HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARDWALK CROSSING @ MASON STREET - PDP/FDP - FDP130003 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO FDP #130003
MEETING DATE May 30, 2013
STAFF Pete Wray
ADMINISTRATIVE TYPE I HEARING
Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, Project Development
Plan/Final Development Plan - FDP #130003
APPLICANT: Steve Steinbicker
Architecture West, LLC
4710 S. College Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: George Holter
3509 S. Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a combined Project Development Plan/Final Plan to develop two
commercial buildings located at 4012 S. Mason Street, in the General Commercial (CG)
zone district. The site is also located in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
overlay district.
A previously approved development plan on this parcel, with the same name, showed
the proposed buildings in the same configuration, but that plan has expired. That plan
included three buildings, the first of which was built, and is called Building 1 on Lot 1.
The proposed buildings are called Building 2 and Building 3 on Lots 2 and 3
respectively. Minor changes requested to the original approved plan include lot line
adjustments for new lots 2 and 3, and an increase of 2,000 square feet in Building 2.
Building 2 is a 12,000 square foot, two-story mixed-use building, with offices on the
second level and possible uses on the first level to include office, medical, retail,
service, restaurant and/or other compatible uses. Building 3 is a 5,500 SF one-story
building to accommodate a mix of office, medical, retail, service, restaurant and/or other
compatible permitted uses.
The applicant is requesting three Modifications of Standards.
Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, PDP/FDP #130003
Administrative Type I Hearing (05/23/2013)
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the FDP and Modifications
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Boardwalk Crossing P.D.P/F.D.P. complies with procedural requirements of the
Land Use Code (LUC) in Article 2, for administrative review. The P.D.P./F.D.P.
complies with the applicable zoning standards of LUC Section 4.21 - General
Commercial District. And, the P.D.P/F.D.P. complies with the General Development
standards in Article 3, with three requests for Modifications of standards. Staff finds that
the three Modification requests meet the criteria of Section 2.8.2 (H).
COMMENTS:
1. Zoning History:
The property was annexed in 1978 and zoned Commercial as part of the
Horsetooth-Harmony Annexation.
The property was originally platted as Boardwalk Crossing, Filing 2, as
part of the Garth Commercial Plaza.
In 1997, with the adoption of the Land Use Code, the Commercial District
zoning was carried forward.
In 2007, the site was included in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
district.
In 2011, with the update of City Plan and LUC amendments, the
Commercial District was renamed the C-G, General Commercial District.
Current surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North General Commercial (CG) Restaurant (Olive Garden)
South General Commercial (CG) Vacant Lot
East General Commercial (CG) Financial Services (Warren Federal Credit
Union), Retail (REI)
West General Commercial (CG) Hotel (Quality Inn & Suites)
Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, PDP/FDP #130003
Administrative Type I Hearing (05/23/2013)
Page 3
2. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code - General Commercial (CG)
District Standards in Division 4.21
Staff finds that the project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards.
Following are some key examples:
A. Purpose: The purpose of the General Commercial District is as follows:
The General Commercial District is intended to be a setting for
development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and
regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services.
Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including
creative forms of housing. While some General Commercial District areas
may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other auto-oriented
uses, it is the City’s intent that the General Commercial District
emphasizes safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with
planning and design that accommodates pedestrians.
The proposed project is consistent with the stated purpose of the zone
district as the project proposes to provide a mix of retail and office uses in
an infill site adjacent to the Mason Corridor MAX bus rapid transit service,
and buildings oriented to the streets and direct access to the sidewalk
system for efficient pedestrian mobility.
B. Permitted Land Uses - Section 4.21 (B): The proposed uses of retail,
offices, medical, services, restaurant and other uses are permitted in the
C-G zoning, subject to Administrative Type I Review.
C. Land Use Standards – Section 4.21 (D): The maximum building height
shall be four (4) stories.
A proposed mixed-use building on Lot 2 is two stories and 38’ in height
and the single-story building on Lot 3 is 26’ in height.
D. Development Standards – Section 4.21 (E) (2) Site Design:
(a) Pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces shall be placed next to activity
areas that generate the users (such as street corners, shops, stores,
offices, day care and dwellings). Because liveliness created by the
presence of people is the main key to the attractiveness of such spaces,
to the maximum extent feasible, the development shall link outdoor
spaces to and make them visible from streets and sidewalks. Sculpture,
kiosks or shelters are encouraged to be prominently placed in outdoor
spaces.
Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, PDP/FDP #130003
Administrative Type I Hearing (05/23/2013)
Page 4
The proposed outdoor gathering place is centrally located and adjacent to
Building 2, and accessible to the street by a direct sidewalk connection.
3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development
Standards
Staff finds that the project complies with all applicable Article 3 standards, except
for three requested Modifications of standards as stated below. Following are
some key examples:
1. Division 3.2 – Site Planning and Design Standards
A. Section 3.2.1 (D) – Tree Planting Standards
The proposed planting plan provides street trees in a landscaped parkway
along Boardwalk Drive/S. Mason Street, in compliance with the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards.
B. Section 3.2.1(E) – Interior and Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping
The landscape plan complies with the landscape standards for perimeter,
building foundation, and interior parking-island planting. The perimeter
parking areas are screened from the street and abutting uses by providing
sufficient ground plane and tree canopy plantings to screen at least 75%
of the light from headlights, to a minimum height of 30” for at least 70% of
the length of the parking area along the street. Staff evaluated the
potential use of a low 30 inch tall masonry wall in lieu of planting to screen
parking areas abutting S. Mason Street. Due to the narrow landscape
area (six feet wide) and utility lines underground, staff determined a wall is
not feasible and requested substantial shrub planting to screen parking.
C. Section 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking
General Standard. The parking and circulation system within each
development shall accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed development and to and
from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently, and shall contribute to
the attractiveness of the development. The on-site pedestrian system
must provide adequate directness, continuity, street crossings, visible
interest and security as defined by the standards in this Section.
The project complies with applicable standards in Section 3.2.2, except
(J) Landscape Setbacks. The applicant is requesting two
modifications to this standard (explained in Section 4 below).
Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, PDP/FDP #130003
Administrative Type I Hearing (05/23/2013)
Page 5
D. Section 3.2.2 (K)(2) Nonresidential Parking Requirements
Nonresidential uses will be limited to a maximum number of parking
spaces, based on the square footage of the gross leasable area and of the
occupancy of specified uses. Parking maximums for vehicles are 4:1,000
SF for retail and 3:1,000 SF for general office.
The project includes 6,000 SF of office/retail uses in building 2, and 5,500
SF of retail/restaurant uses in building 3. The project proposes 51 off-
street parking spaces, below the maximum allowed; six bike parking
spaces are also provided in compliance with Section 3.2.2 (C) (4).
E. Section 3.5.1(B) – Building and Project Architectural Compatibility
Architectural Character, Building Size, Mass and Scale, Building
Materials, Building Color, and Building Height Review [Section 3.5.1 (B),
(C), (E), and (F)]
The area in which this project is proposed represents an eclectic mix of
building styles – in form, scale, character, and material, and uses. There
is not a common character established in the area. The architecture of
the proposed two buildings is attempting to match newer existing buildings
such as the adjacent bank, hotel, and REI in building size, mass, scale
and height. The two proposed buildings also use similar building
materials, textures, and colors as nearby buildings.
F. Section 3.5.2 Mixed-Use, Institutional, and Commercial Buildings
Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways, and Parking, Variation in
Massing, and Character and Image per Section 3.5.2 B, C, and D.
The main entrances of the buildings face onto a sidewalk and public plaza
with direct connections to S. Mason Street and Boardwalk Drive, and
parking areas. Building entrances also face the streets. The proposed
buildings provide both vertical and horizontal variation and articulation.
The proposed buildings create a recognizable base with masonry and
stone material, fabric awning and glazing, and window treatments. The top
element is treated with a color change in the stucco, cornice, and sloped
metal roofing.
Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, PDP/FDP #130003
Administrative Type I Hearing (05/23/2013)
Page 6
G. Section 3.10.4 Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Overlay Zone
The proposed project is in compliance with the applicable TOD standards
in Section 3.10 including Permitted Uses, Site Planning, Streetscape and
Pedestrian Connections, except (C), Off-Street Parking. The applicant
is requesting a modification to this standard (explained in Section 4
below). The project is also in compliance with the applicable standards in
Section 3.10.5, Character and Image.
