full market, would you continue to
have 4-beds and furnished apartments?
A: Furnished apartments typically are, but we do have some buildings with smaller unit sizes. We're
seeing that there's not the demand for 1 and 2 bedrooms in this market that we'd need to make it work.
We've done research.
Q: What are you thinking for lease length?
A: 1 year
Q: The MAX is a great concept, but is still in its infancy. Spokes E and W aren't developed yet. Antsy
when I hear that people will rely on transit because people WILL still rely on their cars. Back to parking.
Transit is not a panacea.
A: I couldn't agree with you more (Martina). As we look to higher density and supporting transit, it's a
little chicken and egg. Tough balance. We don't want to approve a really dense development on the
Q: Parking at the library —they're also building townhomes right down the street. Another concern is the
focus in Fort Collins on student housing that's basically luxury housing. How will the students be
affording/managing all this? Is there any affordable housing? How can they afford this?
A: The people who graduate and have a job are also things we want. If that's what happens, that's
totally ok with us. In our building, it's market rate — not subsidized.
Address parking (Seth): Right now we're in the middle of updating our Downtown Plan and we'll be
dealing with parking downtown to find solutions. Right now we want your feedback —take a Downtown
Plan card and sign up on the email list.
Q: Proportion of parking for apartments vs. retail? Entrance into alley — City considering the way College
to olive goes? Currently can't turn south
A: City: 0.75 parking spaces per bedroom, 2 parking spaces per 1,000 sf retail.
A: (Martina) We haven't received a submittal yet. We don't have good answers for you yet. We are
requiring them to do a traffic impact study, we scope the study with them to make sure it's measuring
things we need them too. How do we make sure entrances and exits to the alley are safe? Have to look
at all the intersections out to College —Olive, Mulberry, Magnolia. Asked them to look at intersections
on Remington too. We know there are left turn restrictions— we have those for a reason. Safety (width
of medians) and flow on College. The applicant needs to work with this or make a proposal. Also require
the applicant to look at bike and ped access, bike parking. Usually we use national standards for trips
generated, but we did our own study for student housing. We found that student housing has less daily
and am trips, tend to come home on bikes then get in cars and go elsewhere. More p.m. trips.
Q: One unique thing about this building is that if it becomes a high student population, we need to
account for higher numbers of visitors due to location of building (near Old Town).
Q: Have you accounted for semester breaks? Change of students in and out? Consider those in study.
A: When fully occupied, at peak hours —that's what we look at. We don't make them build to the 3 days
a year when everyone's moving in/out
Q: Where will the construction workers park for 16-17 months?
A: We've targeted a couple of places nearby where people might be able to park. Example: rent from
Safeway. Other option: shuttle from remote lot.
Q: What percentage of units are 4-bedroom?
A: 37/103 — approx. 35% of apartments, 53% of bedrooms will be in 4-bedroom unit
Q: City needs to look at that. Cramming 4 people in, that's where a lot of the problems are. All these
projects now are packing in as many 4-bed units as they can, and will be an ongoing problem.
A: City: Thank you for that input. We do have a section of the code that addresses 4-bedroom units, but
maybe it could be more robust.
Q: Resident of Lofts at Magnolia, former CSU professor. Encouraged to find that the building won't be
strictly students — there is a shortage of high -quality housing for professors, staff who would love to live
in the community instead of moving out to Loveland, etc. There's already a lot of student housing — as a
professor, I don't want to be in a building that's predominately student -occupied. Don't overlook the
demand of professors and staff. Young professionals stay, students don't.
A: Max Flats was proposed as student housing, now it's 100%young professionals.
Most of the traffic is coming through the alley. 2 levels of parking below grade, 1.5 levels above
grade.
"Corner building" element at approx. 4 stories
Landscape
- Will try to preserve mature existing trees
- Moving building back to provide a wider sidewalk
- We see the trees as a gateway going from south to north, no plans to remove any of that
- Paseo and pocket park — not just for residents, but for everyone. A more "urban" treatment
than is common here. Bikes will come out at grade.
- Courtyard will connect to College Ave (somehow — I'm confused about this)
- Amenities (biz center/study, fitness room) connected to courtyard
Question and Answer
Q: I live in Magnolia Lofts. I'm finding sophistry in that you're not indicating that you're going primarily
to a student market. How will you deal with the congestion?
A: I can relate this to other markets. Students have access to the MAX within 2 blocks, ride bikes ... I
walked every day when I was a student because it was hard to find a parking spot. These apartments
come fully furnished — we time out the entry carefully over a few days when there's a "turn" at semester
start/end. There aren't moving vans. It's not a huge rush at 9am and 5pm from a student population
because schedules vary. Students come with their own set of concerns, but also provide some relief
from commuter crush.
