HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV01 - Sutherland V. City Of Fort Collins, Et Al - 022G - Agenda Item Part 6BBar-height table and
stools
Rectangular
planters
Barbecue grill
Cafe table and
chairs
Farmer’s table,
benches, and stools
Prototypical Courtyard
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 1, JOHNSON DRIVE APARTMENTS, APPLICANT PRESENTATION (SUBMITTED AT HEARING)
Applicant Presentation to P&Z
NORTH ELEVATION A1.0
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
JANUARY 17, 2018
255 JOHNSON DRIVE PDP SUBMITTAL
PDP SUBMITTAL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
301 N. NEIL STREET SUITE 400
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61820
P 217.355.8731 | E josh@mode3arch.com
2018 MODE 3 ARCHITECTURE INC.
M O D E 3
ARCHITECTURE
BRICK - DARK,
TYPICAL
BRICK, LIGHT
ENTRY
STEPS
ENTRY
STEPS
STOREFRONT
SYSTEM WITH
TRANSOM
ABOVE, TYPICAL
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
BRICK, LIGHT
BRICK, LIGHT
BRICK, LIGHT
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
GRADE
LINE
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
METAL
CANOPY,
TYPICAL
BRICK SOLDIER
COURSE -
DARK, TYP.
ALUMINUM
WINDOW, TYP.
STEEL BALCONIES WITH
CONCRETE SLAB FLOOR
AND ROOF ABOVE, TYP.
CORNICE DETAIL
AT PARAPET 2
HEIGHT, TYP.
PARAPET 3
CORNICE DETAIL
LOFT WINDOW
ALUMINUM
WINDOW, TYP.
EAST ELEVATION A1.1
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
JANUARY 17, 2018
255 JOHNSON DRIVE PDP SUBMITTAL
PDP SUBMITTAL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
301 N. NEIL STREET SUITE 400
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61820
P 217.355.8731 | E josh@mode3arch.com
2018 MODE 3 ARCHITECTURE INC.
M O D E 3
ARCHITECTURE
ENTRY
STEPS
STOREFRONT
SYSTEM WITH
TRANSOM
ABOVE, TYPICAL
BRICK, LIGHT
METAL
CANOPY,
TYP.
STEEL BALCONIES WITH
CONCRETE SLAB FLOOR
AND ROOF ABOVE, TYP.
CORNICE DETAIL
AT PARAPET 2
HEIGHT, TYP.
PARAPET 3
CORNICE DETAIL ALUMINUM
WINDOW, TYP.
BRICK
SOLDIER
COURSE -
DARK, TYP.
PARAPET 1
CORNICE DETAIL
TYPICAL AT ALL
DARK BRICK
SECTIONS
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
ENTRY
STEPS
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
BRICK, DARK
PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS
PATHWAY
PARKING
GARAGE
ENTRANCE
WITH GATED
ACCESS -
LOOKING SOUTHWEST A2.0
JANUARY 17, 2018
N DRIVE PDP SUBMITTAL
TAL
NS, COLORADO
301 N. NEIL STREET SUITE 400
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61820
P 217.355.8731 | E josh@mode3arch.com
2018 MODE 3 ARCHITECTURE INC.
M O D E 3
ARCHITECTURE
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
JANUARY 17, 2018
255 JOHNSON DRIVE PDP SUBMITTAL
PDP SUBMITTAL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
301 N. NEIL STREET SUITE 400
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61820
P 217.355.8731 | E josh@mode3arch.com
2018 MODE 3 ARCHITECTURE INC.
M O
ARCHI
LOOKING SOUTHEAST A2.5
JANUARY 17, 2018
ON DRIVE PDP SUBMITTAL
ITTAL
LINS, COLORADO
301 N. NEIL STREET SUITE 400
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61820
P 217.355.8731 | E josh@mode3arch.com
2018 MODE 3 ARCHITECTURE INC.
M O D E 3
ARCHITECTURE
LOOKING NO
255 JOHNSON DRIVE PDP SUBMITTAL
PDP SUBMITTAL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
P 217.
2
Johnson Dr. & Spring Ct intersection Arthur Dr. looking West
Spring Creek Trail looking South Johnson Dr. looking West
Architecture
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 1, JOHNSON DRIVE APARTMENTS, APPLICANT PRESENTATION (SUBMITTED AT HEARING)
Applicant Presentation to P&Z
MATERIAL DETAILS A3.3
JANUARY 17, 2018
255 JOHNSON DRIVE PDP SUBMITTAL
PDP SUBMITTAL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
301 N. NEIL STREET SUITE 400
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61820
P 217.355.8731 | E josh@mode3arch.com
2018 MODE 3 ARCHITECTURE INC.
M O D E 3
ARCHITECTURE
2X WD FRAMING
HEADER W/ 1
2" O.S.B.
SPACER
5
8" G.W.B.
BATT INSULATION
2X6 WD FRAMING
5
8" G.W.B.
SEALANT
SEALANT
CULTURED MARBLE SILL IN
PURE WHITE COLOR EXTEND
EDGE PAST DRYWALL 3
4"
2X6 WD FRAMING
BATT INSULATION
5
8" G.W.B.
5
8" G.W.B.
2X6 WD FRAMING
BATT INSULATION
5
8" G.W.B.
SEALANT
BLDG. PAPER OVER
WALL SHEATHING
OVER FLASHING
WINDOW UNIT
WINDOW UNIT
WINDOW UNIT
PERIMETER WINDOW
SEALANT, TAPE AND LAP
WITH BUILDING PAPER PER
WINDOW MANUFACTURER.
PERIMETER WINDOW
TRIM
BLDG. WEATHER
BARRIER OVER WALL
SHEATHING
CORRUGATED METAL
PANEL CLADDING
SYSTEM JAMB
SILL
HEAD
G.W.B. J-BEAD
SEALANT
MATERIAL PALETTE A3.2
JANUARY 17, 2018
255 JOHNSON DRIVE PDP SUBMITTAL
PDP SUBMITTAL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
301 N. NEIL STREET SUITE 400
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61820
P 217.355.8731 | E josh@mode3arch.com
2018 MODE 3 ARCHITECTURE INC.
M O D E 3
ARCHITECTURE
LIGHT BRICK
DARK BRICK
DARK CORRUGATED METAL SIDING
LIGHT CORRUGATED METAL SIDING
GREEN SCREEN
PAINTED BLOCK AND CONCRETE PANEL
WALL WITH SCORING PATTERNS TO ADD
VISUAL INTEREST AND PEDESTRIAN SCALE
VIEW ON EAST ELEVATION
VIEW ON SOUTH ELEVATION
Architecture
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 1, JOHNSON DRIVE APARTMENTS, APPLICANT PRESENTATION (SUBMITTED AT HEARING)
Applicant Presentation to P&Z
SHADOW STUDY A3.0
OCTOBER 18, 2017
255 JOHNSON DRIVE PDP SUBMITTAL
PDP SUBMITTAL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
301 N. NEIL STREET SUITE 400
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61820
P 217.355.8731 | E josh@mode3arch.com
2017 MODE 3 ARCHITECTURE INC.
M O D E 3
ARCHITECTURE
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 11 AM SUMMER SOLSTICE - 2 PM