4. Requests for Modification of Standards:
The applicant is requesting three modifications of standards in LUC Article 3.
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
it meets at least one of four criteria described in LUC Section 2.8.2 (H).
The requested Modifications are based on two of the four criteria: 2.8.2 (H) (3)
and (4). These criteria recognize exceptional practical difficulties unique to the
property due to narrowness, and minor deviations from stated standards which
are nominal and inconsequential in the context of the plan as a whole.
The three requested Modifications follow:
First Modification - Section 3.2.2 (J) – Setbacks: This standard requires “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 side and
rear lot lines by 5’ ” in order to provide a landscape area to screen and buffer
parking along the lot lines. The proposed landscape setback is between 0’ and
3’ along the rear lot line, with no proposed new landscaping. The abutting
development comprises parking in the rear of a large retail establishment, with a
5-foot perimeter landscape area.
Applicant’s Justification:
The applicant asks that the Hearing Officer find that the requested modification
be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good; and that
the modification by reason of exceptional physical conditions unique to such
property, including exceptional narrowness of lots, results in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties and hardship of the owner of property, and not
caused by the act or omission of the applicant; and that the modification does not
diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when
considered from the perspective of the entire development plan.
Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, PDP/FDP #130003
Administrative Type I Hearing (05/23/2013)
Page 7
Following is the applicant’s written justification for request for modification of
standard:
The site has a limited width dimension, that allows for one double and one
single-loaded parking lot layout, which is not optimal. The proposed
design does not provide the minimum parking for office and retail uses,
normally provided in other mixed-use centers. Any change in the west
parking lot location could lose between 5 & 12 parking spaces, which
would be seriously detrimental to users, clients, developer and the general
public.
There is no off-street parking that would support the loss in parking stalls
with a re-design. This loss of parking could force adjacent properties to
share un-wanted vehicles parked on their properties, (i.e.; the nearby
Olive Garden, REI, Barnes & Noble and/or others).
The adjacent REI property to the east has an existing landscape island
paralleling the property line with very mature, established landscaping.
These plantings provide adequate screening and separation of both
developments.
The shift in parking and driveway locations would have a significant impact
on the functionality of this development. There are no significant concerns
with the approval of this modification, on this project.
Staff Evaluation of the Modification:
Staff acknowledges the hardship for commercial development of the parcel
based on its narrow dimension of 110 feet from South Mason Street to the east
lot line. While the proposed PDP/FDP includes only a partial landscape setback
along the rear lot line ranging from 0’ to 3’, staff finds that the existing 5’
landscape area along the rear lot line of the abutting rear parking lot of a retail
building provides adequate landscaping for screening and buffering the proposed
drive aisle along the lot line. Doubling the shrub screening with an additional 5-
foot landscape strip between the abutting parking lot and the proposed drive aisle
would have a small effect that would not affect the public good in a significant
way.
The proposed landscape setback, while minimal, and the requested modification
does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan.
Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, PDP/FDP #130003
Administrative Type I Hearing (05/23/2013)
Page 8
Staff Recommendation and Findings of Fact:
Staff recommends approval of the Modification. In evaluating the request and in
fulfillment of the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H) (3) (4), Staff makes the
following findings of fact:
The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and:
The plan as submitted will by reason of exceptional physical conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property,
including exceptional narrowness of lots, result in unusual and exceptional
practical difficulties and hardship of the owner of property, and not caused
by the act or omission of the applicant.
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 adjacent existing development.
Second Modification: Section 3.2.2 (J) – Setbacks: This standard requires
any vehicular use area containing six (6) or more parking spaces or one
thousand eight hundred (1,800) or more square feet to be set back from the
street right-of-way by a minimum dimension based on the type of street. This
stretch of South Mason Street is an arterial street, which requires a 15-foot
average width landscape area for parking along the right-of-way, and the
proposed landscape setback area is 6 feet, resulting from the layout of proposed
parking, which is constrained by the narrow lot.
Applicant’s Justification:
The applicant asks that the Hearing Officer find that the requested modification
be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good; and that
the modification by reason of exceptional physical conditions unique to such
property, including exceptional narrowness of lots, and not caused by the act or
omission of the applicant; and that the modification does not diverge from the
standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the
perspective of the entire development plan.
