Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNCOMMON (310 S. COLLEGE) - PDP - PDP150013 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL (6)ATTACHMENT 8 Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council January 12, 2016 10-29-15 Uncommon Appeal This item is an appeal of the P&Z Bd's decision approving the Uncommon Project Development Plan on October 29 2015. The Project Development Plan,(or PDP) is for a mixed use building at the SE corner of Olive and college. This is a low birds eye view of the proposed building, shown in a digital model of downtown. The project has ground floor commercial space, and 5 levels of residential units above, for a total of six stories in the tallest portions of the building. Parking is at grade and underground with access points from the alley on the east side of the building. APPEAL QUESTIONS Two questions about the Planning and Zoning Board decision approving the Uncommon PDP: 1. Is the project actually compatible per the Land Use Code? 3 -The appeal consists of two questions regarding the Planning and Zoning Board's decision: First, 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)? -In this question, the code subsections were the focus of discussion at the PZ Board hearing. Code subsections are legal requirements for land development that are referred to as “standards” for development here in Fort Collins. The appeal, and the P&Z Board’s hearing, involve 6 interrelated standards for new development to be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. -The 6 stds address various aspects of compatibility, but the focus of discussion was a single issue: that is, the mass, bulk and scale of the proposed building. -The standards address other aspects of compatibility, such as design detailing and building materials, but the issue only involves the mass, bulk and scale aspect. -The record includes extensive explanation of the fact that the standards are qualitative and descriptive and require discussion and interpretation, rather than exact metrics for building size limits. APPEAL QUESTIONS 2. What evidence did P&Z factor into its decision? 4 The second appeal question is: What evidence did P&Z use, and how did that factor into its decision? Question 1: Is the project actually compatible… Planning and Zoning Board: -Yes - 5-2 vote - 3-hour discussion 5 QUESTION 1 Regarding question 1 about the code and compatibility, the P&Z Bd answered “yes” – by approving the project on a 5-2 vote after about a 3-hour deliberation, considering recommendations from the L..P..C.. and staff to deny the PDP. Landmark Preservation Commission: -No - 6-2 vote - 3-hour discussion 6 QUESTION 1 Still on the first appeal question, about code and compatibility, the L...P...C...was required to forward a recommendation to the P&Z Bd regarding compliance with one LUC standard for protection and enhancement of historic resources in compatible new development, and the Commission found, in a split 6-2 vote, that the project does not comply with the standard; and forwarded a recommendation to deny the PDP. Staff: -No - Extensive review process 7 QUESTION 1 Still on the first appeal question, staff worked with the applicant team in the development review process for about 9 months leading up to the P&Z Bd hearing. Throughout the process, staff found that the mass, bulk and scale of the proposed building was not adequately mitigated to be compatible per code standards, and recommended denial of the PDP. Staff finding acknowledged many positive aspects of the proposed development consistent with planning policies and zoning regulations, however staff found that the measures taken in the program and design of the building were not adequate to achieve overall compatibility with the surrounding context. All Findings: - Matter of degree - Complex w/ many factors - Balance of existing adjacent development and adopted planning and zoning for redevelopment 8 QUESTION 1 And finally on question 1, all findings, by P&Z, the LPC, and staff, involve a matter of degree in the adequacy of programming and design measures taken by the applicant to mitigate the mass bulk and scale of this building which is clearly larger than existing buildings in the adjacent vicinity. Compatibility is a complex matter, and a key part of the P&Z Bd's decision was the City's body of adopted policy and zoning regulations for this part of downtown, which allows for larger and taller buildings than many, or most, of the existing adjacent buildings. The question has been, exactly how much larger and taller than the existing context? Question 2: Evidence used by the P&Z Board… Extensive Record: - Staff report and presentation - Applicant team presentations - Letters and testimony 9 QUESTION 2 including mention of LPC recommendations Yesterday Site Visit, 4 Councilmembers... There were 3 main questions that staff committed to answer here tonight 1. Building setbacks from the sidewalk, at ground level: Q: what are requirements for that, and does the plan meet the requirements? In this part of the Downtown zoning district, there is no specified ground floor setback. So if there is precedent in the area for buildings built right up along the sidewalk, and expecially where the use is retail commercial with storefront windows, it can be appropriate to have as little as zero setback. One of the standards at the crux of the compatibility issue DOES addresses the combination of ground floor setbacks and upper floor step backs to mitigate the mass, bulk and scale of larger buildings. The premise is that if a taller building is set back on its lot, it less upper floor step backs are needed, and vice versa. In this case, the ground floor setback varies from 0-4' on the Olive Street side, and 2-6' on the College Avenue side. 2. Degree of stepping back Upper floors: stepbacks on the Olive side are 7' at the second floor, then the 5th floor is set back 13', and the 6th floor is set back 31 feet. Upper floor stepbacks on the College side are similar with the second floor set back 5 additional feet beyond the ground floor setback for a total of 7', then the 5th floor is set back 13', and the 6th floor is set back 33 feet. Those stepbacks describe the portions of the building closest to College, and then the College side has additional mass reduction with second floor terrace and courtyard spaces that interrupt those building walls and divide the College side into three main sections. 3. Transformer box at se corner of site - that box will be replaced with a new one in the same area. That portion of the pass- thru walkway from College to the alley is wider - 20 feet - with the transformer set within that wider area. It does serve multiple properties and that capacity . Upper Floor Stepbacks - North to South (Olive St. at Left) Upper Floor Stepbacks - West to East (College Ave. at Left)