HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNCOMMON (310 S. COLLEGE) - PDP - PDP150013 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL (7)Agenda Item 2
E. The PDP complies with the remainder of applicable standards in Article 4, Division 4.16.
The Modification of Standard to Subsection 4.16(D)(5)(e), Exterior Fagade Materials, to allow lap siding and
stucco on certain upper portions of street -facing facades, would not be detrimental to the public good and
meets the requirements of subsection 2.8.2(H)(1). The proposed plan will promote the general purpose of
the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard because the lower portions
of the building along the street provide the required materials and define the character of the building as it
relates to the sidewalk and street. The proposed materials on upper levels support the emphasis on lower
levels and mitigate the mass of the upper levels.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a motion to deny the Uncommon PDP #150013
based on standards for building mass, bulk and scale, and compatibility with historic resources, as found in the
Findings of Fact in the staff report.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Plans and Illustrations
2. Staff Presentation
3. Applicants Presentation
4. Landscape Plan
5. LPC Recommendation
6. DDA Board Letter
7. Modification Request
8. Neighborhood Meeting Notes
9. Citizen Comments
10. Applicant Miscellaneous Evidence
11. Zucker Report
Item #2 Page 11
Agenda Item 2
The apartment building at 317 Remington Street, built in 1963, has not been officially determined to be eligible, but
the Commission noted that it is potentially eligible, and is pertinent because its property abuts the subject property
to the south and east.
Regarding the nature of impacts of the project, Commission members cited the magnitude of change to the historic
scale of the setting. In particular, the large east wall of the proposed building was cited several times as being
incompatible and adversely impacting the integrity and significance of the historic properties.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
In evaluating the request for the Uncommon Project Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact
and conclusions:
A. The PDP complies with the process outlined in Article 2, Division 2.2 — Common Development Review
Procedures for Development Applications.
The PDP does not comply with all applicable standards in Article 3 — General Development Standards. The
points of non-compliance are:
• The PDP does not comply with Section 3.4.7(B), Historic and Cultural Resources General Standard,
because the development plan does not protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of
historic properties in the adjacent context, because the combination of the relatively large footprint, extent
of mass at the 5'h and 6`h levels, and size of the east wall create an overall bulk, mass, and scale that is
not compatible with the historic character of properties in the adjacent area.
• The PDP does not comply with Section 3.5.1(B), Building and Project Compatibility General Standard,
because the proposed proportions in building mass, in combination with building height, are not similar
and derived from the neighborhood context.
• The PDP does not comply with Section 3.5.1(C), Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale, because the
mass and scale are not proportional to the mass and scale of other structures on the same block face
and opposing block face and adjacent property. No other buildings nearby have a similar combination of
height and coverage with similar proportions in walls and sheer volume.
• The PDP does not comply with subsection 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)3, Neighborhood Scale, because the proposed
building is not compatible with the scale of the neighborhood in terms of relative height, height to mass,
and length to mass, considering that no buildings in the adjacent context have a combination of lot
coverage, wall length, and height that is remotely similar to the proposed PDP.
C. The PDP complies with the remainder of applicable standards in Article 3.
D. The PDP does not comply with all applicable standards in Article 4, Division 4.16. The points of non-
compliance are:
The PDP does not comply with subsection 4.16(D)(4)(b)2, Upper Floor Setbacks, because upper floor
setbacks do not adequately provide compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings, or
sensitivity to the historic context and scale of downtown, based on the extent of 51h and 61h story levels
and resulting 74x200-foot size of the main east wall.
The PDP does not comply with subsection 4.16(E)(1)(c), Plazas, because it does not provide a public open
space to meet the standard. The building entry and patio area does not qualify as open space due to its
degree of enclosure in the building structure with floor area above, and its function as private space
associated with the building entry and retail/restaurant space.
Item #2 Page 10
Agenda Item 2
Applicable parking standards are found in subsection 3.2.2(K), with a formula for development within the Transit
Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone. 125 spaces are required, and the PDP provides the 125 spaces.
Landscaping and Tree Protection
Code Section 3.2.1 requires a landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the street, the
building, abutting properties, and users on site. The PDP protects existing street trees and adds street trees to fill
gaps. A new section of turfgrass parkway will be added where an existing driveway is being removed. Four
existing trees on site are to be removed per a tree mitigation plan approved by the City Forester. Staff finds that
the PDP complies with Section 3.2.1.
Bicycle Parking Space Requirements
Code Section 3.2.2(C)(4) requires 260 bicycle parking spaces for the 248 beds plus the commercial space. The
PDP provides these required spaces including required enclosed bicycle parking spaces.
Site Lighting
Code Section 3.2.4 limits light glare and spillover. The proposed lighting consists of complete glare cutoff fixtures
on the building in compliance with the standards.
Transportation Level of Service
A Traffic Impact Study was submitted and accepted by the City's Traffic Operations Department. Staff finds that
the project does not create incremental impacts warranting any changes to the configuration of streets,
intersections, and sidewalks.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING:
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 22, 2015. Meeting notes are attached. The most prominent topic of
discussion was student housing, with parking also a frequently mentioned concern.