The applicant is requesting a modification to the landscape setback standards
requiring 1) a 15’ landscape setback along S. Mason Street. The proposed
landscape setback along S. Mason Street is 6’.
Following is the applicant’s written justification for request for modification of
standard:
Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, PDP/FDP #130003
Administrative Type I Hearing (05/23/2013)
Page 9
The site has a limited width dimension, that allows for one double and one
single-loaded parking lot layout, which is not optimal. The proposed
design does not provide the minimum parking for office and retail uses,
normally provided in other mixed-use centers. Any change in the west
parking lot location could lose between 5 & 12 parking spaces, which
would be seriously detrimental to users, clients, developer and the general
public.
There is no off-street parking that would support the loss in parking stalls
with a re-design. This loss of parking could force adjacent properties to
share un-wanted vehicles parked on their properties, (i.e.; the nearby
Olive Garden, REI, Barnes & Noble and/or others).
The shift in parking and driveway locations would have a significant impact
on the functionality of this development. There are no significant concerns
with the approval of this modification on this project.
Staff Evaluation of the Modification:
The proposed deviation of the required 15’ landscape setback from street right-
of-way is approximately 9’. The utility easement along S. Mason Street includes
an underground gas line. Staff assessed requiring a 30” high stone or masonry
screen wall within the proposed 6’ landscape area, and determined this is not
feasible given the constraints mentioned above. Additional landscape planting is
included in the planting plan to provide sufficient screening of parking from the
street.
The modification as proposed would result in a reduction of landscape setback,
yet staff has determined adequate landscape screening is provided for the
parking area between Buildings 2 and 3 adjacent to S. Mason Street. Staff
agrees with the applicant that the requested modification poses a hardship and
does not diverge from the standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan.
Staff Recommendation and Findings of Fact:
Staff recommends approval of the Modification. In evaluating the request and in
fulfillment of the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(3)(4), Staff makes the following
findings of fact:
The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and:
The plan as submitted will by reason of exceptional physical conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property,
Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, PDP/FDP #130003
Administrative Type I Hearing (05/23/2013)
Page 10
including exceptional narrowness of lots, result in unusual and exceptional
practical difficulties and hardship of the owner of property, and not caused
by the act or omission of the applicant.
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 adjacent existing development.
Third Modification - Section 3.10.4 (C) – Off-Street Parking: This standard
requires that “off-street parking shall be located only behind, above or below
street-facing buildings. No parking will be allowed between the street and the
front or side of a building.” The intent is to promote attractive, pedestrian friendly
streets and mitigate the effects of vehicle parking. Proposed parking spaces
along Mason Street extend closer to the street than Building 2, by several feet.
Applicant’s Justification:
The applicant asks that the Hearing Officer find that the requested modification
be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public good; and that
the modification by reason of exceptional physical conditions unique to such
property, including exceptional narrowness of lots, results in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties and hardship of the owner of property in
providing required access, parking, and landscape setbacks, and not caused by
the act or omission of the applicant; and that the modification does not diverge
from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered
from the perspective of the entire development plan.
The applicant is proposing that the west parking area extend between the street
and the front or side buildings by approximately 3’ and as a result, does not meet
the intent of the standard. In addition, the applicant’s interpretation of the
standard is such that the proposed west parking area is located behind the
street-facing buildings. Both Buildings 2 and 3 have multiple entrances. Based
on future tenant requirements, building 2 can have main entrances facing
Boardwalk Drive, and Building 3 can have a main building entrance facing the
street to the south.
The following is the applicant’s written justification for request for modification of
standard:
The site has a limited width dimension, that allows for one double and one
single-loaded parking lot layout, which is not optimal. The proposed
design does not provide the minimum parking for office and retail uses,
normally provided in other mixed-use centers. Any change in the west
Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, PDP/FDP #130003
Administrative Type I Hearing (05/23/2013)
Page 11
parking lot location could lose between 5 & 12 parking spaces, which
would be seriously detrimental to users, clients, developer and the general
public.
