HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIVING OAKS - PDP - PDP170009 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (14)City oFort Collins
DATE: May 16, 2017
Planning, Development & Transportation
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Hearing Officer
TH: Tom Leeson, Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Clay Frickey, City Planner
FR: Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions
Pertaining to Living Oaks (PDP170009)
As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for
properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or
districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation
from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the Landmark Preservation
Commission's Findings of Fact and its motion for this project.
At its April 19, 2017 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a review of the
development project known as Living Oaks (PDP170009) as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6).
The Landmark Preservation Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 5-3:
"That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the
Living Oaks Project Development Plan (PDP170009), finding it is in compliance with the standards
contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 in regard to compatibility with the character of the
project's area of adjacency for the following reasons:
• The project does not impact the individual eligibility for designation of the historic properties in the
defined area of adjacency.
• The project design uses massing and scale that is compatible with the historic context.
The project relies on building materials that are visually compatible with adjacent historic properties.
• The project uses window patterning and proportions that provide visual ties to buildings within the
adjacent historic context.
• The proposed design does not impede existing visual and pedestrian connections to the adjacent
neighborhood focal points"
Three of the dissenting members of the Commission stated the following reason for not supporting the motion:
• The height, setbacks, and width do not meet the requirements of LUC 3.4.7 Io the maximum extent
feasible."
One of the dissenting members of the Commission stated the following reasons for not supporting the motion:
• The design is not in character with the residential nature of the area.
• The design does not strengthen visual ties among buildings.
• The building does not have scale, and the materials and location of the front door do not help the
design establish scale.