Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout620 SOUTH SHERWOOD - NCB SITE PLAN REVIEW - 51-95 - CORRESPONDENCE -BW t d Notwithstanding the more fundamental comments on overall massing, here are some direct comments and questions on the revised application: (1) Are there projecting balconies in front of the french doors? Or is it a "faux" pattern flat on the facade? Projecting and recessed features are more consistent with the neighborhood; flat facades or "faux" features are less so. (2) How about de-emphasizing the pipes, and emphasizing the occupied areas, with articulation and massing? (i.e. create a narrower, recessed, maybe dark colored reveal; and frame occupied parts of the facade with integral brick features.) (3) How about roof forms that "cascade" or step down to a lower level next to the home on the north? Any such roof modulation could relate to different recessed and projecting building masses. (4) If the "eclectic" mix of facade details and materials is desired, it would be better used to differentiate ground level from upper level, as is typical of almost all traditional styles. Better yet, differentiate the massing and then relate any material changes to the massing. (5) The cornice treatment on the flat roof helps relate the flat roof to traditional styles found in older neighborhoods like this one, but it can not compensate for the impact of a full 2-story face on the adjacent property. (6) No criteria deal directly with this, but shouldn't a second -story planter box be under the window? (7) How about an element that gives the appearance of a base course or foundation to visually relate to that aspect of well -regarded traditional downtown housing? Or even raising the floor level slightly? A-2.7 Architecture The LDGS states: "When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed adjacent to each other, every effort should be made to create architectural compatibility through careful consideration of scale, form, materials, and colors." `Buildings can be made compatible through skillful design and careful orientation''. "For example, the east and west side neighborhoods adjacent to downtown have developed a distinct historical character." The diagrams in A-2.7 illustrate the points. The size of the monolithic 2-ston- face, the banks of windows overlooking the south side of the adjacent home, and the use of pipes as the only architectural detail, are not compatible with the intimate scale of spaces and building detailing which characterizes the neighborhood. Tice proposal in question resembles the diagrams of what to avoid under A-2.7. Regarding the question of whether consideration must be given to all existing structures in the area in detertnining arcs itec urai character: there's some room for the P&Z Board to interpret this, but I contend that the emphasis should be on the positive qualities of existing structures and the neiahborh..coc, and on the most relevant impacts of any proposed changes in character -- in this case the greatest impacts Nvouid be on houses to the nortli. and not on the apartment building to the south; and the houses to the north also represent the positive defining qualities of the neighborhood better than the three modem replacements cited in the applicants letter. Despite the above interpretation of LDGS Criteria as a clear basis for denial, I would like to pass along a general comments that I believe it would readily be possible for a designer or architect who is accustomed to design in context, to design a larger, multi -unit building that doesn't introduce massive or monolithic effects in building mass, or overbearing windows facing down and into the home to the north, and that creates a skillful, appropriate transition from the home on the north to the apartment building on the south as well as a street face that continues the well regarded public qualities of the neighborhood. Some 1-?% story massing and sloping roofs could be included, possibly with some stepped articulation in the forms, up to 2-story massing on he south. Allof these features could be based on sun angles and views into the windows and side yard of the home to the north Windows could be recessed, made smaller, or otherwise made more discreet and less dominant, in combination with very carefully selected upright evergreen trees and other landscape elements to enhance privacy with respect to both windows and outdoor spaces. I believe the applicant once suggested other possible ways to break up the mass into appropriate proportions, such as with separate outbuildings. Such articulated massing could possibly integrate the spruce trees as a major feature that mitigates the mass. However it's done, a fine scale of massing and detailing is indeed the objective given the relatively intimate scale of the neighborhood. Also, it would be easily possible to design a street facade that continues the pattem and rhythm of the most positive buildings in the neighborhood in terms of their appropriate character. Simply echo proportions, lines of windows, doorways, porches, bay windows, other projections and recesses, base courses, roof lines, roof shapes, eaves, details, and outdoor spaces. Clark Mapes Advance Planning Department 1 / 19/96 RE: 620 South Sherwood Application A - 2.2 Building Placement One of the two main purposes of a criterion for building placement and orientation is to "consider neighborhood character" in the arrangement of elements on the site. A letter in the application emphasizes the lack of character of the three nearby buildings which diminish the distinct neighborhood character, as the reason why this application is appropriate. Two of the modern redevelopments cited are on corners with Laurel Street, separated by alleys from the rest of their blocks. Corners are prominent focal points and gathering points with two street facades, all of which differentiates them the field of mid -block lots. I contend that this reduces their importance in comparison to the proposed application because if there is a logical place for domininant buildings that are disconnected from the overall pattern, it is along Laurel Street and at corners. But the fact remains that the neighborhood has had an architectural character that is clearly defined and established, for most of this century. The character has indeed been diluted by the past redevelopments cited by the