FALL EQUINOX - 11 AM FALL EQUINOX - 2 PM
SHADOW STUDY A3.1
OCTOBER 18, 2017
255 JOHNSON DRIVE PDP SUBMITTAL
PDP SUBMITTAL
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
301 N. NEIL STREET SUITE 400
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61820
P 217.355.8731 | E josh@mode3arch.com
2017 MODE 3 ARCHITECTURE INC.
M O D E 3
ARCHITECTURE
WINTER SOLSTICE - 11 AM WINTER SOLSTICE - 2 PM
SPRING EQUINOX - 11 AM SPRING EQUINOX - 2 PM
Shadow Analysis
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 1, JOHNSON DRIVE APARTMENTS, APPLICANT PRESENTATION (SUBMITTED AT HEARING)
Applicant Presentation to P&Z
ATTACHMENT 6
Citizen Presentation to the
Planning and Zoning Board
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 2, JOHNSON DRIVE APTS., CITIZEN PRESENTATION (Submitted at Hearing)
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 2, JOHNSON DRIVE APTS., CITIZEN PRESENTATION (Submitted at Hearing)
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 2, JOHNSON DRIVE APTS., CITIZEN PRESENTATION (Submitted at Hearing)
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 2, JOHNSON DRIVE APTS., CITIZEN PRESENTATION (Submitted at Hearing)
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 2, JOHNSON DRIVE APTS., CITIZEN PRESENTATION (Submitted at Hearing)
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 2, JOHNSON DRIVE APTS., CITIZEN PRESENTATION (Submitted at Hearing)
ATTACHMENT 7
Verbatim Transcript of the
Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing
January 18, 2018
HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held January 18, 2018
City Council Chambers
200 West Laporte
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
Johnson Drive Apartments, Project Development Plan, PDP170034
Meeting Time: 6:00 PM, January 18, 2018
Board Members Present: Staff Members Present:
Jeffrey Schneider, Chair Cameron Gloss
Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair Jason Holland
Jennifer Carpenter Brad Yatabe
Ruth Rollins Shar Gerber
William Whitley
2
1 CHAIR JEFFREY SCHNEIDER: We’re going to move on to our second discussion item, that’s
2 the Johnson Drive Apartments Project Development Plan, PDP 170034. Shar, have we received any
3 additional information since worksession?
4 MS. SHAR GERBER: We have; we have received a citizen email from a Thomas
5 Scott…generally supports the project but expressed concern about parking.
6 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. Does any Boardmember have any ex parte communication or
7 anything they need to disclose about this project before we start? Okay, seeing none, let’s turn it over to
8 Mr. Holland to start the staff presentation.
9 MR. JASON HOLLAND: Yes, thank you Chair Schneider, members of the Board. This project
10 is a 5-story mixed-use building located west of South College Avenue at Johnson Drive and Spring Court.
11 One hundred ninety-two units of rent-by-the-bedroom student housing is proposed. This site is
12 approximately 2.5 acres. Four hundred and twelve bedrooms are proposed and 1,000 square feet of office
13 space. And, that is all I have for an overview; I’ll turn it over to the applicant for their presentation.
14 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant team ready to present?
15 MR. CRAIG RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
16 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, do you guys think you can accomplish your presentation in
17 30 minutes or less?
18 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.
19 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, go ahead and get started when you’re ready.
20 MR. RUSSELL: Alright. Well, good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Board. I am Craig
21 Russell with Russell+Mills Studios; I’m the planner on this project. And we are joined by…excuse me
22 while I get this up here. We are joined by Patrick Quinn and Chris Newman out in the back from Next
23 Chapter Properties based out of Waukegan, Illinois.
24 Alright, third time…so, the project is located at 255 Johnson Drive at the corner of Johnson Drive
25 and Spring Court. It’s currently three single-family residential homes that are basically duplexes. Those
26 lots are adjacent to Spring Court. And then it also consists of a current storage unit that all will be
27 consolidated into one single parcel. The project is in the Commercial General zone district, so that zone
28 district generally has the premise that uses are varied. It provides a variety of different types of uses,
29 including residential, which is one of them. And it’s also in the TOD overlay zone. So the project is
30 located adjacent to a number of very convenient amenities and facilities within the City that…the
31 developer has found very conducive to a student housing project like this one. You can see the…there’s a
32 number of commercial sites both to the north and to the south in the pink area that’s kind of shaded.
33 Creekside Park is directly to the north, and within Creekside Park, there’s Spring Creek Trail which
34 intersects with Mason Trail running north-south, then intersects again with Spring Creek Trail. There’s a
35 very convenient access that’s been created to campus, basically along Centre Avenue, with the underpass
36 that’s been constructed at Centre and Prospect. Jason, could you just turn on the full slide view real
37 quick? Thanks. Thank you; that’s better.
3
1 A number of TOD stops as well… MAX stop at Prospect and then Spring Station, which is
2 directly to the south of the site. Accessible by the overpass that runs from Mason Trail, as well as College
3 Avenue and a path through the Whole Foods commercial site.
4 So, in terms of the Land Use Code, we currently have no modifications requested on this project.
5 We do have an alternative compliance request that we’ve reviewed with staff for, basically, lighting in the
6 natural area buffer zone. And that’s basically due to a walkway that is adjacent to the south of the
7 building that’s needed for emergency access. So, we need to also provide lighting standards consistent
8 with the Land Use Code along that walk, which happen to be a little bit in conflict with the natural area
9 buffer. Our compromise is to provide motion-sensor lighting along that pedestrian pathway. And we
10 believe that this will be especially successful in the summer when students are…and residents of the
11 facility…are minimized and those motion-sensor lights are triggered very infrequently.
12 So, we also have a request for increased occupancy…an increase in the occupancy limits based
13 on the Code in 3.8.16. Basically, we are allowing for 15% 4-bedroom units, so we’re requesting, due to
14 the convenience and the safety created by this facility, the well-managed facility that it’s creating, that it
15 can sustain those 4-bedroom units successfully and minimize impacts to neighborhoods.
16 So, in terms of the site program, we are, as Jason mentioned, a mixed-use project, multi-family
17 residential, student-oriented, and with 1,000 square feet of leased commercial space that’s on the ground
18 floor of the project. The existing site is 2.8 acres. When you account for dedication of right-of-way, that
19 get reduced a little bit to 2.5 acres. And we’ve got a total of 192 units with the following bedroom
20 breakdown, 412 bedrooms total. In terms of parking provided for the overall project, if we look at the
21 vehicular parking calculations, we start out with a total of 412 bedrooms. As we are in the TOD, we’re
22 then…that allows us to reduce that 75%, by 75%, which comes to 309. Then, we are providing transit
23 passes for each tenant as well as 6 car share spaces currently in the project. That brings us to a total of
24 required, 255 spaces, and then we’re providing 261 vehicle spaces. That brings us to a ratio very similar
25 to the mean of the following projects, which are all student-oriented projects. They seem to be coming in
26 around 62%. And, again, this is information that is based on PDPs that have been recorded in the Fort
27 Collins City Documents. When we did begin this project, we wanted to look into, as well, is that
28 adequate in terms of other similar student housing projects? And what we found is that many of the
29 garages that have been built, both, at least The District and The Standard more recently…a large portion
30 of those in our surveys have kind of remained unoccupied. So, we’re seeing that they’ve been occupied
31 around 70 to 75% typically. So, while they are providing, you know, parking that’s per their Code
32 requirement, there is typically some additional spaces that are leftover. And we just wanted to measure
33 that, and we’re finding that in many of those cases, it’s around a total utilized parking of somewhere
34 around 52%. So, we’re about 63% of the total bed count here, with our parking. And again, that’s done
35 through no modifications using the allowances within the Land Use Code.
36 So this is just a diagram showing…we are using about 40% compact parking in addition to
37 standard stalls. A number of car share spaces are located in this area as well as ADA parking. And then
38 on the mezzanine level, we’ve got some additional spaces as well.
39 Bike parking…we are providing a total of 416 spaces; we’re required about 412. And we’re
40 meeting the Code requirements in terms of covered and uncovered spaces. So, you can see a breakdown
41 of…a number of spaces are actually interior to the parking structure near the stairwells. So, they’re
42 relatively conveniently located. And then a few on the mezzanine as well that could be potentially
43 located on the lower level if need be, but we felt like there was some convenience associated with this as
4
1 you could ride up to the mezzanine and have a little bit more convenient access to the next…second floor
2 of the facility.