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At their October 14, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted 6-2 to forward a
recommendation of denial of the proposed PDP to the Planning and Zoning Board. A memo is attached
summarizing the discussion and findings.
Key points in the Commission's discussion were:
• Determination of which nearby historic properties should be considered "adjacent" in evaluating the
compatibility of the proposed plan.
• Nature of impacts on adjacent historic properties created by the proposed plan.
Regarding pertinent adjacent properties, the Commission established a list of properties to be considered as
"adjacent", as noted in previous staff comments on code Section 3.4.7. The properties are as follows:
• Designated Fort Collins Landmarks: The Armstrong Hotel, 259 South College; the First Baptist (Mountain
View) Church, 328 Remington; the Old Post Office, 201 South College; and the Bode Property, 220
Remington.
• Designated on the National Register: All of the properties in the 400 block of Remington, as well as the
Armstrong Hotel, First Baptist Church and Old Post Office.
• Eligible for National Register and local Landmark designation: The Wells Fargo Bank, 401 South College
Item #2 Page 9
Agenda Item 2
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to
such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness
or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the
strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical
difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties
or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant: or
(4) 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 will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in
Section 1.2.2. "
The applicant's Modification request is attached. It explains justifications for the Modification based on not being
detrimental to the public good, and meeting numbered criterion (1) above.
Staff finds that the request meets the requirements for approval in that it would not be detrimental to the public
good, and meets numbered criterion (1) above. Note that only one of the numbered criteria must be met in order
to approve the Modification.
Following is staff's evaluation of the required findings for this Modification.
With respect to Section 2.8.2(H) as to whether the application is detrimental to the public good, staff's findings
include these key considerations:
• The plan accomplishes the purposes of the standard because the lower portions of the building along the
street provide the required materials and define the character of the building as it relates to the sidewalk and
street.
• The proposed stucco and lap siding are lighter materials that mitigate the mass of upper recessed portions of
the building by helping the upper levels visually recede from the lower streetfront facades, which are intended
to be more prominent than the upper levels in defining the scale of the building; and the lighter materials are
effective in achieving that purpose in this particular case.
For these reasons, staff does not find the larger building to be detrimental to the public good
With respect to subsection 2.8.2(H)(1), staff finds that the plan, with the proposed materials, is equal to or better
than a plan with specified masonry or architectural metals only, because the lower levels along the streetfront
achieve the purpose of the standard: and the proposed materials on upper levels support the emphasis on lower
levels while reducing the visual impact of the upper levels.
Article 3 General Development Standards for All Development — Building Character:
Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility, requires compatibility with the context of the surrounding area in
terms of building height and scale, massing proportions, design character and building materials. The following
comments focus on design character and materials.
Staff findings of non-compliance regarding mass and bulk are independent of findings that the PDP complies with
the aspects of the standard that address building character and materials. Factors include use of brick, stone,
metal, and glass to articulate the College Avenue fagade, prominent entrances: architectural canopy and arcade
features; cornice features; pattern detailing in all materials, kickplate details; storefront windows on ground level
and recessed windows in brick portions of upper levels. Finishes and details are designed to respond to the
context created by neighboring downtown buildings.
Parking Standards
Item #2 Page 8
Agenda Item 2
Subsection 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)3 Neighborhood Scale requires buildings over 40 feet in height to be:
"compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative height, height to
mass, length to mass, and building or structure scale to human scale."
Staff finds that the highlighted terms of the standard are not met. The standard articulates the noncompliance
found by staff, with its reference to the combination of height, length, and mass.
While the neighborhood contains development from a variety of eras spanning the 1800s to the 2000s, the majority
of buildings are one and two stories in height, with the Armstrong Hotel an exception at three stories and DMA
Plaza an exception at 11 stories. However, no buildings in the adjacent context have the combination of building
coverage, wall length, and height remotely similar to the proposed PDP.
Building Character and Facades Standards
Standards in the Downtown zoning district work in conjunction with General Standards for All Development
citywide to require building design features that provide visual interest, human scale, and outdoor activity.
Article 4, Downtown Zone District Standards for Building Character:
Staff finds that the project complies with applicable building character standards other than height and massing
standards, in the Downtown zone district, with the following comments.
Subsection 4.16(D)(5), Building Character and Facades, prohibits long blank walls and glass curtain wall facades;
requires buildings to incorporate outdoor spaces such as balconies, terraces and courtyards; and requires high
quality materials. Staff finds that the PDP meets the standards with the exception of one specific standard for
building materials which requires a Modification of the standard as follows.
MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUESTED FOR STREET FACING FACADE MATERIALS:
Subsection 4.16(D)(5)(e), Exterior fagade materials, requires that:
"all street -facing facades shall be constructed of high quality exterior materials for the full height of the building.
Such materials, with the exception of glazing, shall include stone, brick, clay units, terra cotta, architectural pre-
cast concrete, cast stone, prefabricated brick panels, architectural metals or any combination thereof."
The applicant is requesting a Modification of this standard to allow the use of lap siding and stucco on upper levels,
recessed from lower masonry levels by distances ranging from 9 to 31 feet.