applicant, particularly next door to the south, which do not incorporate basic proportions of building mass, roof shapes, facade design, patterns of massing and voids, projections and recesses, street facing doorways and windows, or other significant qualities of the neighborhood. In fact it would be easily understandable if the existing apartment building to the south is in fact contributing to the difficulty in maintaining the existing house at 620 as a viable residence, due to the overbearing presence and shading. This is often the course of what has been called "the domino effect" in the fall of historic neighborhoods. The line of reasoning that has led to the zoning variance request and to proposed deviation from the traditional established character, is backward. The assumption that a fourplex footprint extended upward into a monolithic box makes it unnecessary to consider the characteristics of the existing cottage style homes because they aren't fourplexes, is not a valid assumption for us to work from. Please call me at your earliest convenience, at 221-6750, to discuss the course of action that should be taken to move this request to a decision by the City. s� �y, Oer ee en It Project Planner cc: Karen McWilliams Clark Mapes Ward Stanford Peter Barnes JR Engineering Project He providing any vertical relief for the 18' high building. The redeveloped site would feel like a lot of building, pavement, and rock with virtually no landscaping for visual relief. An additional street tree on Sherwood Street should be provided and planting beds with foundation plantings east and west of the building should be provided. In addition, the Zoning Department has stated that trees and shrubs are required as part of the parking lot landscaping (comment Lb. in this letter). 6. There still are concerns about the architecture of the building and its appearance not being sympathetic to the existing general character of this City block. The flat roof would definitely appear to be out of character with the area. Also, there is still a significant number of existing small, cottage -style single family residences in the 600 block of South Sherwood Street. This proposal must comply with All Development Criteria A-2.2 Building Placement and Orientation, A-2.7 Architecture, and A-2.11 Historic Resources of the LDGS. Attached are comments and sketches from Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department (dated January 19, 1996) with concerns, suggestions, and recommendations about the revised plans. 7. The City's adopted West Side Neighborhood Plan (1989) has set a direction for this older part of Fort Collins as the population continues to increase. The neighborhood plan is part of the City's comprehensive plan that must be addressed with All Development Criterion A-1.2 Comprehensive Plan of the LDGS. Chapters 3 and 4 in the neighborhood plan are most significant pertaining to redevelopment of this property. The property is in the Residential Redevelopment (Buffer) Area as shown on the Future Land Use map (Page 3- 12) and is part of the East Buffer Area that is described on Pages 3-14 through 3-16 in the neighborhood plan, which sets the intent for the various defined areas in the west side. This completes the comments at this time. The City staff believes that with several outstanding issues yet to be resolved and All Development Criteria A-1.2, A-2.2, A-2.7, A-2.11, and A-2.13 in the LDGS not being met, based on the revisions that were submitted, there presently are two courses of action to choose from: * Take the request for the NCB Site Plan Review, with the plans presented through your revisions, to the Current Planning Director for an administrative public hearing as soon as possible for a final decision. The staff recommendation will be for denial of the request. If denied, you will have 7 calendar days from the date of the administrative hearing to file an appeal with the Planning Department, and the appeal would be scheduled for a later Planning and Zoning Board public hearing for a decision. * Refer the final decision for the NCB Site Plan Review directly to the Planning and Zoning Board at this time, to be scheduled for the earliest possible date. Either you, at your request, or the Current Planning Director can refer the item to the Board without conducting an administrative public hearing. The action of the Board is appealable to the City Council. Commu v Planninc, and Environmental Current Planning January 31, 1996 Mark Cucarola Midwestern Homes of Colorado, Inc. P.O. Box 621815 Littleton, CO. 80126 Dear Mark, �VICes Staff has reviewed your revised documents for the 620 South Sher•Nood Fourplea - NCB Site Plan Review that were received by the City Current Planning Department on January 22, 1996, and would like to offer the following comments: The Zoning Department has offered the foiowing comments: a. The lot area based on the durensions (50' x 190') would appear to be 9,500 square feet in size; however, the Land Use Chart on your Site Plan shows a lot area of 9,437 square feet. What creates the discrepancy? b. There are landscape requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the parking lot. Landscaping and plant materials must be provided in the 5' wide parking setback areas and they need to consist of trees and shrubs, in addition to the fence. 2. A copy of the comments received from the Building Inspection Department is attached to this letter. 3. As was stated in my comment letter dated December 6, 1996 and addressed to you, the proposed landscaping on this lot does not comply with the intent of All Development Criterion A-2.13 Landscape of the Land Development Guidance System DGS). Three large existing spruce trees are to remain in the middle of the lot and a number of existing trees are to be removed. The revised Site & Landscape Plan shows some plant materials on the lot; however, it is not possible in all cases to know what type of materials they are (deciduous or evergreen trees or shrubs) and whether they are to remain or to be removed. The only new plant materials proposed are to be 8 Buffalo Juniper along the north side of the building, adjacent to the existing single family residence. These junipers will barely fill out this planting bed, if ever. They get to be 12" to 18" in height, hardly 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970)'?1-6378 TDD (970) 224-6002