3 One thing to note about this particular site is there’s a fairly significant grade differential from the
4 properties to the south, the commercial properties that include Whole Foods, King Soopers, et cetera, and
5 this project site. What we’re looking at is essentially…on the existing cross-section, if you look at the
6 ground floor, it’s basically almost to the top of the second story lower than the commercial site to the
7 south. So, the commercial site to the south, essentially, if you were to draw a straight line over, that
8 basically comes to the bottom of the third story. So there is a pretty significant one-to-one slope next to
9 the Sherwood lateral. The property line for this parcel is basically located right here for most of the
10 site…at least where this general cross-section is taken. And then the Sherwood lateral easement basically
11 covers most of that slope. So, there are some constraints around that Sherwood lateral…we’re really
12 trying to address some of those in terms of grading. The natural area buffer standards…we’ll be able to
13 plant within this area. We can’t necessarily plant within the ditch access area, but we are providing some
14 additional planting to meet those standards.
15 In terms of the site plan, we’ve located the main amenity space obviously at the corner of Johnson
16 Drive and Spring Court, and that’s intended to draw students in and become advantageous for the mixed-
17 use aspect of the site. The project raises that finished floor, as it’s in the 100-year floodplain, to 18 inches
18 above base flood elevation. So, we do have a series of ADA ramps and steps. The project will be
19 basically on a slight podium in order to accommodate that. Kind of an entry plaza at the corner, and then
20 we’ve also provided a cross-section from the center line of Spring Court to the proposed right-of-way.
21 That’s actually a local connector cross-section, so it’s not a local residential…a little bit wider and it
22 accommodates on-street parking as well as travel lanes a little bit more effectively. And then in addition
23 to that, that cross-section requires a four-and-a-half-foot sidewalk, so, working with City staff, we’ve
24 brought that up to six-and-a-half-foot sidewalk. So, a little bit wider sidewalks due to the increased, kind
25 of, pedestrian, bike use that this project…that is anticipated with this project.
26 You can see then, on the west side of the building, we’re trying to plant a number of evergreen
27 deciduous trees as kind of a mitigation effort to help screen some of this lower wall. And then along the
28 south side, we’re providing additional coniferous and deciduous plantings that compliment the kind of
29 natural area buffer objectives. We’ll go through a little bit more on that in a minute. A number of bike
30 parking spaces are located on the northwest side, and then a couple located within the interior of the
31 property as well.
32 Now, one of the conditions for approval of this project…that had been put forth by staff…was to
33 better work out the trash enclosure situation. So, what we’ve done in the interim…and you guys have not
34 seen this yet I believe, is we’ve located…we’ve developed a couple scenarios that show trash enclosures
35 located at the northwest corner of the property. This would also allow…so far, this has generally been
36 well received…we need to continue working through it with City staff, but generally well received in
37 terms of being approved. This would also add additional three parking spaces to the project, and there’s a
38 couple different turning movements that could be utilized with trash trucks to accomplish this objective.
39 Access to both the south…the commercial property to the south as well as the TOD stop…be
40 provided through, in this case, over here, through the tunnel over to the Mason Trail and over the
41 overpass to get to that stop. Or, we’ve also allowed for the provision of…or, accounted for, the idea that
42 a lot of people will likely use College Avenue as well as it’s a little bit more convenient for pedestrians
43 especially. If you’re on a bike, this may be a bit more convenient. But, both of them provide relatively
5
1 convenient access to facilities that are developed for pedestrians within the shopping center. So, from
2 College, there’s really no distinct clear pedestrian pathway to Whole Foods, for example, until you cross
3 Rutgers at this point. There’s no sidewalk that allows folks to walk through the facility safely. And then,
4 likewise, this is the overpass that does provide an additional safe path of travel to the MAX stop. So, as
5 far as pedestrian level of service goes, we’ve met all of the different destination requirements as you can
6 see here, based on this study. The traffic study did outline one other off-site recommendation which
7 would be to provide a lift-turn lane at Johnson Drive and College. So, we will be accommodating a
8 striped left-turn lane as well as a signal for left turns.
9 And then, as we mentioned, we are requesting an alternative compliance for the lighting in the
10 natural area buffers. And, basically, the natural area buffer is accommodated through the performance
11 standards, as you can see here. We are encroaching a bit in this blue area, but also providing additional
12 natural area in the green area which starts to offset that. However, the performance standards also require
13 that we provide additional habitat-oriented plantings and features, so we’ve worked quite a bit with staff
14 to come up with a solution that achieves that.
15 When we began this project, the architecture was more of a uniform architecture with an interior
16 courtyard, which wasn’t really well received by staff. And I think in many ways didn’t necessarily
17 achieve the objectives of the Land Use Code in terms of building mass, et cetera. So, we’ve done a lot of
18 work in terms of trying to provide a series of courtyards that do a number of things. Number one is they
19 break up the mass, they provide spatial transition, and the bulk of the building above the podium is
20 reduced quite substantially. They act as an amenity for students. One of them is east facing, one south,
21 and one north. So, there’s great views to the mountains on both the…or sorry…this is west facing…on
22 the west and the southwest facing courtyards, there’s great views to the mountains, and the open spaces
23 beyond, and the employment zone. So, those range from about 28 feet to 44 feet in width. I know you
24 guys had a question regarding that…as well as another one that’s around 46. They will be
25 landscaped…and developed with the intent that residents can use them in a variety of ways. So, one
26 concept is…that we’ve developed that’s more of a prototype, is to provide a series of planters that
27 basically start to articulate small group gathering, large group gathering, and individually oriented spaces
28 for residents. So, these picnic table are oriented around grills, and then the other tables are oriented more
29 for social gathering or more intimate groups.
30 The architecture is developed as a way to provide enough variety and interest and material
31 variation. We have also provided a different color scheme than I believe the one that you’ve seen
32 previously. It was a little…some of the main massing elements were a little darker, so we lightened those
33 up. Other than that, it hasn’t changed in mass and scale overall. So, you can see, we are providing a 5-
34 story building with a podium for parking. So, the rooftop courtyards are located at this level. Typically
35 along street frontages, we’re showing more of a storefront treatment to the lower level of the building.
36 The parking itself will actually have window-like treatments making the architecture a little bit more
37 commercial-like. And then on the back sides that face the south and face the MAX line retaining wall,
38 those are split face concrete block that’s kind of the color of buff sandstone. But, we’re also showing a
39 number of vine trellises that allow vines to kind of creep up the sides of the buildings, as well as a number
40 of deciduous and conifer trees that will be planted along those edges. So, we feel like that will really help
41 break up the mass and scale of those podium walls. Same kind of treatment that we just described over
42 on the west side. This would be the one opening for the parking access shown right here. And then you
43 can see, at the corner of Johnson Drive and Spring Court, what we’ve done is shown…the approach is
44 basically to create a tower-like element. We do…are showing pre-cast concrete cornices, so this building
6
1 will have some interest beyond just the surface treatments. Brick is provided at the base podium as well
2 as some of the other elements mid-story. And then you can see, most of the rest of the materials
3 are…shown are different types of metal siding. So those will all have some level of interest as well. All
4 windows will be recessed, as we talked about, so there’s shadow lines…you won’t have any windows just
5 kind of stuck on the side of the buildings like we’ve been seeing fairly recently. So, a lot of effort has
6 been made to provide window treatments that are a little bit more interesting than you might see on some
7 comparable projects. You can see examples of these materials: split-face CMU block, sort of like that
8 sandstone color, at the base, the two different colors of brick, and then the two different colors of metal
9 siding.
10 Shadow studies basically show, in the summer, we’ve obviously got very little shadow impacts.
11 We generally don’t shade any other…well, we don’t shade any other structures with this structure. There
12 was a question, however, regarding the trail intersection at the tunnel along Spring Creek Trail. And I do
13 think that will be shaded slightly at the winter solstice. We did confirm, though, the City Parks
14 maintenance department does plow that trail fairly…well, consistently. And almost any day there’s snow,
15 it's one of the first things to be plowed. So, there will be very little snow accumulation expected in that
16 area. And, we’re really talking just around the winter solstice where that area does get shaded a little bit.