Modifications are allowed under code Section 2.8.2(H), as follows:
"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:
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification
is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent
and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-
wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project
would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in
the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the
strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or
Item #2 Page 7
Agenda Item 2
Section is intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as
sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site."
Staff finds that the project is not designed to respect the character of the historic properties in the surrounding
neighborhood because of the discrepancy and incongruity of the combination of footprint size over 30,000 square
feet combined with the extent of building mass at the 5'h and 61h levels, and the size of the east wall which is 74
feet tall and 200 feet long — much larger than any buildings in the adjacent context.
Relative to the historically significant properties in the area, staff finds that the sheer mass and bulk of the
proposed building would introduce an overwhelming presence that would be incongruous and dominate the look
and feel of the area, significantly altering the area's character.
Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard reinforces the Purpose discussed above. It states:
"The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of
any historic property that is... located on property adjacent to the development site and...(1) is determined to be
individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of
Historic Places; [or] (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property,
whether on the development site or adjacent thereto."
Staff finds that the project is not designed to protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of the
adjacent historic properties as required, and is not compatible with the historic character of the historic properties,
in terms of mass and bulk, for the reasons stated previously.
Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility, requires compatibility with the context of the surrounding area in
terms of building size, massing proportions, design character and building materials. The following comments
focus on mass and bulk considerations.
Section 3.5.1(B) General Standard states:
"New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established
architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing
architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use
Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or
redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof
lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street,
similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures
similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry
shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. Architectural compatibility (including,
without limitation, building height) shall be derived from the neighboring context."
Staff finds that the proportions in building mass resulting from the combination of height and extent of construction
are not similar to or derived from the neighboring context.
3.5.1(C), Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale, requires buildings to.
"either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to
the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to the subject property,
opposing block face, or cater -corner block face at the nearest intersection."
Staff finds that the mass and scale are not proportional to the mass and scale of other structures on the same
block face, opposing block faces, and adjacent property. No other buildings nearby have a similar combination of
height and extent with similar proportions in walls and sheer volume.
Item #2 Page 6
Agenda Item 2
Staffs finding is based on the overall mass and bulk resulting from combination of footprint size and height. The
extent of 51" and 6`" story mass, and the 200'-foot-long by 74-foot-tall east wall, are particular factors.
Staff finds that these factors undermine compatibility with scale and massing of nearby buildings, and create an
overwhelming presence, out of scale with the historic downtown context.
A related standard in the Downtown zoning district requires development plans to provide ground floor open space
to help offset the mass of taller buildings. Subsection 4.16 (E)(1)(c), Plazas, states:
"for taller buildings located in the Canyon Avenue subdistrict, ground level open space shall be provided that is
organized and arranged to promote both active and passive activities for the general public. Such space must
be highly visible and easily accessible to the public and must include features that express and promote a
comfortable human sense of proportionality between the individual and the environment, whether natural or
man-made."
Staff finds that the proposed outdoor space at the building entry does not qualify as open space because of its
degree of enclosure in the building structure with floor area above, and its function as private space associated
with the building entry and retail/restaurant space. This largely negates the effect of the space in mitigating and
offsetting the mass of the building, and lends a perception of the space as private space for the building.
However, this outdoor space is a very positive feature of the building, and it serves to meet another standard for
Building Character and Facades - subsection 4.16(D)(5) — which requires building design to promote and
accommodate outdoor activity for residents and workers, with spaces such as arcades and courtyards
incorporated into the building design.
Article 3 General Development Standards for All Development — Building Mass. Bulk. and Height:
Zoning district standards mentioned above work in conjunction with several general development standards for all
development city-wide found in Article Three of the Land Use Code. Applicable standards regarding mass, bulk,
scale, and height are evaluated below.
Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, contains standards for height and mass of new buildings
where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the surrounding neighborhood
context. The proposed project is adjacent or in close proximity to several such historic properties. Therefore, the
project must comply with Section 3.4.7.
Nearby historic properties within one block include:
• Designated Fort Collins Landmarks: The Armstrong Hotel, 259 South College; the First Baptist (Mountain
View) Church, 328 Remington; the Old Post Office, 201 South College; and the Bode Property, 220
Remington.
• Designated on the National Register: All of the properties in the 400 block of Remington, as well as the
Armstrong Hotel, First Baptist Church and Old Post Office.
• Eligible for National Register and local Landmark designation: The Wells Fargo Bank, 401 South College.
The apartment building at 317 Remington Street, built in 1963, has not been officially determined to be eligible, but
the Landmark Preservation Commission noted that it is potentially eligible, and is pertinent because its property
abuts the subject property to the south and east.
Section 3.4.7(A) Purpose, states:
"This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible:... new construction is designed to
respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This
Item #2 Page 5
Agenda Item 2
Article 4 Downtown Zoning District Standards for Building Height and Mass:
Downtown zoning district standards for building height and mass are found in subsection 4.16 (D), Building
Standards. A block -by -block height limits map shows maximum height limits in the Canyon Avenue Subdistrict.
