Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 08/05/2025 Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON architects 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 ■ Fort Collins, Colorado ■ 970.224.1191 w w w .v f l a . c o m 300 E. Mountain – BDR Round 2 Comments Response to Comments 8/5/25 Planning Comment 1 LUC 2.4.1 - Figure 18.2, Primary Entrance Articulation – Upper floors must maintain the sidewalk edge except as required to meet upper story stepbacks. VFLA Response The upper floor window has been moved to align with the sidewalk edge. Comment 2 LUC 2.4.1 - Figure 18.2, Ground Floor Transparency requires 60% transparency as measured within the 'zone of transparency'. The Mountain-facing façade provides 53% while the Chestnut-frontage provides 46%. More glass will need to be used within the transparency zone. Please provide an exhibit demonstrating compliance with the standard. VFLA Response The Mountain Avenue glazing has been updated to achieve 60.5% glazing. Glazing has been increased on the Chestnut Street elevation as much as possible by increasing glazing by 25 square feet. We maximized glazing to meet the spirit of the code section. The unique site shape, location of utilities and location of the elevator shaft, limits the amount of glazing we can put on the Chestnut façade. Overall the glazing percentage has been increased to 58%. See the floor plan diagram below for details. 300 Mountain Ave BDR Round 2 – Response to Comments Page 2 of 5 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON architects 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 970.224.1191 w w w .v f l a . c o m Planning Comment 3 5.15.2(E)(1) - Site Specific Design - Building design shall contribute to the uniqueness of a zone district (Downtown (D) District, and/or the Fort Collins community with predominant materials, elements, features, color range and activity areas tailored specifically to the site and its context. Staff Analysis: The proposed building design incorporates a mix of modern and traditional materials, including concrete fiber panels, glass, and brick, which create a visual contrast between an angular design and a rectilinear form. This combination of materials demonstrates an attempt to balance contemporary aesthetics with elements that respond to the Armory’s architectural character. The rectilinear form of the eastern portions of the building, which abuts the Armory, establishes a direct relationship with the adjacent structure in terms of scale, fenestration pattern, and height. This portion of the design responds appropriately to the immediate context and aligns with the standard’s emphasis on tailoring features to the site. However, the angular form that dominates the remaining portions of the façade does not adequately respond to the more traditional rectilinear character prevalent in the Historic Core Subdistrict. The design lacks recognizable traditional features —such as cornices, pilasters, or articulated window surrounds—that could better tie the project to the subdistrict’s established architectural identity. Additionally, staff notes that the top of the proposed corner glass wall system should feature a three - dimensional cornice treatment and be flush or extend beyond any cornice treatment that is proposed for surrounding wall surfaces finding that corner or triangular lots within the Historic Core Subdistrict, often feature buildings with distinctive architectural corner pediments and chamfered entry’s that capitalize on their visibility and location. Examples include the historic Northern Hotel at College and Walnut, which features a chamfered corner entryway, the Avery Block at College and Mountain, and the Miller Block at Linden and Walnut, with its pronounced corner entry and pediment. These buildings enhance the pedestrian experience and reinforce the site’s prominence within the subdistrict, and were specifically noted in the original nomination and designation of Old Town in the 1978 designation in the National Register of Historic Places. VFLA Response Cornice Response A cornice cap has been added to the building. The cap is made of integral color precast concrete and protrudes from the face of the cementitious panel to create shade and shadow on the façade. This cornice cap is between 3”-4” tall with it’s taper. The precast concrete cap matches what is proposed at the window sills in the brick and the lower brick wall cap. Additionally, a cornice of metal panel and spandrel glass has been added to above the rounded corner glass. Rectilinear Response The pattern of the cementitious panels have been updated to be rectilinear. Zone District Response The nature of the punched window openings directly pulls from the zone district and used in both the brick and cementitious panel. The corner is accented in the segmented/curved full height glass. This design element is also pulled from the zone district. The angled wall is another accent to set the building apart from adjacent buildings and demonstrate that this building is “of this time period” 2025/2026. It is used to set itself apart and create uniqueness to the zone district. 300 Mountain Ave BDR Round 2 – Response to Comments Page 3 of 5 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON architects 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 970.224.1191 w w w .v f l a . c o m Planning Comment 4 All building facades 5.15.2(E)(6) – Base and Top Treatments All building facades must feature a distinct "base" with elements like thicker walls, textured stone, colored materials, or planters, and a recognizable "top" with features such as cornice treatments using stone, pitched roofs with overhangs, or stepped parapets. Staff Analysis: The project is split into several modules which consist primarily of either brick, a concrete paneling system, or windows. The all-brick module of the façade that faces Chestnut provides a masonry base and creates a recognizable top through the use of a soldiered cornice. However, it should be noted that in all instances where the panelized system wraps over top of a brick module, a recognizable top is not provided, as seen highlighted below. The predominate remaining portions of the façade feature the continuation of a brick base treatment that transitions into either the concrete paneling system or faceted glass curtain wall. Both of these façade treatments fail to provide a recognizable top as required by the standard. VFLA Response See comment 3 regarding the addition of a cornice cap to the building. Planning Comment 5 Staff would like to note for the applicant that pursuant to 5.16.1, off-site signage is strictly prohibited by code. VFLA Response This comment will be addressed with a sign permit. Planning Comment 6 5.15.1(E)(1) - Building Material: Building materials shall either match those used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar, use scale, proportions, form, detailing, color, and texture to ensure compatibility despite differences in material. Staff Analysis: The project proposes the use of glass, cement fiber panels, metal panel, and brick. The cement fiber panels are not a listed