17 And, I believe that…I believe that concludes our presentation. So, be happy to answer any questions.
18 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Alright, is there anyone else on your team that would like to present or
19 not?
20 MR. RUSSELL: Not at this time.
21 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. Jason, we’ll turn it back over to you for staff analysis.
22 MR. HOLLAND: Yes, thank you…get to the right slide here. This project is in the General
23 Commercial zone district; it does comply with the purpose statement of the General Commercial zone
24 district…pretty straightforward…and the intent is to accommodate a wide range of uses. The permitted
25 use list in the zoning district…it is a permitted use, again, subject to Planning and Zoning Board approval.
26 Building height…normally in the General Commercial zone district outside of the TOD zone,
27 four stories are permitted. In this case, additional height is permitted in the TOD zone…just want to
28 highlight this quickly. The reason for that is that it’s a mixed-use building as well as the project has a
29 structured parking garage. So, we do have allowances to go higher than four stories in the TOD zone; in
30 this case, they are proposing a 5-story building. They could go as tall as six stories; I think at that point,
31 we would be looking at quite a bit more stepbacks and articulation depending on the site.
32 Wanted to touch on this…Mr. Russell did talk about the preliminary design. Here is the
33 preliminary design, or what we call PDR submittal. They didn’t, at that time, provide building elevations,
34 but it was very clear to staff…we had some major concerns about projecting this up five stories with
35 interior courtyards. It didn’t seem like this footprint was going to be set up very well to make that work.
36 We suggested that they provide exterior courtyards, and they did that. The other aspect of the project was
37 that, at that time, they were providing significantly less parking. They had three TOD deductions…I’ll
38 talk about that in a minute. But, we felt like that was going to be too impactful.
39 Building standards…they meet the building standards, 3.5.1(C), as well as the TOD building
40 standards. Mr. Russell has already covered this, but, you know, the bottom line here is we wanted to
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
make sure…certain…that they provided a high-quality, four-sided building. You’re going to see this
building, essentially, from every direction, from the MAX line, from South College Avenue, from
Creekside Park, and from the south. We can see several different views, you know, showing how they’ve
utilized these courtyards, as well as the materials and other features, to break up the massing all the way
around the building.
This has already been covered…we did see a little bit of a different material color palate; that’s
good. We did have some concerns with the dark hues that are shown here with the metal siding building
materials. We’d like to go ahead…we have one condition of approval to address that. We’d like to go
ahead and just leave that in, so that we can see a material sample board. But, there’s really no harm at
this point in going ahead and leaving the condition of approval in, but we like the direction, from staff’s
perspective, that they’ve gone with the building to tone down the dark tones a bit.
Building details…they talked about this. I don’t really have anything to add other than they’ve
met the TOD standards. We’ve also talked about, along the frontage, along Spring Court as well as
Johnson Drive, to make sure, certain…and they’ve done this…to provide window treatments along the
parking garage portion to help articulate all portions of the building along the first story.
Buffer zone diagram we have here…we can come back to this if we need to. But, we have
looked at the buffer standards and they comply with those standards. Landscape plan…as part of the
buffer performance standards, they are augmenting the planting along the Sherwood lateral, and they’re
8
1 is the chart from the land use table for the TOD standards. Multi-family dwellings are required to provide
2 a minimum amount of parking. In this case, they are proposing to park by the bedroom, which the
3 baseline standard is 0.75 spaces per bed. And then there was some recognition that, based on the site
4 context and the availability of parking mitigation strategies adjacent to the development and near the
5 development, that these strategies that we see here could be utilized. And, in this case, they are
6 employing two of these strategies. Before that, they had been requesting three. So, they are proposing
7 the transit passes for each tenant, and then the car share, five spaces for car share…that’s one of the…out
8 of this table, that is definitely one of the strategies that we are encouraging, is car share, and they have
9 been receptive to that strategy. Overall…we covered this, but here’s a breakdown…essentially, they are
10 meeting those…the requirements with those two mitigation strategies employed. And, with the
11 mitigation strategies employed, they are at about 0.63…excuse me…yeah, 0.63 spaces per bed. So, they
12 are providing a little bit of extra…with the TOD standards it would be 0.62, so it’s a little bit more.
13 Bicycle parking…Mr. Russell covered this, be happy to answer any questions you have, but they
14 are meeting the bicycle parking standards, and with this one, they’re not relying on providing bicycle
15 parking spaces within the dwelling units. Everything is located on the first and second level of the
16 parking garage, as well as outside along Johnson Drive.
17 Extra occupancy…Mr. Russell covered this in terms of the amenities that they are providing.
18 And, there are also, you know, public amenities available: Creekside Park as well as the commercial areas
19 to the south. We’re comfortable with the amount of amenities that they are providing and that that
20 satisfies the standard.
21 Shadowing…in this case, you know, we just talked about this with the previous Hub project.
22 You know, here we are looking at 3.5.1(G)(1). These are the three criteria that we’re looking at. Overall,
23 the project is well-positioned to not have any adjacent buildings that are being impacted. There are some
24 impacts to the adjacent Johnson Drive…that’s not uncommon to have public streets on the north side of a
25 building. There is some additional shadowing, in the winter months, of Creekside Park. We don’t have
26 concerns with that…again, those are portions of the year where planting is dormant. The one thing that
27 we are looking at is, you know, the main thing is contributing to accumulation of snow and ice. That was
28 the question that the Board had in a worksession. I did go out there and take a look at that. This picture
29 was taken yesterday. I also went out there the day before…the day after the snow storm, and I have
30 confirmed that, you know, they do plow pretty quickly. And the plowing itself does help get the melting
31 going, so to speak. And, what I’ve observed, is there already are some portions that are being shaded by
32 the existing vegetation. And, we’re not concerned…the plowing should take care of it.
33 Views are another aspect of the project that we’ve had questions on. In this case, we do consider
34 viewsheds from the parks, from Creekside Park in this case. Here are a few photos that I’ve taken from
35 various places in the center of the park as I’m moving from east to west. Here we can see, on the left…in
36 this photo, there is…this is around where Horsetooth is…that there are some buildings on the west side of
37 MAX associated with the University that are already obscuring some of the views. And this is,
38 essentially, in the same place that the Johnson Drive Apartments proposed building is going to be placed.
39 So, we’re not seeing that there are going to be additional impacts with the development, because it’s
40 located, essentially, directly south of the park itself. And as you get a little bit closer, again, walking west
41 along Creekside Park, really the MAX wall itself starts to obscure the views towards the western portion
42 of the park. Here we can see Horsetooth rock just popping up a little bit there above the MAX wall.
9
1 Trash and recycling requirements…we have recommended a condition of approval. Mr. Russell
2 has shared his new drawings that locate the trash enclosure off of Johnson Drive. We believe that’s a
3 workable concept and will provide a better situation for trash service providers. We’d like to go ahead,
4 again, and keep…there’s no harm in keeping the condition of approval in place, but we feel like they’re
5 headed in the right direction, and that we’ve looked at that with other staff and we feel like that’s a
6 workable solution.
7 Lighting plan…there was a question about lighting. They are proposing alterative compliance
8 with the lighting plan. We don’t have any issue with that; essentially, the motion sensor scenario that
9 they’re proposing is acceptable.
10 So, in summary, the project is an acceptable design for the area context, all the Land Use Code
11 criteria are met, and we are recommending approval of the project with the two conditions of approval.
12 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. Before we move into public comment, is there any
13 clarifying questions that the Board would like to ask at this point? No? Okay. Yes? No? No? Okay.