On the subject block, the maximum height limit is 5-6 stories, +/- 85 feet. Per subsection 4.16(D)(2)(c), the stated
limits "are intended to convey a scale of building rather than an exact point or line." The proposed project is below
the maximum height limit, at 74 feet.
The height limits map is accompanied by requirements for "Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over
three stories)." Taller buildings must have "a base portion of one or two stories, clearly defined by a prominent,
projecting cornice or roof, fenestration, different materials and different colors from the remainder of the building."
Staff finds that the proposed project complies with this requirement for a clearly defined based portion.
Code subsection 4.16(D)(4)(b)2 requires upper portions of the building to be further set back above the base "in
such a manner as to contribute to a significant aspect of the building design. Upper floor setbacks shall be
determined by an emphasis on pedestrian scale in sidewalks and outdoor spaces, compatibility with the scale and
massing of nearby buildings, preservation of key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces, and preservation of views
in order to ensure sensitivity to the historic context and scale of downtown and to maintain a degree of open sky as
part of the visual character of the City."
The standard is accompanied by the following figure showing how ground floor and upper floor setbacks can be
considered together to mitigate mass and height.
Total
Height
Additional Height Above
5-6 Stories, 85' +/-
5-6 Stories, With Design To Mitigate The
85'+/-Additional Height and Mass
Landscaped Additional
Ground Floor Setbacks Above
Setback Base Portion to
Mitigate Height
n; And Mass
Base Portion
Of Building
Property Combined Ground Floor And
Line ,4 01 Upper Floor Setbacks To
Mitigate Mass And Height
While the PDP provides upper floor setbacks, staff finds that the reduction in building mass is not sufficient as a
significant aspect of building design determined by an emphasis on compatibility with the scale and massing of
nearby buildings, or sensitivity to the historic context and scale of downtown.
Item #2 Page 4
Agenda Item 2
The key principle for the infill/transition area is to leverage the core's energy to attract new development, which
then supports the core in turn.
From an urban design perspective, the DSP supports taller buildings (over three stories) in the infill/transition area,
partly to support vitality of the core, and partly to reinforce downtown as the primary focal point of Fort Collins from
a community appearance and design standpoint. The DSP recognizes that redevelopment typically depends on
buildings larger than the majority of existing buildings in the area to support parking within structures versus all
surface parking lots.
The principles that support taller buildings are accompanied by supporting policy statements emphasizing scale
and careful design so that negative effects are considered and mitigated (e.g., changes to historic character,
quality of life in nearby neighborhoods, sunshine patterns, and large existing trees.) Architectural creativity should
include responsiveness to thoughtful standards for height, mass and design. Carefully distributing building mass to
fit the adjacent context and to mitigate negative effects of taller buildings is a point of emphasis.
The surrounding context within about one block of the PDP comprises an eclectic range of buildings from different
eras, in varying styles, with heights that range from a majority of single -story flat -roofed buildings to several 2-story
buildings, to the 3-story Armstrong Hotel, to the the 11-story DMA Plaza apartment tower. Several nearby
buildings are designated or found eligible for designation on the National Register and as Fort Collins Landmarks.
Abutting zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction
Zone District
Existing Land Uses
Single -story commercial buildings, Remington
North
D, Old City Center Subdistrict
Lot public parking lot, 3-story Armstrong Hotel
cater corner across the intersection
South
D, Canyon Avenue Subdistrict
1-story commercial buildings
East
D, Canyon Avenue Subdistrict
2-story office building and parking lot, 2-story
apartments
1-story commercial buildings and parking lots,
West
D, Canyon Avenue Subdistrict
Armstrong Hotel cater corner across the
intersection
In 2005, a development plan was approved on the site but has since expired. Called Belle Claire, the plan was for
a new 6-story building, approximately 80 feet in height, with a footprint of 16,400 square feet. The building was
proposed on a portion of the Perkins restaurant parking lot. The 5,000-square foot Perkins building was to be
retained. The building was programmed for 9,000 square feet of retail space, 14,000 square feet of office space,
and 31 residential units.
3. Compliance with Applicable Land Use Code Standards
Staff comments below regarding Land Use Code standards are arranged by topic area.
Building Mass, Bulk, and Height Standards
Several standards in the Downtown zoning district, in Article 4, work in conjunction with General Standards for All
Development citywide in Article 3 to regulate building size, height, bulk, mass, and scale. As noted previously,
standards do not state exact numerical parameters. Rather, they consist of descriptive requirements so that size
and shaping of buildings are to be determined as part of the design and development review process.
Item #2 Page 3
Agenda Item 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Overview
The overall mass, bulk, and scale of the building have generated significant staff concerns since the initial review
of the plan concept, and remain an outstanding design issue in staff findings. Staff finds that the degree of mass
reduction of upper floors is not adequate to result in compatibility with the surrounding context.
The combination of lot coverage, footprint size, and height results in a building with an overwhelming mass much
larger than the buildings that form the relevant context. DMA Plaza'/2 block away is taller than the proposed
building by about 45 feet, but has a roughly 6,900 square foot footprint, less than one fourth the footprint of the
proposed building, and landscaped setbacks of 18 and 38 feet from streets. The commercial block to the north
has similar lot coverage and a long wall length along College Avenue (made up of multiple party -wall buildings),
but is only one story in height. No development within the relevant context area exhibits building mass, bulk, and
scale similar to the proposed building.