Q: What about visitors?
A: There's unsecured parking at retail level. Expect that this will "turn over" into visitor parking after
retail peak hours. We don't anticipate large numbers of cars. We've been encouraged to talk to nearby
neighbors who may have excess parking.
Q: How many stores, how many customers? Where will they park?
A: First floor is open for retail parking, no one targeted for those retail spaces at this moment. Between
3-4 retail spaces.
Q: Do you realize there's a library right around the corner? The more people parking, the fewer people
that can go to the library.
A: I've seen a lot of parking on College Ave — I've parked there every time I come to town.
Q: People might have to go further out into the neighborhood to park.
Q: What duration of the process? (timeframe) for both process and building construction
A: City: We don't put out time frames for the applicant. We turn things around in 3 weeks first time, 2
weeks every submittal thereafter. It's a matter of how quickly the applicant responds to and complies
with comments and land use code.
A: We anticipated a 2016 opening. After receiving feedback, we pushed everything back to 2017.
Construction 16-17 months after approval.
Q: What kind of pricing?
A: Market -rate. There may be some fluctuation/higher rents if we need to reduce number of units.
Q: You're saying multi -family, but you're open to a student component? Who's in the 4-bedroom —
separate individuals or an entire family?
A: Could be either.
Q: Percentage of students in the development?
A: Historically (last couple of years) 60% student, 40% young professional. The closer to downtown you
get, the more that flip-flops. We're not 100% sure yet, but expect more young professionals than
students because we're closer to downtown.
Clarification from Seth: City of FC doesn't differentiate between multi -family and student housing, we're
not allowed to by law. It's all multi -family housing, whether oriented toward students or not. The things
we do: require more parking if it's a rent by -the -bedroom model, which is more typically associated with
student housing.
Q: So that 4-bed unit could be rented to 4 individuals?
A: If it's one unit, then it would be subject to additional requirements in land use code (you -plus -two)
Q: Are you public or private?
A: Headquartered in Chicago, we're private.
Applicant Presentation Continued
Ari from Oz Architecture — Design Concepts
- Overview of zoning
- Comparable heights in the surrounding area —taller buildings around, lower heights in Old Town
- In line with Montezuma Fuller alley
- Our lot is a significant gateway to downtown but in keeping with taller buildings outside of
downtown
- We still have some height to play with here, but we're trying to keep it down and respect the
surrounding area.
Q: One of our main concerns is congestion from the 236 additional parking spaces/cars. Can you show
that?
A: We'll get there.
Massing
- Added some width to sidewalks on either side
- Increased height of ground floor to enhance pedestrian experience
- Stepback on 2nd floor and above of 5 ft
- Additional setback on south side
- Carved out courtyards, additional setbacks on 2"d and 6`h floor
- Instead of an outdoor plaza, we've internalized it into a courtyard
- Our goal is to have this development blend as well as possible, "instantaneous mental
connection" to the fabric further north on College Ave.
- Trying to relate the building to the Armstrong Hotel "somehow"
- Connect with alley network, alternate pedestrian connection to Old Town
Neighborhood Meeting
310 S. College Ave (CA Student Housing)
281 N. College Conference Room
6.22.2015 1 5:30-7:30pm
Staff Presentation
Still early in the process:
• PDR meeting held 6-17-2015
• Neighborhood Meeting today
• All other meetings and submissions TBD
Site context
• Perkins site (everyone knew where this was)
• Zoning is Downtown, densest zone we have in the city. Also part of Canyon Ave subdistrict.
• Height permitted: 5-6 stories, 85 ft in height. Mass and height must be mitigated by additional
setbacks, pedestrian scale (2-4 story height)
o Question: on all sides? A: As abuts the City street/sidewalks, so not as much on the
alleys
• Proposal: mixed -use, multi -family
0 103 units, 270 bedrooms
o Ground floor retail
0 236 parking spaces internal
o Review: P&Z
Applicant Presentation
Chris Johnson, CA Ventures — lived in CO for 8 years in the 90s
Intro:
"We have cut our teeth on student housing, but have since diversified..." to assisted living, retail,
office, etc.
This project: mixed use, commercial on ground floor. Consistent with what you see in downtown
now. Multifamily above is not exclusive to students, currently contains some 4-bed units.
"We are very interested in stakeholders." Staff, local biz, DDA... we want feedback. We don't
build to sell and move on. Have expanded our management company — 9 mil sf in several states.
Approach:
- Understand community, shape projects in a positive way. We're here to stay and become part of
the community.