material and is dissimilar to those traditionally materials used within the Historic Core Subdistrict. The focus of this analysis is specifically of the cement fiber panel’s scale, form, and color, while all other materials are found to be compliant with this standard. Scale The proposed panels range from 2’x 6’ to 4’x 8’ at their largest size. Traditional masonry in Old Town, such as brick, typically has a much smaller modular dimension 8”x 4”x 2.25” with larger traditional materials found elsewhere in the subdistrict reaching approximately 18” x 30” (1.5’ x 2.5’). The significantly larger size of the cement fiber panels disrupts the finer-grained scale of traditional brick and stone façades, which contribute to the pedestrian-oriented and scaled character of the Historic Core Subdistrict. Staff did also consider the largest panels utilized within the subdistrict as part of the analysis which include the Elizabeth Hotel (111 Chestnut) and 221 E Mountain, and found that, although these projects were reviewed under prior code, the scale of the panel used responds to the scale of the building and is used in more subordinate quantities than the proposed project. The scale of the proposed panels of this project is marginally compatible with the neighborhood’s traditional materials, and therefore staff recommends reducing the largest panel width. It should be noted that several examples analyzed below and others given by the applicant were process under a prior Downtown development code. The new Downtown development standards utilize greater level of specificity on appropriate materials. The Elizabeth Hotel (2016) and 221 E Mountain who use oversized 300 Mountain Ave BDR Round 2 – Response to Comments Page 4 of 5 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON architects 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 970.224.1191 w w w .v f l a . c o m paneling The Elizabeth Hotel, where large scale panels are utilized on a single one -story module relating to the Emporium. The remaining portions of the building utilize slender metal panel or traditionally scaled brick found within the Subdistrict. 221 E Mountain (2016), where bronze color panels are used and scaled similarly in height to the sandstone panels of the Poudre Valley National Bank with more modern lengths. This element is also used as a subordinate feature of the façade. Form The project proposes angled modern utilization of cement fiber panels while the subdistrict and immediate area is defined by simple, rectangular building forms. The angular material use contrasts sharply with the rectilinear, symmetrical shapes of the district’s predominance of nineteenth and early twentieth century commercial buildings, and Modern and contemporary infill. While staff acknowledges that this arrangement of material allows new buildings to be “of its own time,” the building must remain compatible with the historic context. The angularity introduces a form that disrupts the visual continuity of the district’s traditional building forms rather than complementing them. Other infill buildings such as 262 E. Mountain Ave, 111 Chestnut St., 242 Linden St., and several infill buildings on Old Town Square exemplify this combination of contemporary building design with traditional/symmetrical building and material form. The angled form is not compatible with the traditional rectangular forms of the subdistrict. Color The panels are proposed to be finished in an orange color. It is traditional within the Historic Core Subdistrict that façades read as a single composition with muted base colors and one to three accent colors for trim. Common materials include unpainted brick (natural reds, blonds) or muted tones like buff sandstone, with subtle contrasts. Orange is a vibrant, high-intensity color not found as a primary color but rather a secondary trim color within the district’s historic palette. Staff finds that the color choice of the panel should be modified to conform to the more traditional colors found within the subdistrict’s traditional primary color scheme. Additional analysis on color can be found under 5.15.1(F) – Building Color. VFLA Response Scale The pattern and scale of the cementitious panels have been updated to be rectilinear and more consistent across the two facades. Form The pattern of the cementitious panels have been updated to be rectilinear. The angled windows have also been updated to be rectilinear to make the design more compatible with the district. Color The color of the cementitious panel has been clarified in the renderings and a sample was shown to staff to show the product matches existing red brick and sandstone of existing historic buildings throughout the Old Town district. The color of the brick has been clarified in the renderings and a sample was shown to staff to show the product is charcoal grey and not black. The brown metal panel has been updated to be dark bronze and the “faux corten” paint pattern has been removed. The color will now match the storefront frames as dark bronze. 300 Mountain Ave BDR Round 2 – Response to Comments Page 5 of 5 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON architects 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 970.224.1191 w w w .v f l a . c o m Planning Comment 7 5.15.1(F) - Building Color Standard: Color shades shall be used to facilitate blending into the neighborhood and unifying the development. The color shades of building materials shall draw from the range of color shades that already exist on the block or in the adjacent neighborhood. Staff Analysis: This standard requires colors to unify the development within the context of the neighborhood, or in this case, the subdistrict and immediate surroundings of the building. Within the Historic Core Subdistrict, colors are traditionally muted or earthtones, with a single base color, then one or two accent colors applied to ornamental features and window trim. Within the immediate area, colors consist of blond and red brick, buff and red sandstone, white stucco, and secondary trim colors of painted wood or met al features of various colors. The project proposes two primary colors—orange and black—with bronze accent panels in the banding and rooftop screening. Buildings on the same block face (along Mountain Ave.), opposing block face (across Mountain Ave.), and cater-corner (e.g., at Mountain Ave. and Mathews St.) use shades of red brick or buff sandstone with neutral secondary colors such as silver or bronze as seen in the images below. It should be noted that although some awnings are orange and black, these are not classified as a building material colors but rather an attachment to the building that serves a functional purpose (e.g., sign). Based on staff’s analysis, the orange and black colors fail to draw from the immediate area and the subdistrict’s range of primary color shades and therefore do not comply with the color requirements of this standard. It should be noted that these colors are acceptable as accent colors applied to ornamental features and window trim. VFLA Response Refer to response 6 regarding the cementitious panel and colors. End of Document