This issue involves several interrelated Land Use Code (code) standards for building compatibility and sensitive
planning that is harmonious with the adjacent surrounding neighborhood context, including standards for
compatibility with historic resources in the adjacent area.
Staff findings acknowledge the many aspects of the proposed development that are consistent with the
community's planning policies and zoning regulations for this portion of the Downtown. The proposed multi -story,
mixed -use development with active ground floor commercial uses, residential units above, and structured parking,
is consistent with planning and zoning in terms of uses. High quality building materials are proposed, consistent
with standards. Pedestrian -oriented design of the clearly defined base portion, to resemble multiple storefront
buildings, is consistent with design standards. Design measures have been taken in response to applicable
standards for mitigating the mass of taller buildings (over 3 stories) downtown. These measures help to mitigate
the mass, bulk and scale of the building to a degree, but fall short of achieving overall compatibility with the
surrounding context.
2. Plannina Backaround and Context
The 1989 Downtown Plan and 2006 Downtown Strategic Plan establish a vision and policy direction for
redevelopment in Downtown. These plans are based on very extensive community discussion, and represent a
careful balance among widely differing interests with regard to taller buildings downtown. Policy direction is
translated directly into Land Use Code standards for height and mass of new buildings downtown.
Code standards are written to provide qualitative requirements rather than exact metrics for building size limits.
The premise is that developers and architects of new buildings can be more creative in designing to fit the unique
circumstances of a given site in the downtown area if they are not required to fit the design into a predetermined
numerically defined box.
Additionally, the premise is that the resulting degree of flexibility in the development review process will be
resolved in an iterative process among staff, the development team, the community, and ultimately the decision
maker.
The Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP) overall strategy is to protect, manage, leverage and blend the economic and
cultural vitality of the core retail entertainment district. The overall strategy is defined by principles corresponding
to three areas: the retail/entertainment core, the infill/transition area, and the neighborhood edge.
Uncommon is within the infill/transition area, and the site is recognized as suitable for infill and redevelopment in
the DSP. This recognition anticipates a larger new building, to be sensitively programmed, sized, shaped, and
designed in response to the context of existing development, and nearby historic buildings in particular.
Item #2 Page 2
Agenda Item 2
PROJECT NAME
UNCOMMON - 310 S. COLLEGE
STAFF
Clark Mapes, City Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This Project Development Plan (PDP) is for development of a terraced 4- to 6-
story, mixed -use building at the southeast corner of College Avenue and Olive
Street. The site formerly contained Perkins restaurant, which was demolished
and removed in early 2015.
The property is zoned Downtown (D), Canyon Avenue Subdistrict. The
proposed land uses are permitted, and the PDP is subject to review by the
Planning and Zoning Board.
The site is 35,000 square feet. Proposed building coverage is 30,600 square
feet. The ground floor consists of streetfront retail commercial spaces totaling
8,900 square feet, and the upper levels contain apartment units totaling 120
units. The units are a mix of studio and 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units with a total of
248 bedrooms. Total floor area is 150,000 square feet.
125 parking spaces are provided. Parking is below grade and on the ground
level below upper floor building space, with access from the alley.
APPLICANT: Cathy Mathis, Birdsall Group
444 Mountain Avenue
Berthoud, CO 80513
OWNER: CA Student Living Fort Collins, LLC
161 N. Clark Suite 4900
Chicago, III 60601
RECOMMENDATION: Denial
Item #2 Page 1
ATTACHMENT 4
Staff Report
(with attachments)
Provided to the Planning and
Zoning Board,
Hearing held October 29, 2015
3. LUC Article 3: General Development Standards; Division 3.5: Building
Standards
3.5.1: Building and Project Compatibility
A. 3.5.1(A): Purpose
B. 3.5.1(B): General Standard
C. 3.5.1(C): Building Size, Height, Build, Mass, Scale
D. 3.5.1(G): Building Height Review
4. LUC Article 5: Definitions
A. 5.1.2: Definitions, Compatibility
B. 5.1.2: Definitions, Adjacent
z
`/�
City "y of
6rt Collins
FFort
Planning, Development & Transportation
Administration
North College Avenue
P.