14 So, let’s go ahead and move into the public portion of this item. How many people in the room would
15 like to address the Board on this topic? Okay, seeing a couple. Again, just to remind you, please sign in,
16 state your name for the record, and you’ll have three minutes to address the Board about this item.
17 There’s two podiums, so please come down, form lines so we can make this be as expeditious as possible.
18 Mr. Sutherland?
19 MR. ERIC SUTHERLAND: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant…I’m disputing that this
20 project satisfies the connectivity requirements of the Land Use Code in terms of pedestrian access to the
21 commercial properties to the south. Main focus there is, you know, what was looked at in the realm of
22 possibilities? I understand it’s going to be a design challenge just because of the nature of the site,
23 property ownership, et cetera, but at the same time, the two alternatives for pedestrian access to the south
24 that were described by the applicant would be insufficient in terms of connectivity. And so, I’d certainly
25 like to learn more about what might be in the realm of possibilities there. We should always be looking
26 for those sorts of things. Those are the things that really make a community work, when people can walk
27 from one place to the other without navigating a five-foot width of sidewalk directly next to speeding
28 traffic on College Avenue with a retaining wall barring any exit in the event of, you know, wanting to get
29 out of the way of something.
30 The other issue, the main consideration here…I’m not sure how many of you have followed the
31 appeals process for the parking garage that’s on the other side of the park from the applicant’s project
32 here, and there’s only so much time here; I can’t encapsulate the entire debacle that ensued in that
33 situation, probably the most problematic development we’ve ever seen, The Summit, with five million
34 dollars of TIF on top of it to add insult to the injury of the whole thing. But, I can think…I think it’s fair
35 to say that upon appeal, Council prudently decided that they really didn’t want to see the park
36 encapsulated into an urban canyon. And they made the developer of the parking garage made
37 adjustments to the design to reduce the effect of having a massive building on one side of the park. And
38 what have we got here but a very much more massive building, probable twice the scale any way you
39 want to look at it, impinging on the park. Now, if it were…and it’s not compatible with the Land Use
40 Code the way the parking garage for The Summit was originally proposed, certainly this development
41 proposal is not compatible as well.
10
1 Just a few seconds I have left here, I’d like to just add some reinforcement to the very thoughtful
2 statements made by the young woman who presented at the last application. You could talk to anybody
3 who’s lived here for a long time; there is grave concern about what’s happening in the city of Fort
4 Collins, whether or not we are prepared for the sort of growth, and whether or not we really need to take a
5 different direction in planning…second her thoughts there.
6 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Mr. Patterson?
7 MR. PAUL PATTERSON: Yeah, I have a presentation, and it’s by two people and my wife,
8 Kathryn, has ceded her time to me if I need it.
9 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Is she here tonight?
10 MR. PATTERSON: No. I have a signed thing from her ceding it.
11 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: I guess…how have we dealt with that before? Because, typically, it’s
12 whoever is present.
13 MR. BRAD YATABE: Mr. Chair, you can make the decision as to an allotment of time, that’s
14 within your purview.
15 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: How much time do you think you need Mr. Patterson?
16 MR. PATTERSON: Probably four minutes, max.
17 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, four minutes then, please.
18 MR. PATTERSON: Thank you. Okay, so these are some comments on the Johnson Drive
19 Apartments. Okay, so this is a discussion of the TOD demand mitigation. My first point is no studies are
20 presented to show that providing a transit pass, which all students get anyway, and shared cars reduces the
21 number of cars the residents will have. Instead, parking spaces, as a percentage of bed count, are given.
22 The only example in the neighborhood is The State, formerly The Summit…and there’s a reproduction
23 from the document you have. And I see two glaring mistakes in the calculation. First one is it should be
24 the percentage of leased beds. We don’t know how many people are actually in the building. And the
25 second one, which I plan to address, is it does not include the spillover parking from The State, and this is
26 due probably to the fact that they charge for parking. So, the next one? Can I do it from here?
27 MR. HOLLAND: I believe so.
28 MR. PATTERSON: Okay…first time I’ve done this. Quantitative data was collected at 5:45 AM
29 on Wednesday and Thursday of this week, and the qualitative data was collected from since around the
30 fall of 2014 at all times of the day while bicycling along Spring Park Drive and through the Creekside
31 Park in both the east and west directions. The quantitative estimates of the spillover effect from The State
32 along Spring Park Drive and along Johnson Drive are based on the following: all cars…okay…so this is
33 the east side, and here’s Spring Park Drive, and this is Remington coming down here…and all cars parked
34 along Spring Park Drive, and Remington just south of the Spring Park Drive, are from The State. This is
35 based on the fact that if you go there in August during the fall…the end of the summer break…there are
36 no cars parked in that area. Next…oh, I can do that. Okay, great.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
On the east side, since the Spring Creek…Spring Court…is an RP3 residential zone, only cars
parked along Johnson Drive were included in the study. There are three sources of cars…three sources
for cars parked along Johnson Drive at 5:45 AM. The first one is The State, the second are the houses
along Spring Court. But, there were empty spots in the RP3 zone, so they in all likelihood contribute
zero; they would park in that zone if they needed it. Fort Collins Muffler is the third one, and I obtained
numbers of cars that they had parked along there, and they were deducted from the count along Johnson
Drive.
So, in conclusion, our estimate, based on the ’17-’18 data collected, is that 42 cars were parked
along Spring Park Drive and Johnson Drive…I left off…from The State. This is a minimum for the
spillover effect of The State. There are several areas within the same radius of The State where residents
can squirrel away their cars. I’ve also counted more along there, but since it wasn’t part of the
quantitative study, I couldn’t cite it. Given the deficiencies in the justification for the TOD demand
mitigation, the P and Z Board should deny the requested mitigation. Mitigation is not a given. The LUC
section, more than I can pronounce, states, the decision maker shall take into account, and lists all the
things that can be given, and then says, together with the proposed plans compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhoods in terms of potential spillover parking. This is especially important given the
negative spillover effects caused by the City’s decision related to the construction of The Summit. I think
I was started at three wasn’t I? Oh, that was four? Okay, then I’ll just leave you with the quote from
12
1 In terms of the question that Mr. Patterson brought up about…certainly understand the concerns
2 about spillover parking. You know, again, we want to make sure, with these developments, that they’re
3 providing sufficient parking to mitigate the potential for spillover parking. In relationship to the TOD
4 standards, again bringing up the land use table chart…I can bring that up here real quick. So, I think
5 there’s just a little bit of clarification that’s needed here. The intent is, with the TOD mitigation standards
6 outlined in this chart, that there are some mitigation strategies that can be requested here, based on this
7 criteria, that do not require alternative compliance. And they are employing two of those strategies, and
8 alternative compliance is not required unless they go down, as you can see in the bottom of the chart,
9 down below 50%. So, a maximum of 50% reduction without the provision of a parking impact study, or
10 transportation mitigation management. So, some of these…you know, the intent is, it is an established
11 TOD zone, there is the intent to provide a roadmap to have some predictability in how these mitigation
12 standards can be employed, and the way that the Code is written, the alternative compliance section that is
13 listed in the Code in 3.2.2(K), as Mr. Patterson said, two alternative compliance…that criteria there is
14 not…they’re not requesting alternative compliance with the mitigation standards that they’re requesting.
15 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: So, just a point of clarity then…the top four or five items on alternative
16 compliance are granted, guaranteed, no questions asked, regardless of project or location? I mean,
17 obviously it’s got to be within the TOD, but, those are given reductions that cannot be challenged or
18 disputed?
19 MR. HOLLAND: Well, what we do is we look at, for example, with the third item there that you
20 see, the within 1,000 feet of walking distance of the MAX station…it’s not a given. They need to make
21 the case, and prove, and then we need to review, that they meet the requirements that are associated with
22 that. Essentially, that it’s ADA compliant. In this case, it’s not ADA compliant, so even though they’re
23 close walking distance to the MAX station, it’s not ADA compliant. And then the bicycle/pedestrian
24 level of service A, if they were to ask for that, they would need to justify, and we would need to review,
25 that they meet the criteria for the LOS A.