- Look to develop in places with alternative transportation, services easily available.
- Students: we're learning that close to downtown you should see more non -student populations
(young professionals, etc.).
Question and Answer
Q: Will these be rented by bedroom?
A: Historically that's been our approach, regardless of who rents (student, young professional, etc.)
Request for Modification - Section 4.16(D)(5)(e) — Exterior facade materials in the Canyon Avenue
Subdistrict
Uncommon PDP
October 21, 2015
materials used on two highest levels, which are set back from the lower level facades, are not
readily visible from the sidewalks and street fronts on the first floor and, therefore, do not detract or
negatively affect the look and feel of the lower levels.
LUC Sec. 2.8.2(H)(4) — Nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard.
Allowing alternative exterior facade materials on a portion of the Uncommon building is a nominal
and inconsequential change when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan.
The alternative materials will only be utilized on the two upper levels of the building which are
stepped back from the facade in distance ranging from 9 to 31 feet, and cover an area equal to
approximately 22% of the entire exterior street -facing facades of the building. Finally, the plan with
the requested modification continues to advance the following purposes of the LUC: innovative
land development; fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's
transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services; reducing energy consumption
and demand; quality design of new development; development of vacant properties in established
areas; fostering a rational pattern of relationship among a variety of uses for the mutual benefit of
all; and encouraging variety in housing opportunities that are well -served by public transportation
for people of all ages and abilities.
For all of the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests a modification of the standard in LUC Sec.
4.16(D)(5)(e) to allow the use of alternate exterior facade materials on the 5`" and 6`" floors of the
Uncommon building. The Applicant proposes that the modification is not detrimental to the public
good, promotes the purposes of the standard at least as well as a plan that would utilize the materials
listed in the requirement, results in only a nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard,
and continues to advance many important purposes of the LUC.
Request for Modification - Section 4.16(D)(5)(e) — Exterior facade materials in the Canyon Avenue
Subdistrict
Uncommon PDP
October 21, 2015
Land Use Code standard:
The Applicant requests that the decision maker approve a modification of the Downtown District,
Canyon Avenue Subdistrict requirement for exterior facade materials for the 5th and 61h stories of the
proposed building. Please see the text of Section 4.16(D)(5)(e) regarding exterior facade materials
below:
Section 4.16(1))(5)(e):
Canyon Avenue and Civic Center: Exterior facade materials. All street -facing facades shall be
constructed of high quality exterior materials for the full height of the building. Such materials, with
the exception of glazing, shall include stone, brick, clay units, terra cotta, architectural pre -cast
concrete, cast stone, prefabricated brick panels, architectural metals or any combination thereof...
Explanation of need for modification:
The Applicant proposes to utilize high quality exterior materials specifically listed in the referenced Land
Use Code section [i.e. brick, stone and masonry on the lower floors (floors 1 through 4), and
incorporating steel, iron and large storefront glass on the first level]. Above the 4th floor, on the 5th and
6th stories, which are stepped back from the property line and front facades of the lower levels by
distances ranging from 9 to 31 feet, the Applicant proposes to use stucco and lap siding, which are not
specifically listed in Section 4.16(D)(5)(e) as high quality materials. The stucco and lap siding finishes
were selected from the palette of materials used in nearby historic buildings. These materials are lighter
in color, causing the facades to visually recede from the lower street front facades which are designed to
bring human scale to the building.
Justification for modification:
Allowing alternate exterior materials on the two upper floor facades of the proposed Uncommon
building will not be detrimental to the public good. In fact, the public good will be benefitted by the
provision of quality, higher density housing, commercial spaces, and structured parking near the
Downtown Core as envisioned by the Downtown Plan and the Downtown Strategic Plan.
In addition, the project plan with the modification complies with two of the alternative bases for a
modification of standards in that it will promote the purpose of the standard equally well or better than
a plan that would comply with the standard, and that it does not diverge from the standard except in a
nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development and
continues to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code.
LUC Sec. 2.8.2(H)(1) — Promotion of purpose of the standard. The project with alternative exterior
facade materials accomplishes the purposes of the standard (i.e. maintaining the human scale and
pedestrian -oriented character) equally as well or better than a plan that would comply utilize the
same facade materials the lower four levels. The design and materials of the lower levels of the
building successfully achieve a human scale and pedestrian -oriented character. The alternate
Uncommon PDP #150013
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015
Page 13
buildings in the adjacent context have a combination of lot coverage, wall length, and
height that is remotely similar to the proposed PDP.