P.O. Box 580
Collins, CO 60522.0580
970.221.6601
970.416.2081 - fax
fcgov.com/pdf
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 14, 2015
TO: Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk FROM: Laurie Kadrich, Director, Planning, Development & Transportatiork-
RE: Uncommon Appeal — Specific Code Provisions for Appeal
Purpose: An appeal of the Uncommon Project Development Plan was requested by
Council member Cuniff and is scheduled before Council on January 12, 2016. As the
Director of Planning, Development and Transportation, I am required to identify specific
Code provision relevant to the appeal and to provide such provisions to the City Clerk
for inclusion in the mailed notice. The following Code provisions are relevant to the
appeal and the issues raised:
1. LUC Article 4: District; Division 4.16: Downtown District (D)
A. 4.16(D)(4)(b): Building Standards, Mass Reduction for Buildings Over
Three
Stories, Canyon Avenue and Civic Center
B. 4.16(E)(1)(c): Site Design Standards, Canyon Avenue and Civic Center
Plazas
2. LUC Article 3: General Development Standards; Division 3.4: Environmental,
Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards,
Division 3.4.7: Historic and Cultural Resources
A. 3.4.7 A : Purpose
B. 3.4.7(8): General Standard
C. 3.4.7 F : New Construction
ATTACHMENT 3
Memo from Laurie Kadrich,
Planning, Development and
Transporation Director,
re: specific Land Use Code
provisions that may pertain to
the issues raised by the
appeal
December 22, 2015
Uncommon Project Development Plan — Cunniff Appeal — Page 1 of 1
My appeal is to address two questions I have regarding this proposal:
1. Is the project actually compatible with the Land Use Code (specifically,
subsections 4.16(D)(4)(b), 4.16(E)(1)(c), 3.4.7(A), 3.4.7(B), and others referenced
in the staff recommendation regarding this proposal)?
2. What evidence did Planning and Zoning use on October 29 to reach its decision?
And how did that evidence factor into its discussion?
APPELLANTS
N�me�unniff
Nove12, 2015
Sig re:
Email;
rppc��unmffgg@fcgov.com
67eC�ydes le Dfi o Collins, CO 80526
970-n4�O-7398
Please describe the nature of the relationship of appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, Commission or
other Decision Mak r:
Fort Collins City Councilmember, District 5
Name:
Date:
Signature:
Email:
Address:
Phone #:
Please describe the nature of the relationship of appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, Commission or
other Decision Maker:
Name: Date:
Signature: Email:
Address: Phone #:
Please describe the nature of the relationship of appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, Commission or
other Decision Maker:
Name: Date:
Signature: Email:
Address: Phone #:
Please describe the nature of the relationship of appellant to the subject of the action of the Board, Commission or
other Decision Maker:
ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY
For City Clerk's Use Only: Date Filed: oaf �S Initials._
NOTICEOF
APPEAL
Action Being A pealed: Date of Action:
Uncommon �roject Development Plan, 310 S. College Ave. Oct 29, 2015
Decision Maker (Board, Commission, or Other):
Planning and Zoning Board
Appellant/Appellant Representative (If more than one appellant): Name, address, telephone number(s), and email address of an
individual appellant authorized to receive, on behalf of all appellants, any
notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellants.
Name:
Phone #:
Ross Cunniff
970-420-7398
Address:
2267 Clydesdale Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Email:
rcunniff@fcgov.com
The Decision Maker committed one (1) or more of the following errors (check all that
❑Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Use Code, and Charter.
List relevant Code and/or Charter provision(s) here, by specific Section and subsection/subparagraph:
(Attach additional sheets as necessary)
QFailure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
❑The Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in
the Code or Charter;
❑The Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker substantially ignored its previously established rules
of procedure;
le Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which
as substantially false or grossly misleading. Describe any new evidence the appellant intends to
submit at the hearing on the appeal in support of these allegationsz:
or
❑The Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence
offered by the appellant.
❑The Board, Commission, or Other Decision Maker was biased against the appellant by reason of a
conflict of interest or other close business, person or social relationship that interfered with the
decision maker's independence of judgment. Describe any new evidence the appellant intends to
submit at the hearing on the appeal in support of these allegationsz:
Instructions:
1. For each allegation marked above, please attach a separate summary of the facts contained in the record
which support the allegation. Each summary is limited to two pages, Times New Roman 12 point font. Please
restate allegation at top of first page of each summary.
2. No new evidence will be received at the hearing in support of these allegations unless it is either described
above or offered in response to ouestions Dresented by Councilmembers at the hearine.
ATTACHMENT
Notice of Appeal
. Notice of Appeal filed by
Councilmember Ross Cunniff,
November 12, 2015
City Clerk
City
LaPorte Avenue
of
6rt
Collins
PO
POBox 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6515
970.221-6295 - lax
tcgov. com/cityclerk
NOTICE OF SITE INSPECTION
An appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision of October 29, 2015, regarding
Uncommon Project Development Plan will be heard by the Fort Collins City Council on January
12, 2016.
Pursuant to Section 2-53 of the City Code, members of the City Council will be inspecting the
site of the proposed project on January 11, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. Notice is hereby given that this site
inspection constitutes a meeting of the City Council that is open to the public, including the
appellants and all parties -in -interest. The site is located at 310 South College Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
The purpose of the site inspection is for the City Council to view the site
and to ask related questions of City staff to assist Council in ascertaining
site conditions. There will be no opportunity during the site inspection for
the applicant, appellants, or members of the public to speak, ask questions,
respond to questions, or otherwise provide input or information, either
orally or in writing. Other than a brief staff overview and staff responses
to questions, all discussion and follow up questions or comments will be
deferred to the hearing on the subject appeal to be held on January 12,
2016.