26 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: I guess, can we finish up the public questions first before we…is it a
27 follow-up? Okay.
28 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: So, are you saying, Jason, then, that it’s not really
29 under our purview to decide whether or not to grant these mitigation pieces based on this particular
30 project as long as they actually meet the standard?
31 MR. HOLLAND: Provided that they meet the standard and that they document that…essentially,
32 the requirement, for example, they were asking for car share. The requirement here is that that particular
33 demand mitigation strategy is recorded and documented on the plan, and then staff has the…as you see in
34 this note…the ability to audit that requirement for the duration of the project. So, if they provide…the
35 developer is required, if they are providing car share, the developer is responsible for ensuring that the car
36 share is provided. And then the City has the ability to audit that requirement to see that it’s met. But,
37 beyond that, I suppose it’s like any standard that is in the Land Use Code. The metric is described and
38 they’re meeting the requirement.
39 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you.
13
1 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: And then, I guess, Jason, can you…you briefly explained about the
2 connectivity, but there really wasn’t an answer other than…does this project, per staff’s opinion, meet the
3 Land Use Code definition of connectivity with the merchants and stores to the south?
4 MR. HOLLAND: I’d like to get the applicant’s consultant to talk a little bit about their traffic
5 study, and then we can follow-up on that.
6 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay.
7 MR. JOE DELICH: Hi, my name is Joe Delich, and I did the traffic impact study. So, this area is
8 in an area termed ‘transit corridor’ because of the location of the MAX to it, which requires a connectivity
9 of level of service C. And, in order to meet level of service C, you have to have a continuous pedestrian
10 network; however, the sidewalks may not be built to the current standards. And, there is a pedestrian
11 network to Whole Foods and to the properties to the south using College Avenue.
12 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay.
13 BOARDMEMBER JEFF HANSEN: Is there a distance to those services associated with that
14 level of service C?
15 MR. DELICH: Usually the distance is in…it is in directness, and it’s a ratio of directness of as the
16 crow flies versus walking, and it meets that level of service also.
17 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Okay, is that a ratio or a percentage, or…wondering how…
18 MR. DELICH: Well, the ratio is…to meet level of service…and I think it’s B in the transit
19 corridor…yes, it’s B, and so it has to meet a ratio of 1.4 to 1 as a distance.
20 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: So, if as the crow flies was 1,000 feet, then you’d be allowed to
21 go to 1,400?
22 MR. DELICH: Yep.
23 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Okay, do you know what the ratio is for this?
24 MR. DELICH: No off hand, but I can try and measure it…
25 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: …how close we are to that standard. Does it barely squeak by, or
26 is it…?
27 MR. DELICH: I’ll have to measure it again, but I knew we were in the B range, I believe, the 1.2
28 to 1.4 is the B range.
29 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Okay, thanks.
30 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Jason, did you follow-up and look at that ratio to make sure that those are
31 accurate?
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MR. HOLLAND: We did review the level of service standards…Traffic Operations as well as
Transportation Planning, and we did concur that they meet those level of service standards, the minimum
level of service standards. I will say that there is another connection that we’re exploring. There was
some discussion about how to connect…make another additional…as you notice from the drawings that
are presented, you know, we’ve got two ways to get to the south: one along College Avenue, and then the
other one going through the trail to the west and then down south in that direction. That’s…we’d like to
see a better connection than that. We do have an existing barrier, natural barrier, there, with the
Sherwood lateral that is a significant barrier. And there’s been discussion in looking at a capital
improvement project there…that’s a significant project. The Sherwood lateral itself, a portion of it,
basically between this development and College…that would likely need to be…that portion of the
Sherwood lateral would need to be put in a concrete encasing and then and ADA ramp would need to be
built over that, and then a staircase could be also incorporated into the ADA ramp to essentially provide a
direct staircase from the south portion of Spring Court up to those developments…up to those existing
developments. The challenge is that once you get there and continue further south, we’d need to…there’s
a number of different things that need to be done. There’s easements that need to be secured; there’s a
number of different property owners. So we are looking at that; we haven’t identified a timeline at this
point, but we have…staff’s perspective is that that would be needed to be provided as a capital
improvement project due to the scope and the constraints in that area.
CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. I guess just for a point of clarity as well for Mr. Sutherland’s
comments about the compatibility and the size and height of the parking garage that was appealed with
The Summit. My remembrance of that was part of the complaint was the viewshed from the existing
22 building that was there as far as the reason for the reduction in height.
23 MR. HOLLAND: I recall that as well Chair Schneider.
24 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Is that…I mean, that was part of the complaint, correct?
25 MR. CAMERON GLOSS: I would also add it was the view from the public space, in this case the
26 park to the south.
27 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: To the north?
28 MR. GLOSS: Well, it would be the park to the south of The Summit parking garage, which is
29 north of this particular application we’re seeing tonight.
30 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Correct, okay. But it wasn’t just the size…there was also other
31 complaints associated with existing facilities or buildings, correct?
32 MR. GLOSS: That’s correct.
33 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. Questions?
34 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: This is probably for the applicant. Are you charging for
35 parking?
36 MR. PATRICK QUINN: Hello, my name is Patrick Quinn with Next Chapter, and yes, we would
37 be charging for parking.
15
1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: How much?
2 MR. QUINN: I believe we’ve allotted $70 per covered space, which is less than the current going
3 market rate by $30.
4 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you.
5 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: I guess, while you’re up there, I’ve got a question about amenities for the
6 over occupancy portion. Most of the projects we see come through have more amenity space with pools,
7 with fitness centers, and it looks like to me, all you are providing is some outdoor space. What else are
8 you providing for the amenities other than having people walk to the facilities to the south and the
9 commercial center to the south. What’s on site for amenity space?
10 MR. QUINN: On site, we have on our base floor, there will be a fitness facility. There will also
11 be a gear room where residents can go and check out certain items for day excursions out in the
12 mountains, or hiking, or whatever there may be. There are also a number of amenities on the actual decks
13 themselves, meeting spaces and things of that nature. It is true, we do not have a pool.
14 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. What other questions…? Jennifer?
15 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: It looks like your bicycle parking count is right on the…there’s no
16 extra bike parking provided. And, with…you’re not accounting for any in the units. Would it be possible
17 for a tenant to put a bicycle in their unit if they wanted?
18 MR. QUINN: Yes, it would be possible for tenants to put them in the units if they wanted to. We
19 do also have additional bike parking spaces. We anticipate that a lot of the units will…or a lot of the
20 residents will use their units. But, we certainly could provide additional bike parking if that’s a request.
21 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: I like the strategy we’ve seen in the last couple where you don’t
22 necessarily show it on your plans initially, but acknowledge that there’s room for more. Because, you
23 know it’s an up front cost that you don’t want to take if you don’t need to, but certainly be able to
24 accommodate it easily without reconfiguring your parking garage or the site.
25 MR. QUINN: Yeah, no, absolutely. I think the ground floor parking area has a number of islands
26 that are kind of carved out within the parking itself, and those could easily be accommodated for
27 additional bike parking.
28 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Okay, thanks.
29 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Jennifer, do you want to…?
30 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I noticed you said they were going to be well-managed
31 apartments, which speaks to the extra occupancy. Is there going to be 24-hour management?
32 MR. QUINN: We will maintain an office on-site that will be open during normal business hours,
33 and we will also have the availability of 24-hour maintenance and management on call with a number that
34 will be distributed to all the residents.
16
1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: But not necessarily…there won’t be management on site 24
2 hours?
3 MR. QUINN: Not after the close of business, no.
4 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you.
5 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Ruth?