C. The PDP complies with the remainder of applicable standards in Article 3.
D. The PDP does not comply with all applicable standards in Article 4, Division 4.16. The
points of non-compliance are:
• The PDP does not comply with subsection 4.16(D)(4)(b)2, Upper Floor Setbacks,
because upper floor setbacks do not adequately provide compatibility with the scale
and massing of nearby buildings, or sensitivity to the historic context and scale of
downtown, based on the extent of 5`h and 61h story levels and resulting 74x200-foot size
of the main east wall.
• The PDP does not comply with subsection 4.16(E)(1)(c), Plazas, because it does not
provide a public open space to meet the standard. The building entry and patio area
does not qualify as open space due to its degree of enclosure in the building structure
with floor area above, and its function as private space associated with the building
entry and retail/restaurant space.
E. The PDP complies with the remainder of applicable standards in Article 4, Division 4.16.
F. The Modification of Standard to Subsection 4.16(D)(5)(e), Exterior Fagade Materials, to
allow lap siding and stucco on certain upper portions of street -facing facades, would not be
detrimental to the public good and meets the requirements of subsection 2.8.2(H)(1). The
proposed plan will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than
a plan which complies with the standard because the lower portions of the building along
the street provide the required materials and define the character of the building as it
relates to the sidewalk and street. The proposed materials on upper levels support the
emphasis on lower levels and mitigate the mass of the upper levels.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to deny the Uncommon
PDP #150013 based on standards for building mass, bulk and scale, and compatibility with
historic resources, as found in the Findings of Fact in the staff report.
Uncommon PDP #150013
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015
Page 12
• Designated on the National Register: All of the properties in the 400 block of Remington, as
well as the Armstrong Hotel, First Baptist Church and Old Post Office.
• Eligible for National Register and local Landmark designation: The Wells Fargo Bank, 401
South College.
The apartment building at 317 Remington Street, built in 1963, has not been officially
determined to be eligible, but the Commission noted that it is potentially eligible, and is pertinent
because its property abuts the subject property to the south and east.
Regarding the nature of impacts of the project, Commission members cited the magnitude of
change to the historic scale of the setting. In particular, the large east wall of the proposed
building was cited several times as being incompatible and adversely impacting the integrity and
significance of the historic properties.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
In evaluating the request for the Uncommon Project Development Plan, staff makes the
following findings of fact and conclusions:
A. The PDP complies with the process outlined in Article 2, Division 2.2 — Common
Development Review Procedures for Development Applications.
B. The PDP does not comply with all applicable standards in Article 3 — General
Development Standards. The points of non-compliance are:
• The PDP does not comply with Section 3.4.7(B), Historic and Cultural Resources
General Standard, because the development plan does not protect and enhance the
historical and architectural value of historic properties in the adjacent context, because
the combination of the relatively large footprint, extent of mass at the 51h and 61" levels,
and size of the east wall create an overall bulk, mass, and scale that is not compatible
with the historic character of properties in the adjacent area.
• The PDP does not comply with Section 3.5.1(B), Building and Project Compatibility
General Standard, because the proposed proportions in building mass, in combination
with building height, are not similar and derived from the neighborhood context.
• The PDP does not comply with Section 3.5.1(C), Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass,
Scale, because the mass and scale are not proportional to the mass and scale of other
structures on the same block face and opposing block face and adjacent property. No
other buildings nearby have a similar combination of height and coverage with similar
proportions in walls and sheer volume.
• The PDP does not comply with subsection 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)3, Neighborhood Scale,
because the proposed building is not compatible with the scale of the neighborhood in
terms of relative height, height to mass, and length to mass, considering that no
Uncommon PDP #150013
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015
Page 11
mitigation plan approved by the City Forester. Staff finds that the PDP complies with Section
3.2.1.
Bicycle Parking Space Requirements
Code Section 3.2.2(C)(4) requires 260 bicycle parking spaces for the 248 beds plus the
commercial space. The PDP provides these required spaces including required enclosed
bicycle parking spaces.
Site Lighting
Code Section 3.2.4 limits light glare and spillover. The proposed lighting consists of complete
glare cutoff fixtures on the building in compliance with the standards.
Transportation Level of Service
A Traffic Impact Study was submitted and accepted by the City's Traffic Operations Department.
Staff finds that the project does not create incremental impacts warranting any changes to the
configuration of streets, intersections, and sidewalks.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING:
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 22, 2015. Meeting notes are attached. The most
prominent topic of discussion was student housing, with parking also a frequently mentioned
concern.
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At their October 14, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted 6-2
to forward a recommendation of denial of the proposed PDP to the Planning and Zoning Board.
A memo is attached summarizing the discussion and findings.
Key points in the Commission's discussion were:
• Determination of which nearby historic properties should be considered "adjacent" in
evaluating the compatibility of the proposed plan.
