HomeMy WebLinkAboutMELDRUM OFFICE BUILDING - PDP - PDP130027 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION1
12/17/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\MELDRUM OFFICE BUILDING\DECISION.DOCX
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS AND DECISION
HEARING DATE: December 5, 2013
PROJECT NAME: Meldrum Office Building (111 South Meldrum)
CASE NUMBER: #PDP 130027
APPLICANT/OWNER: 111 Meldrum LLC (Blue Ocean Enterprises)
416 West Oak Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
HEARING OFFICER: Kendra L. Carberry
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This PDP proposes the demolition of the existing building at
111 South Meldrum (former Ulrich Blueprint) and construction of a 42,000 square foot, 6-story,
commercial office building with 6 parking spaces inside a garage on the ground level. The PDP
will remove 12 on-street parking spaces and expand the landscape parkway with rain gardens and
landscape features to serve as an informal gathering space from the site to the corner of Meldrum
Street and Mountain Avenue. The PDP also requests one Modification of Standard for a non-
permitted building material (composite panel) exceeding a 5' by 3' vertical module.
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved with one condition
ZONE DISTRICT: Downtown (D), Canyon Avenue Sub-District, with
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay
HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 5:30 p.m. on December 5,
2013, in Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
EVIDENCE: During the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence:
(1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting
documents submitted by the applicant; (3) written comments from the Downtown Development
Authority and the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce; and (4) email comments from Carl L.
Denton, Gina Janett and Meg Dunn, with staff responses (the Land Use Code, the Comprehensive
Plan and the formally promulgated polices of the City are all considered part of the record
considered by the Hearing Officer).
TESTIMONY: The following persons testified at the hearing:
From the City: Cameron Glass, Ward Stanford
From the Applicant: Steve Schroyer, Chris Aronson, Brandon Grebe
From the Public: Nancy York, Bruce Froseth, Susan Kreul-Froseth
2
12/17/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\MELDRUM OFFICE BUILDING\DECISION.DOCX
FINDINGS
1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the hearing was
properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.
2. The PDP complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article 3 of the
Code.
a. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection, because:
the PDP provides full tree stocking and street trees throughout the site; two mature trees
are being preserved, and the applicant is working with the City Forester on a tree
mitigation plan for the three trees that will be removed.
b. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(1), Safety, because pedestrians, bicycles
and vehicles are separated to the maximum extent possible.
c. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(4), Bicycle Facilities – Alternative
Compliance, because there are 14 enclosed bicycle parking spaces and the intended use of
the building will not generate bicycle parking demand exceeding the spaces provided.
d. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(5), Walkways, because the walkways
directly and continuously connect pedestrian points of origin and destination.
e. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2(K)(2), Parking, because the PDP proposes
less than the maximum number of spaces.
f. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.4, Site Lighting – Alternative Compliance,
because the lighting plan accomplishes the purposes of this section equally well or better
than would a lighting plan which complies with the standards of the section, in that the site
is not nearby a natural area, and the lighting enhances neighborhood continuity and
connectivity, fosters non-vehicular access by providing softly lit sidewalks and plaza space
for pedestrians, and demonstrates innovative design by lowering light intensity by
reflecting it off trees and building walls.
g. The PDP complies with Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility,
because: though the building is taller by three stories than the existing commercial
building to the north; facades are broken into distinct modules that help reduce the
perceived size; the building is set back from the alley by a parking lot; the PDP does not
substantially alter the opportunity for desirable views of the mountains from public places;
and the PDP does not adversely affect the surrounding properties by casting shadows that
would preclude the functional use of solar energy technology.
h. The PDP complies with Section 3.5.3, Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial
Buildings, because: the main entrance of the building faces the public sidewalk; the
building provides both vertical and horizontal variation throughout the building; the
building provides a variety of high-quality materials utilizing traditional building material
such as brick and stone; and the design provides interest and wall articulation along
connecting walkways at intervals more frequent than the required 30 feet.
3
12/17/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\MELDRUM OFFICE BUILDING\DECISION.DOCX
3. The TOD overlay zone standards do not apply to this PDP.
4. The PDP complies with the applicable standards contained in Article 4 of the Code for the
D zone district, Canyon Avenue sub-district.
a. The PDP complies with Section 4.16(B), Permitted Uses, because commercial
offices are permitted uses in the D zone district and the Canyon Avenue sub-district,
subject to administrative review.
b. The PDP complies with Section 4.16(D), Building Standards, because: the PDP
includes a landscape setback; the building height is 85'; the building provides a clearly-
defined base and upper floor setbacks; the building mass will not significantly diminish
access to sunlight, mountain views or other historic resources; the building uses high-
quality materials at the pedestrian level; and the streetscape integrates with the property to
the north.
c. The PDP complies with Section 4.16(E), Site Design, because the site has 75' of
street frontage and has proposed to utilize an expanded parkway combined with the
property to the north to create a public plaza space to promote gathering.
5. The Modification of Standard (Section 4.16(D)(5)(e) – Exterior Façade Materials) meets
the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H) of the Code.
a. The Modification would not be contrary to the public good.
b. The Modification will not diverge from the standards of the Code except in a
nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire PDP.
c. The request for a Modification of Standard to permit the use of composite panel
material in modules larger than 3' by 5' is not detrimental to the public good and will
promote the general purpose of the standard equal to or better than compliance with
Section 4.16(D)(5)(e), because the material does not detract from the architectural interest
of the building and continues to promote a sense of human scale and pedestrian-oriented
character.
DECISION
Based on the foregoing findings, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following rulings:
1. The PDP and the Modification of Standard are approved with the following condition:
a. Prior to re-paving the alley, the applicant/owner shall work with the City and/or the
Downtown Development Authority to consider alternatives to a full re-paving of the alley
to the west of the PDP site, and possibly converting the alley into a one-way alley.
4
12/17/2013
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\MELDRUM OFFICE BUILDING\DECISION.DOCX
DATED this 17
th
day of December, 2013.
_____________________________________
Kendra L. Carberry
Hearing Officer