Any Councilmember who inspects the site, whether at the date and time above, or independently
shall, at the hearing on the appeal, state on the record any observations they made or
conversations they had at the site which they believe may be relevant to their determination of
the appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact the City
Clerk's Office at 970.221.6515.
�L/
Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk
NOTE: See other side for Public Hearing Notice
Notice Mailed: December 29, 2015
Cc: City Attorney
Planning Services
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appel I ant/Applicant
City of
City Clerk
300 LaPorte Avenue
POBox 580
6rt Collins
Fort Collins, CO 80522
9702215
970,221-629-6295 -fax
fcgov cowcaycterk
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on January 12, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. or as
soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in City Hall at
300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the enclosed appeal of the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board made on October 29, 2015, regarding the Uncommon Project
Development Plan. You may have received previous notice(s) on this item in connection with
hearing(s) held by the Planning and Zoning Board.
If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly encouraged to attend the hearing on this
appeal. If you have questions or require further information, please feel free to contact the City
Clerk's Office (970.221.6515) or Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood
Services Director (970.221.6287).
Any new evidence as permitted under City Code Subsection 2-55(b)(1) or (2) must be submitted
in writing to the City Clerk's Office by 5:00 p.m., January 5, 2016. Appeal guidelines are
available online at www.Iceov__.conVcitvclerlJdpneals.phh.
Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including City staffs response to the Notice of
Appeal, will be available to the public on January 7, 2016 after 2:00 p.m., in the City Clerk's
Office and on the City's website at www.i'c,ov.coin/citN�elerlJa_,endas.phn.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 970221.6515 (TDD 970.224.6001) for
assistance.
A/1/4 / ") �y L
Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk
NOTE: See other side for Site Visit Notice
Notice Mailed: December 29, 2015
Cc: City Attorney
Planning Services
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
ATTACHMENT 1
City Clerk's
Public Hearing Notice
and
Notice of Site Visit
Agenda Item 1
• A number of citizens (7) spoke at the hearing. The attached verbatim transcript records their comments
(Attachment 7).
• The applicant team provided a large volume of miscellaneous evidence for the record (attached).
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing and Site Visit (PDF)
2. Notice of Appeal, filed by Councilmember Cunniff (PDF)
3. PDT Director memo (PDF)
4. Staff report to Planning and Zoning Board, with attachments (PDF)
5. Materials presented to Planning and Zoning Board at hearing (PDF)
6. Applicant materials presented at Planning and Zoning Board hearing (PDF)
7. Verbatim Transcript of hearing (PDF)
8. Staff powerpoint presentation to Council (PDF)
Item # 1 Page 4
Agenda Item 9
LPC members stated concerns that the degree of mass reduction in upper portions of the proposed
building is not adequate to result in compatibility with the surrounding context, and noted the magnitude of
change to the historic scale of the setting, which contains various historic properties that the LPC
considered to be adjacent. In particular, the large east wall of the proposed building was cited as being
incompatible and adversely impacting the integrity and significance of the adjacent historic properties.
3. Staff Findings. Staff found that the degree of mass reduction of upper portions of the proposed building is
not adequate to result in compatibility with the surrounding context due to the combination of lot coverage,
extent of upper portions, and height. The result of this combination is a building that staff found to have an
overwhelming mass, bulk and scale much larger than the buildings that form the relevant context.
Evidence Pertinent to Appeal Question 2
Question 2 of the appeal:
"What evidence did P&Z use, and how did that factor into its decision?"
Evidence pertinent to the question:
• Staff presented a digital model of downtown with the proposed building added to show the building in
context. The model was a crucial aid in evaluating the mass, bulk and scale of the building for
compliance with applicable standards. Staff also presented building size and lot coverage data for
several examples of other larger buildings downtown, to aid understanding of comparative size and
coverage aspects of the proposed PDP.
• The applicant explained the design and decision process over the nine months leading up to the hearing,
highlighting major revisions to the plan in response to discussion with staff and the public during the
process.
• The applicant's attorney presented the case for relying on adopted plans and policies as essential
considerations when evaluating code provisions and interpretations that are subjective and qualitative, as
in this case. Policy language from the Downtown Plan and Downtown Strategic Plan was presented in
support of the proposed building.
• The applicant's attorney presented a detailed analysis of LPC discussion. Key points involved whether
the standard used in the LPC's deliberation should be applicable, but if so, whether any harm to historic
properties has been adequately identified.
• The applicant's architect presented the proposed development plan and building design in thorough
detail. The presentation is attached.
• The applicant's attorney presented analysis of comparable data and information from other downtown
development projects in terms of building coverage, height, and treatment of adjacent historic properties.
Key points involved similarities and differences with these other projects, some of which were approved
under the same code language. It was acknowledged that every project is different, but the applicants
felt that certain key points were important to aid understanding of the issue at hand.
• A letter from the Downtown Development Authority was provided in support of the PDP. Key points
involved consistency with adopted plans and policies of both the City and DDA.
• A number of letters (approximately 24) were received from citizens. The letters are attached as part of
the staff report (Attachment 4). About half of the letters involved an earlier iteration of the PDP, which
was initially for a student housing project. The student housing aspect was eliminated in response to
citizen concerns at that stage in the process.