• Nature of impacts on adjacent historic properties created by the proposed plan.
Regarding pertinent adjacent properties, the Commission established a list of properties to be
considered as "adjacent", as noted in previous staff comments on code Section 3.4.7. The
properties are as follows:
• Designated Fort Collins Landmarks: The Armstrong Hotel, 259 South College; the First
Baptist (Mountain View) Church, 328 Remington; the Old Post Office, 201 South College;
and the Bode Property, 220 Remington.
Uncommon PDP #150013
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015
Page 10
With respect to Section 2.8.2(H) as to whether the application is detrimental to the public good,
staff's findings include these key considerations:
• The plan accomplishes the purposes of the standard because the lower portions of the
building along the street provide the required materials and define the character of the
building as it relates to the sidewalk and street.
• The proposed stucco and lap siding are lighter materials that mitigate the mass of upper
recessed portions of the building by helping the upper levels visually recede from the lower
streetfront facades, which are intended to be more prominent than the upper levels in
defining the scale of the building; and the lighter materials are effective in achieving that
purpose in this particular case.
For these reasons, staff does not find the larger building to be detrimental to the public good.
With respect to subsection 2.8.2(H)(1), staff finds that the plan, with the proposed materials, is
equal to or better than a plan with specified masonry or architectural metals only, because the
lower levels along the streeffront achieve the purpose of the standard; and the proposed
materials on upper levels support the emphasis on lower levels while reducing the visual impact
of the upper levels.
Article 3 General Development Standards for All Development — Building
Character:
Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility, requires compatibility with the context of the
surrounding area in terms of building height and scale, massing proportions, design character
and building materials. The following comments focus on design character and materials.
Staff findings of non-compliance regarding mass and bulk are independent of findings that the
PDP complies with the aspects of the standard that address building character and materials.
Factors include use of brick, stone, metal, and glass to articulate the College Avenue fagade;
prominent entrances; architectural canopy and arcade features; cornice features; pattern
detailing in all materials, kickplate details; storefront windows on ground level and recessed
windows in brick portions of upper levels. Finishes and details are designed to respond to the
context created by neighboring downtown buildings.
Parking Standards
Applicable parking standards are found in subsection 3.2.2(K), with a formula for development
within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone. 125 spaces are required, and the
PDP provides the 125 spaces.
Landscaping and Tree Protection
Code Section 3.2.1 requires a landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the
street, the building, abutting properties, and users on site. The PDP protects existing street
trees and adds street trees to fill gaps. A new section of turfgrass parkway will be added where
an existing driveway is being removed. Four existing trees on site are to be removed per a tree
Uncommon PDP #150013
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015
Page 9
"all street -facing facades shall be constructed of high quality exterior materials for the full
height of the building. Such materials, with the exception of glazing, shall include stone,
brick, clay units, terra cotta, architectural pre -cast concrete, cast stone, prefabricated brick
panels, architectural metals or any combination thereof."
The applicant is requesting a Modification of this standard to allow the use of lap siding and
stucco on upper levels, recessed from lower masonry levels by distances ranging from 9 to 31
feet.
Modifications are allowed under code Section 2.8.2(H), as follows:
"The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting
of the modification would not be 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 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."
The applicant's Modification request is attached. It explains justifications for the Modification
based on not being detrimental to the public good, and meeting numbered criterion (1) above.
Staff finds that the request meets the requirements for approval in that it would not be
detrimental to the public good, and meets numbered criterion (1) above. Note that only one of
the numbered criteria must be met in order to approve the Modification.
Following is staff's evaluation of the required findings for this Modification.
Uncommon PDP #150013
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015
Page 8
3.5.1(C), Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale, requires buildings to
"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 -corner block face at the
nearest intersection."
Staff finds that the mass and scale are not proportional to the mass and scale of other
structures on the same block face, opposing block faces, and adjacent property. No other
buildings nearby have a similar combination of height and extent with similar proportions in walls
and sheer volume.
Subsection 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)3 Neighborhood Scale requires buildings over 40 feet in height to 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."
Staff finds that the highlighted terms of the standard are not met. The standard articulates the
noncompliance found by staff, with its reference to the combination of height, length, and mass.
While the neighborhood contains development from a variety of eras spanning the 1800s to the
2000s, the majority of buildings are one and two stories in height, with the Armstrong Hotel an
exception at three stories and DMA Plaza an exception at 11 stories. However, no buildings in
the adjacent context have the combination of building coverage, wall length, and height
remotely similar to the proposed PDP.