There is no off-street parking that would support the loss in parking stalls
with a re-design. This loss of parking could force adjacent properties to
share un-wanted vehicles parked on their properties, (i.e.; the nearby
Olive Garden, REI, Barnes & Noble and/or others).
The shift in parking and driveway locations would have a significant impact
on the functionality of this development. There are no significant concerns
with the approval of this modification on this project.
Staff Evaluation of the Modification:
As an infill site and existing narrow lot width poses a hardship. The proposed
deviation of the standard requiring off-street parking behind street-facing
buildings is nominal, extending beyond the buildings by only a few feet.
Screening of this parking area is important, including separating this vehicle use
area from the street and pedestrians walking along the street on the sidewalk.
While the proposed landscape setback is narrow (6’) rather than the required 15’,
it allows for reasonable landscape screening given the site constraints, and also
considering the compatibility of the whole development plan in the context of
surrounding commercial uses. Staff finds that the modification to this standard
will not diverge from the standard except in an inconsequential way.
Staff Recommendation and Finding of Fact:
Staff recommends approval of the request for Modification to 3.10.4 (C) Off-
Street Parking. In evaluating the request and in fulfillment of the requirements of
Section 2.8.2(H) (3) (4), Staff makes the following findings of fact:
The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and:
The plan as submitted will by reason of exceptional physical conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property,
including exceptional narrowness of lots, result in unusual and exceptional
practical difficulties and hardship of the owner of property, and not caused
by the act or omission of the applicant.
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 adjacent existing development.
Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, PDP/FDP #130003
Administrative Type I Hearing (05/23/2013)
Page 12
5. Neighborhood Meeting:
The LUC does not require that a neighborhood meeting be held for development
proposals that are not subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) review.
Therefore, a City-sponsored and facilitated neighborhood information meeting
was not held for this project. There are no known impacts or issues with any
adjacent development.
6. Findings of Fact and Conclusion:
In evaluating Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, Project Development
Plan/Final Development Plan – PDP/FDP #13003, staff makes the following
findings of fact:
A. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2 (J) regarding Setbacks
along the side and rear lot lines that is proposed with this P.D.P./F.D.P.
would not be detrimental to the public good and the Modification meets the
applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(3). This is because the plan
as submitted will by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other
extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property,
including exceptional narrowness of lots, results in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties and hardship of the owner of property, and
not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. The Modification
meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2 (H) (4). This is
because the plan as submitted does 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.
B. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2 (J) regarding Setbacks from
the street that is proposed with this P.D.P./F.D.P. would not be detrimental
to the public good and the Modification meets the applicable requirements
of Section 2.8.2(H)(3). This is because the plan as submitted will by
reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including exceptional
narrowness of lots, results in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties
and hardship of the owner of property, and not caused by the act or
omission of the applicant. The Modification meets the applicable
requirements of Section 2.8.2 (H) (4). This is because the plan as
submitted does 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.
Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, PDP/FDP #130003
Administrative Type I Hearing (05/23/2013)
Page 13
C. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.10.4 (C) regarding off-street
parking that is proposed with this P.D.P./F.D.P. would not be detrimental
to the public good and the Modification meets the applicable requirements
of Section 2.8.2(H)(3). This is because the plan as submitted will by
reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including exceptional
narrowness of lots, results in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties
and hardship of the owner of property in providing required access,
parking, and landscape setbacks, and not caused by the act or omission
of the applicant. The Modification meets the applicable requirements of
Section 2.8.2 (H) (4). This is because the plan as submitted does 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.
D. The P.D.P./F.D.P. complies with the process located in Division 2.2 –
Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications
of Article 2 – Administration.
E. The P.D.P. /F.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 –
General Development Standards, provided that the Modification of
Standards to Section 3.2.2 (J) and Modification of Standard to Section
3.10.4 (C) that are proposed with this P.D.P. /F.D.P. is approved.
F. The P.D.P. /F.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division
4.21, General Commercial of Article 4 – Districts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Boardwalk Crossing at Mason Street, Project
Development Plan/Final Development Plan – PDP/FDP #13003, and Modifications of
Standards for Sections 3.2.2 (J), Sections 3.2.2 (J), and Section 3.10.4 (C).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. PDP/FDP Plan Set
2. Applicant’s Modification Requests