Item # 1 Page 3
Agenda Item 1
The standards in question are written to provide qualitative requirements rather than exact metrics for building
size limits. They are based on extensive community discussion, and represent a careful balance among
widely differing interests with regard to taller buildings downtown. The premise is that developers and
architects of new buildings can be more creative in designing to fit the unique circumstances of a given site in
the downtown area if they are not required to fit the design into a predetermined numerically defined box.
Additionally, the premise is that the resulting degree of flexibility in the development review process will be
resolved in an iterative process among staff, the development team, the community, and ultimately the
decision maker.
Findings Pertinent to Appeal Question 1
Question 1 of the appeal:
"Is the project actually compatible with the Land Use Code (specifically, subsections 4.16(D)(4)(b),
4.16(E)(1)(c), 3.4.7(A), 3.4.7(B), and others referenced in the staff recommendation regarding this proposal)?"
Findings pertinent to the question:
• The Planning and Zoning Board found that all applicable Code standards were met in the PDP, by a 5-2
vote after approximately three hours of consideration, including discussion of findings by the Landmark
Preservation Commission and staff.
• The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) found that an applicable standard regarding compatibility
with adjacent historic resources was not met in the PDP, by a 6-2 vote after approximately three hours of
consideration. The reason was the bulk, mass and scale of the proposed building in relation to the
adjacent context.
• Staff found that six closely interrelated standards for compatibility were not met in the PDP due to bulk,
mass and scale of the proposed building in relation to adjacent context.
Findings Generally. The deliberations and findings by the P&Z Board, the LPC, and staff acknowledged the
many aspects of the proposed development that are consistent with the community's planning policies and
Code regulations for this portion of the downtown. These aspects include design measures to mitigate the
mass, bulk and scale of the building, such as a pedestrian -oriented ground floor, stepping back of upper floors,
and use of building materials to visually emphasize lower portions of the building.
All findings regarding these measures involved a matter of degree in whether the measures were adequate to
meet the standards. Disagreements among the staff, LPC, and P&Z Board findings reflect different
interpretations regarding this complex matter of degree and adequacy. A primary point of discussion was the
balance between existing development today and planning and zoning for potential future redevelopment.
Specific comments related to the findings made by the P&Z Board, LPC, and staff are as follows:
1. P&Z Board Findings. The Planning and Zoning Board cited planning policy in the adopted Downtown
Plan and Downtown Strategic Plan to help guide its interpretation of the qualitative, descriptive Code
standards. A number of policies envision and support a larger new building on the subject property.
Accordingly, zoning allows for larger and taller buildings on surrounding blocks. A key theme in
deliberation was the question of balancing the longer -term vision spelled out in adopted policy plans with
present existing conditions.
2. LPC Findings. A Landmark Preservation Commission recommendation to the P&Z Board was required
because of the presence of adjacent historic properties. Such recommendations are required to aid the
P&Z Board's evaluation of Code standards for protection of historic resources. In this case, the LPC
reviewed the proposed PDP under one applicable standard in the Historic and Cultural Resources Section
of the Land Use Code.
Item # 1 Page 2
Agenda Item 1
STAFF
Clark Mapes, City Planner
SUBJECT
Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Decision Approving the Uncommon Project
Development Plan (PDP 15-0013).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision of October 29,
2015, approving the Uncommon Project Development Plan at 310 South College Avenue.
On November 12, 2015, Councilmember Cunniff filed a Notice of Appeal (Attachment 2) with two questions
regarding the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z Board) decision on the Uncommon Project Development Plan:
1. Is the project actually compatible with the Land Use Code (specifically, subsections 4.16(D)(4)(b),
4.16(E)(1)(c), 3.4.7(A), 3.4.7(B), and others referenced in the staff recommendation regarding this
proposal)?
2. What evidence did P&Z use, and how did that factor into its decision?
The focus of the P&Z Board hearing was the issue of overall mass, bulk and scale of the proposed building in
relation to the adjacent context, as governed by several interrelated development standards in the Land Use
Code.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Uncommon Project Development Plan (PDP) application is for a mixed use building at 310 South College
Avenue. The site is commonly known as the site of the former Perkins restaurant in downtown Fort Collins at
the southeast corner of College Avenue and Olive Street. The proposed building is 30,600 square feet.
Portions of the building reach a maximum of six stories. Parking is contained underground and within the
building structure.
The property is zoned Downtown, Canyon Avenue subdistrict. The zoning reflects planning policy to allow
taller buildings and states a maximum height limit of 5-6 stories, 85 feet +/-, with descriptive qualitative
standards for mitigation of the mass, bulk and scale of such buildings.
The attached Staff Report for the Planning and Zoning Board hearing (Attachment 4) explains staff findings
regarding PDP compliance with zoning and other applicable development standards in the Land Use Code.
Land Use Code Standards In Question
Six closely interrelated Land Use Code standards address building compatibility and sensitive planning that is
harmonious with the adjacent surrounding neighborhood context, including standards for compatibility with
historic resources in the adjacent area. The attached staff report from the P&Z Board hearing explains the
standards in detail.
Item # 1 Page 1