6 BOARDMEMBER RUTH ROLLINS: On the plan I think I saw somewhere where you had
7 duplex parking for bikes. Did it say that on the corner somewhere on one of your drawings? I didn’t
8 know what that meant…or maybe I didn’t read it right.
9 MR. RUSSELL: That’s correct; we’ve got a few of the bike racks that are kind of located near the
10 stair towers that are essentially double level. So…they’re bike racks that we’ve been using more recently
11 with the DDA, with work we’ve been doing with the DDA. And, what it does is it allows for kind of a
12 slide out system for a bike up top that then rolls down. So, it’s pretty easy to get your bike into it, but it
13 basically conserves space is what it’s designed to do.
14 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: And do you have to be strong to do it? I mean, like if I have a
15 heavy old-school bike, and it’s me, can I get that up onto the top? I mean, you know…or a college…
16 MR. RUSSELL: Yeah, they’re relatively easy to roll down. If you can lift your bike up and put it
17 on, then it’s relatively easy to sort of push it in, because it’s somewhat assisted. So, it’s an assisted
18 system. Like most things that have to do with bikes, it came from the Dutch. So, it’s actually a Dutch
19 company that started operating here more recently, so there’s not a lot of examples around here.
20 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. Jason, I’ve got a question for you. With the reductions in parking
21 spaces…other projects that we’ve seen that are around that 400, plus or minus, bedroom count, and
22 they’ve done car shares, how many car shares have they asked for for mitigation factors? Because, I
23 guess my question is, is three enough, is six too many, is…you know, where do start and stop the
24 efficiency of that?
25 MR. HOLLAND: So, I couldn’t give you an exact number. You know, I know that the project on
26 the north side of Prospect that was recently…that Ted Shepard brought forward, had some car share. I
27 believe that it had less than six car shares, but I couldn’t say for certain. But, from staff’s perspective, the
28 more car shares that they can provide, the better. We think it’s a good thing if developers are providing
29 shared cars. I don’t think that six car share spaces is inappropriate for the size and scope of the
30 development. And those are designated car share automobiles. But of course, you know, there’s also in
31 addition to that, you know, we see folks informally sharing cars, you know, that’s part of the idea is that
32 you move into a unit with a number of roommates and you can rely on them informally. So, there’s some
33 informal car sharing going on, it’s just that, you know, these are designated car share spaces. But, staff
34 has discussed that and we don’t…there’s not a concern about six being too many.
35 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. Other questions?
17
1 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: I think, Mr. Russell, when you were talking about the site plan,
2 you mentioned some on-street parking. Are you reconfiguring something to provide additional on-street
3 parking from what’s there right now?
4 MR. RUSSELL: I believe what I was referring to was the street cross-section that we’re
5 providing, which is the local connector as opposed to the local residential street. If you drive through
6 certain, I guess, residential neighborhoods that have used the local residential cross-section, you kind of
7 get the sense that the travel lanes are a little constrained sometimes, when they’re a heavily parked on
8 street. So, what we’re trying to do is allow for that on-street parking and…without kind of constraining
9 the travel lanes using that cross-section. We’re not…we aren’t allowing for any on-street parking in our
10 parking counts or anything like that.
11 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Yeah, I know that on-street parking is not considered when you’re
12 doing your parking counts, but I was wondering if you’re changing the parking capacity of the streets at
13 all? Increasing or decreasing…?
14 MR. RUSSELL: A little bit; it’s increasing a little bit because of the number of residential
15 driveways that were there previously along Spring Court.
16 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Okay, because that’s been a concern is the overflow parking…
17 MR. RUSSELL: The access drive to the storage facility as well…so it will increase slightly.
18 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Okay, thank you.
19 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Ruth?
20 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Jason, did we answer the questions of construction staging?
21 MR. HOLLAND: Yes, thank you, I wanted to get to that one. Thank you, Ms. Pierce, for
22 bringing that up. This has been a question that they’ve asked me. It’s a little bit early…typically we
23 address construction staging and construction requirements later in the process. So, it’s a little bit early to
24 answer this question, but I’d be happy to be in contact with you, Ms. Pierce, as we get further into the
25 project. I have discussed this with other staff, and generally we don’t allow construction staging within
26 the public right-of-way unless they…there is a way to request an encroachment permit, and that is
27 covered by engineering staff. They review those closely, and if they do request an encroachment permit
28 for a portion of the street, we would need to look at that closely and talk with Ms. Pierce about that…what
29 they’re proposing. I don’t have an answer at this time, but we’d be happy to discuss that with Ms. Pierce
30 in more detail. Should they ask for an encroachment permit, we’re going to be in close contact with Ms.
31 Pierce.
32 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, Jeff?
33 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: One of your conditions was looking at relocating…or making the
34 trash enclosure a little more functional. It’s very close to…the proposed location now is very close to the
35 Spring Creek Trail. Do you have any images of what that…or an image that shows what that might look
36 like?
18
1 MR. RUSSELL: We could bring up the plan again, actually.
2 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Yeah, I’m recalling the plan, but I didn’t remember if there was
3 any elevation views or…
4 MR. RUSSELL: I don’t think we have any elevations. We’re not quite there yet.
5 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Okay.
6 MR. HOLLAND: I can tell you that we would require that the trash enclosure be designed with
7 the same quality as what is shown with the building design. I think what we would be looking at in this
8 case is for it to be commensurate with the materials that are shown on the ground level, in this case brick.
9 So, we would be looking at a brick enclosure with some articulation and coursing to provide more detail.
10 Does that seem like a reasonable approach? I’m getting some head nodding.
11 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Sure.
12 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: And, as part of the…I believe this is associated with getting the
13 parking reductions. Is this considered a mixed-use building? That’s one of the criteria right? And, in the
14 application, I see a total of 1,000 square feet of office space. It seems like a pretty small piece of non-
15 residential use as opposed to the parking…that’s directly related to the residential use I guess. Did you
16 look at opportunities to provide any more, or is there not a demand? That’s my thoughts, but wanted to
17 hear the applicants first…of where that number came from.
18 MR. QUINN: One of the things we encountered when we first started looking at the site was that
19 concern about, we’re so far offset back from College. We don’t genuinely have any frontage views. So,
20 we’ve designed the corner of the building to try to capture as many of those views as we can. And while
21 we’ve only allotted for 1,000 square feet of rental, if I could rent more, I certainly would. I just don’t
22 have a retail expert on hand that has told me yet we’re going to have any luck renting…leasing that space
23 back there for basically any amount of money.
24 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Yeah, I understand that battle…it’s kind of a leap of faith when
25 you’re doing commercial lease space…especially when it’s not right on the…right on College.
26 MR. QUINN: If we were fronting College, we’d be in a completely different position.
27 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: It does seem like, even said…I guess I’m just making a comment
28 that it seems like a pretty small percentage to be considering it a multi-use building.
29 MR. HOLLAND: We don’t have a minimum size; we want to make sure that the amount of space
30 is realistic as far as being…you know, 1,000 square feet could be enough space for a business. I guess
31 I’m just thinking of other projects. We just saw…you know, there’s just different gradations. You know,
32 we just saw the Elizabeth Street proposal that, you know, they feel like they’ve got the ability to lease a
33 lot of space. You know, I guess another version would be the MAX Flats student housing building that’s
34 on the south side of Prospect right next to the trail. You know, there…it’s a little bit more visibility there,
35 and they’re providing a little bit of mixed-use space with that building. But, I think that’s another fair
36 example of a project, the MAX Flats project, that doesn’t have a lot of space, but they do have some. I
37 would say that this is a project that’s a little be less removed in terms of gradation from that…they’ve got
19
1 some ability to lease space, but I understand their concerns…but, we need to make sure that they have
2 enough space that it can be leased to a business.
3 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Other questions? Before we move into deliberation, anything else Jason,
4 you want to add before we start to deliberate?