Building Character and Facades Standards
Standards in the Downtown zoning district work in conjunction with General Standards for All
Development citywide to require building design features that provide visual interest, human
scale, and outdoor activity.
Article 4. Downtown Zone District Standards for Buildina Character:
Staff finds that the project complies with applicable building character standards other than
height and massing standards, in the Downtown zone district, with the following comments.
Subsection 4.16(D)(5), Building Character and Facades, prohibits long blank walls and glass
curtain wall facades; requires buildings to incorporate outdoor spaces such as balconies,
terraces and courtyards; and requires high quality materials. Staff finds that the PDP meets the
standards with the exception of one specific standard for building materials which requires a
Modification of the standard as follows.
MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUESTED FOR STREET FACING FACADE
MATERIALS:
Subsection 4.16(D)(5)(e), Exterior fagade materials, requires that:
Uncommon PDP #150013
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015
Page 7
eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in
designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site."
Staff finds that the project is not designed to respect the character of the historic properties in
the surrounding neighborhood because of the discrepancy and incongruity of the combination of
footprint size over 30,000 square feet combined with the extent of building mass at the 51h and
61h levels, and the size of the east wall which is 74 feet tall and 200 feet long — much larger than
any buildings in the adjacent context.
Relative to the historically significant properties in the area, staff finds that the sheer mass and
bulk of the proposed building would introduce an overwhelming presence that would be
incongruous and dominate the look and feel of the area, significantly altering the area's
character.
Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard reinforces the Purpose discussed above. It states:
"The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and
architectural value of any historic property that is ... located on property adjacent to the
development site and ... (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark
designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; [or]
(2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such
historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto."
Staff finds that the project is not designed to protect and enhance the historical and architectural
value of the adjacent historic properties as required, and is not compatible with the historic
character of the historic properties, in terms of mass and bulk, for the reasons stated previously.
Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility, requires compatibility with the context of the
surrounding area in terms of building size, massing proportions, design character and building
materials. The following comments focus on mass and bulk considerations.
Section 3.5.1(B) General Standard states:
"New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the
established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary.
In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not
consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development
shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area.
Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the
use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the
street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color
shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill
development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing
and other materials. Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building height)
shall be derived from the neighboring context."
Staff finds that the proportions in building mass resulting from the combination of height and
extent of construction are not similar to or derived from the neighboring context.
Uncommon PDP #150013
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015
Page 6
must include features that express and promote a comfortable human sense of
proportionality between the individual and the environment, whether natural or man-made."
Staff finds that the proposed outdoor space at the building entry does not qualify as open space
because of its degree of enclosure in the building structure with floor area above, and its
function as private space associated with the building entry and retail/restaurant space. This
largely negates the effect of the space in mitigating and offsetting the mass of the building, and
lends a perception of the space as private space for the building.
However, this outdoor space is a very positive feature of the building, and it serves to meet
another standard for Building Character and Facades - subsection 4.16(D)(5) — which requires
building design to promote and accommodate outdoor activity for residents and workers, with
spaces such as arcades and courtyards incorporated into the building design.
Article 3 General Development Standards for All Development — Building Mass,
Bulk, and Height;
Zoning district standards mentioned above work in conjunction with several general
development standards for all development city-wide found in Article Three of the Land Use
Code. Applicable standards regarding mass, bulk, scale, and height are evaluated below.
Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, contains standards for height and mass of
new buildings where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the
surrounding neighborhood context. The proposed project is adjacent or in close proximity to
several such historic properties. Therefore, the project must comply with Section 3.4.7.
Nearby historic properties within one block include:
• Designated Fort Collins Landmarks: The Armstrong Hotel, 259 South College; the First
Baptist (Mountain View) Church, 328 Remington; the Old Post Office, 201 South College;
and the Bode Property, 220 Remington.
• Designated on the National Register: All of the properties in the 400 block of Remington, as
well as the Armstrong Hotel, First Baptist Church and Old Post Office.
• Eligible for National Register and local Landmark designation: The Wells Fargo Bank, 401
South College.
The apartment building at 317 Remington Street, built in 1963, has not been officially
determined to be eligible, but the Landmark Preservation Commission noted that it is potentially
eligible, and is pertinent because its property abuts the subject property to the south and east.
Section 3.4.7(A) Purpose, states:
"This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: ... new construction
is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the
surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or individually
Uncommon PDP #150013
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015
Page 5
Total
Height
TAddditlional
ional Height Above
ories, 85' +/-
5-6 Stories,Design To Mitigate The
S5' +�- Height and Mass
Landscaped Additional
Ground Floor Setbacks Above
Setback Base Portion to
Mitigate Height
n; And Mass
Base Portion
Of Building
Property Combined Ground Floor And
Line 10 Upper Floor Setbacks To
Mitigate Mass And Height
While the PDP provides upper floor setbacks, staff finds that the reduction in building mass is
not sufficient as a significant aspect of building design determined by an emphasis on
compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings, or sensitivity to the historic context
and scale of downtown.
Staff's finding is based on the overall mass and bulk resulting from combination of footprint size
and height. The extent of 5`" and 6'h story mass, and the 200'-foot-long by 74-foot-tall east wall,
are particular factors.
Staff finds that these factors undermine compatibility with scale and massing of nearby
buildings, and create an overwhelming presence, out of scale with the historic downtown
context.
A related standard in the Downtown zoning district requires development plans to provide
ground floor open space to help offset the mass of taller buildings. Subsection 4.16 (E)(1)(c),
Plazas, states:
"for taller buildings located in the Canyon Avenue subdistrict, ground floor open space shall
be provided that is organized and arranged to promote both active and passive activities for
the general public. Such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to the public and
Uncommon PDP #150013
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015
Page 4
Several standards in the Downtown zoning district, in Article 4, work in conjunction with General
Standards for All Development citywide in Article 3 to regulate building size, height, bulk, mass,
and scale. As noted previously, standards do not state exact numerical parameters. Rather,
they consist of descriptive requirements so that size and shaping of buildings are to be
determined as part of the design and development review process.
Article 4 Downtown Zoning District Standards for Building Height and Mass:
Downtown zoning district standards for building height and mass are found in subsection 4.16
(D), Building Standards. A block -by -block height limits map shows maximum height limits in the
Canyon Avenue Subdistrict. On the subject block, the maximum height limit is 5-6 stories, +/-
85 feet. Per subsection 4.16(D)(2)(c), the stated limits "are intended to convey a scale of
building rather than an exact point or line." The proposed project is below the maximum height
limit, at 74 feet.
The height limits map is accompanied by requirements for "Building Mass Reduction for Taller
Buildings (over three stories)." Taller buildings must have "a base portion of one or two stories,
clearly defined by a prominent, projecting cornice or roof, fenestration, different materials and
different colors from the remainder of the building." Staff finds that the proposed project
complies with this requirement for a clearly defined based portion.
Code subsection 4.16(D)(4)(b)2 requires upper portions of the building to be further set back
above the base "in such a manner as to contribute to a significant aspect of the building design.
Upper floor setbacks shall be determined by an emphasis on pedestrian scale in sidewalks and
outdoor spaces, compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings, preservation of
key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces, and preservation of views in order to ensure
sensitivity to the historic context and scale of downtown and to maintain a degree of open sky
as part of the visual character of the City."
The standard is accompanied by the following figure showing how ground floor and upper floor
setbacks can be considered together to mitigate mass and height.
Uncommon PDP #150013
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015
Page 3
primary focal point of Fort Collins from a community appearance and design standpoint. The
DSP recognizes that redevelopment typically depends on buildings larger than the majority of
existing buildings in the area to support parking within structures versus all surface parking lots.
The principles that support taller buildings are accompanied by supporting policy statements
emphasizing scale and careful design so that negative effects are considered and mitigated
(e.g., changes to historic character, quality of life in nearby neighborhoods, sunshine patterns,
and large existing trees.) Architectural creativity should include responsiveness to thoughtful
standards for height, mass and design. Carefully distributing building mass to fit the adjacent
context and to mitigate negative effects of taller buildings is a point of emphasis.
The surrounding context within about one block of the PDP comprises an eclectic range of
buildings from different eras, in varying styles, with heights that range from a majority of single -
story flat -roofed buildings to several 2-story buildings, to the 3-story Armstrong Hotel, to the the
11-story DMA Plaza apartment tower. Several nearby buildings are designated or found eligible
for designation on the National Register and as Fort Collins Landmarks.
Abutting zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction
Zone District
Existing Land Uses
Single -story commercial buildings, Remington
North
D, Old City Center Subdistrict
Lot public parking lot, 3-story Armstrong Hotel
cater corner across the intersection
South
D, Canyon Avenue Subdistrict
1-story commercial buildings
2-story office building and parking lot, 2-story
East
D, Canyon Avenue Subdistrict
apartments
1-story commercial buildings and parking lots,
West
D, Canyon Avenue Subdistrict
Armstrong Hotel cater corner across the
intersection
In 2005, a development plan was approved on the site but has since expired. Called Belle
Claire, the plan was for a new 6-story building, approximately 80 feet in height, with a footprint
of 16,400 square feet. The building was proposed on a portion of the Perkins restaurant parking
lot. The 5,000-square foot Perkins building was to be retained. The building was programmed
for 9,000 square feet of retail space, 14,000 square feet of office space, and 31 residential units.
3. Compliance with Applicable Land Use Code Standards
Staff comments below regarding Land Use Code standards are arranged by topic area.
Building Mass, Bulk, and Height Standards
Uncommon PDP #150013
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing October 29, 2015
Page 2
This issue involves several interrelated Land Use Code (code) standards for building
compatibility and sensitive planning that is harmonious with the adjacent surrounding
neighborhood context, including standards for compatibility with historic resources in the
adjacent area.
Staff findings acknowledge the many aspects of the proposed development that are consistent
with the community's planning policies and zoning regulations for this portion of the Downtown.
The proposed multi -story, mixed -use development with active ground floor commercial uses,
residential units above, and structured parking, is consistent with planning and zoning in terms
of uses. High quality building materials are proposed, consistent with standards. Pedestrian -
oriented design of the clearly defined base portion, to resemble multiple storefront buildings, is
consistent with design standards. Design measures have been taken in response to applicable
standards for mitigating the mass of taller buildings (over 3 stories) downtown. These measures
help to mitigate the mass, bulk and scale of the building to a degree, but fall short of achieveing
overall compatibility with the surrounding context.
2. Planning Background and Context
The 1989 Downtown Plan and 2006 Downtown Strategic Plan establish a vision and policy
direction for redevelopment in Downtown. These plans are based on very extensive community
discussion, and represent a careful balance among widely differing interests with regard to taller
buildings downtown. Policy direction is translated directly into Land Use Code standards for
height and mass of new buildings downtown.
Code standards are written to provide qualitative requirements rather than exact metrics for
building size limits. The premise is that developers and architects of new buildings can be more
creative in designing to fit the unique circumstances of a given site in the downtown area if they
are not required to fit the design into a predetermined numerically defined box.
Additionally, the premise is that the resulting degree of flexibility in the development review
process will be resolved in an iterative process among staff, the development team, the
community, and ultimately the decision maker.
The Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP) overall strategy is to protect, manage, leverage and blend
the economic and cultural vitality of the core retail entertainment district. The overall strategy is
defined by principles corresponding to three areas: the retail/entertainment core, the
infill/transition area, and the neighborhood edge.
Uncommon is within the infill/transition area, and the site is recognized as suitable for infill and
redevelopment in the DSP. This recognition anticipates a larger new building, to be sensitively
programmed, sized, shaped, and designed in response to the context of existing development,
and nearby historic buildings in particular.
The key principle for the infill/transition area is to leverage the core's energy to attract new
development, which then supports the core in turn.
From an urban design perspective, the DSP supports taller buildings (over three stories) in the
infill/transition area, partly to support vitality of the core, and partly to reinforce downtown as the
F6rt of
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ITEM NO
HEARING DATE October 29, 2015
STAFF Mapes
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
This Project Development Plan (PDP) is for development of a terraced 4- to 6-story, mixed -use
building at the southeast corner of College Avenue and Olive Street. The site formerly
contained Perkins restaurant, which was demolished and removed in early 2015.
The property is zoned Downtown (D), Canyon Avenue Subdistrict. The proposed land uses are
permitted, and the PDP is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The site is 35,000 square feet. Proposed building coverage is 30,600 square feet. The ground
floor consists of streetfront retail commercial spaces totaling 8,900 square feet, and the upper
levels contain apartment units totaling 120 units. The units are a mix of studio and 1, 2, and 3
bedroom units with a total of 248 bedrooms. Total floor area is 150,000 square feet.
125 parking spaces are provided. Parking is below grade and on the ground level below upper
floor building space, with access from the alley.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of Uncommon PDP #150013.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Overview
The overall mass, bulk, and scale of the building have generated significant staff concerns since
the initial review of the plan concept, and remain an outstanding design issue in staff findings.
Staff finds that the degree of mass reduction of upper floors is not adequate to result in
compatibility with the surrounding context.
The combination of lot coverage, footprint size, and height results in a building with an
overwhelming mass much larger than the buildings that form the relevant context. DMA Plaza
1/2 block away is taller than the proposed building by about 45 feet, but has a roughly 6,900
square foot footprint, less than one fourth the footprint of the proposed building, and landscaped
setbacks of 18 and 38 feet from streets. The commercial block to the north has similar lot
coverage and a long wall length along College Avenue (made up of multiple party -wall
buildings), but is only one story in height. No development within the relevant context area
exhibits building mass, bulk, and scale similar to the proposed building.
Planning Services 281 N College Ave - PO Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750