5 MR. HOLLAND: Thank you; I don’t have anything additional to add. Thank you.
6 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, let’s move into deliberation then. Comments? Concerns?
7 Opinions?
8 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: I have just a couple comments. I guess the first one…I don’t
9 know if we really…if we can do anything at this point…I think we saw, either in the staff presentation or
10 in the applicant’s presentation, analysis of parking usage, utilization, in similar projects. It looks like it
11 was about 50%. But, we didn’t get that compared to the lease rate of the units. You know, the TOD
12 started with, you know, no parking standard, and quickly decided that was the wrong answer. And I think
13 we kind of took a guess at what might be the right answer with this 0.75 as a starting point, and then
14 reductions. There is…parking, especially structured parking, is a big investment on the part of the
15 developer. That’s one downside. From a boardmember, I’m more concerned about there being…if there
16 is parking in the neighborhood, parking issues in the neighborhood, and we have a parking garage that’s
17 not being fully used, is there some way we can get some of that drawn into…it could even be, you know,
18 rent by the hour spaces. If they’re not leased, I wonder if there’s some provision we could make for that?
19 Kind of just take that comment and put it aside, but it’s at top of my mind now so I wanted to mention it.
20 I think the…the trash enclosure…there’s a design standard in the Land Use Code for those. It
21 needs to match the building. It’s…functionally, I think it kind of needs to go where it’s at. That’s in a lot
22 more visible location than we usually see a trash enclosure, so, if we get a motion that…I think there’s a
23 proposed condition associated with that. I think it should address a height and design standard, just
24 because it’s in a really highly visible location on a highly trafficked trail. People passing it at a pedestrian
25 speed instead of a vehicle speed; you have a lot more time to experience that…that structure.
26 You had a condition about reducing the bold colors. I kind of liked the bold colors…just a
27 comment.
28 Yeah, and on the amount of retail, I mean, it’s a tough…that’s a tough situation to try to guess on.
29 You want…the point of the mixed-use is to create a vibrant mix of activities going on and providing a
30 mixed-use building does that, but I think even worse than having not enough opportunities for mixed-use
31 would be having vacant spaces. There’s nothing that’s less comfortable than having…walking by empty
32 storefronts. So, I understand in this particular situation, how not having a higher percentage of retail
33 space could be acceptable.
34 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Jennifer?
35 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I’m probably going to go one step further than you did, Jeff,
36 on the parking, and whether or not its being used. And I’d like to request from staff that that’s something
37 that we put on a worksession topic, that we look at that again and maybe do some actual studies of how
38 much of it is being used and see if there’s something we can do. I guess my gut is telling me that if
39 you’re charging for it, it’s getting used less. And I think I would like to be able to look at something
20
1 where, if we’re going to mitigate for it, that it’s not something that’s charged separately for, because I
2 think we’re leaving parking spaces empty while people park for free out on the streets, which none of us
3 wants.
4 And, would also like to request that we look at maybe some…something for increased…if we’re
5 going to give increased occupancy, that we have 24-hour on-site management. I think that’s probably not
6 a bad idea when you’re starting to talk about having five bedrooms and that kind of thing.
7 One of my pet peeves has been not enough mixed-use on a lot of our projects that we have, we
8 get a minimal amount of mixed-use. It’s a tough one, I agree, it’s a tough one.
9 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Jennifer, is the 24-hour on-site, is that something that you want to add as a
10 condition of approval?
11 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: No; because I don’t think right now it’s really anything that I
12 have anything to hang that on in the Land Use Code. It’s something that I would like to add to a
13 worksession topic, that we talk about that. And, again, is that needed or not? But I would like to be able
14 to pursue that separate from this project. This project just brought it up top of mind, as Jeff said. I think
15 at this point, I’m feeling like they’re meeting everything that we have…all of the Land Use Code
16 requirements that we have now, so there’s really not any way to change that. So, I’ll probably be
17 supporting the project.
18 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, any other comments, deliberation? Bill?
19 BOARDMEMBER WILLIAM WHITLEY: Well, I’ll be supporting this project too because I
20 can’t think of a reason not to. But, that’s not a great recommendation, but there are a lot of challenges on
21 this site; there are a lot of challenges in the area. I think they’re meeting them as best they can.
22 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay…motion? Entertain a motion?
23 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Alright, I…Mr. Chair, I move that the Fort Collins Planning and
24 Zoning Board approve the Johnson Drive Apartments Project Development Plan, PDP 170034, based on
25 the findings of fact and the two following conditions of approval included in the staff report: those
26 conditions being that the applicant should provide, no later than final plan approval, a detailed trash and
27 recycling enclosure design including truck access and circulation, compactor and dumpster locations, in a
28 manner substantially compliant with the Planning and Zoning Board approval, and in accordance with the
29 adopted engineering standards and trash and recycling standards in Section 3.2.5 of the Land Use Code,
30 and the second condition being that the applicant should provide, no later than final plan approval,
31 materials, samples, and colors to ensure compliance with Section 3.10.5(c) of the Land Use Code. This
32 approval and the conditions are based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented
33 during the worksession and in this hearing, and the Board discussion on this item with the following
34 findings: that the PDP complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements as stated in the staff
35 report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. The information, analysis,
36 findings of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this
37 hearing are adopted by this Board.
38 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: We have a first, do we have a second?
21
1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I’ll second it, but can I add a friendly amendment too, and I
2 don’t know exactly how we’ll word it, but…
3 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Go ahead and try.
4 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay. I’ve really liked your idea that, because that trash
5 enclosure is so visible…is there something that we can add that maybe gives us a little heightened design?
6 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Yeah, I was wondering about that as I was thinking about this.
7 And I think the language in the proposed condition…it’s kind of implying that it goes with the discussion
8 that we had.
9 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: I think staff and the applicant team both understand what we’re looking
10 for.
11 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Understand the intent of that, yeah.
12 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: So, I don’t know if we need a friendly amendment…I think they’re in
13 agreement. Seeing some head nods out there, so…
14 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, leave it as is. I’ll just second it.
15 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: We have a first and a second. Any final comments? No? I guess I will
16 say that I’ll reluctantly support this. My concern is that I think you’re meeting the bare minimums as far
17 as amenities, parking, be it bicycle, be it the cars…not comfortable with all the reductions. I understand
18 that’s part of the Land Use Code, which we’ll have a conversation about probably in the near future. It is
19 a tough site, I don’t disagree with that, but this is one that I don’t feel has gone above and beyond to try
20 and capture some of the things that we’re looking for in the TOD. I know you’re meeting all the
21 requirements, but it’s just not, to me, one of those projects that feels like it’s…it’s just meeting the bare
22 minimums. And I respect and understand why and what have you, so I will support it, but reluctantly
23 support it, so…with that, roll call please.
24 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: I’d like to add a similar comment that…it’s meeting the standards
25 that we’re supposed to meet this by, but it feels like it’s meeting it minimally. The one exception might
26 be the attention that’s paid to the top of the building, which I think is appropriate, because it’s going to be
27 like a second layer, you know, as you’re going along College, which is a major travel corridor, you know.
28 I think that’s one place where this building excels. Other than that, the project is barely squeaking by.
29 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. Roll call please.
30 MS. GERBER: Hansen?
31 BOARDMEMBER HANSEN: Yes.
32 MS. GERBER: Rollins?
33 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Yes.
34 MS. GERBER: Whitley?
22
1 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Yes.
2 MS. GERBER: Carpenter?
3 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
4 MS. GERBER: Schneider?
5 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Yes. Okay, so with that, that project is approved.
ATTACHMENT 8
Staff Powerpoint presentation
to Council
February 27, 2018
1
Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board
Decision to Approve Johnson Drive
Apartments Project Development Plan
February 27, 2018
Project Overview
2
• 5-story mixed-use building;
• 192 units of rent-by-the-bedroom
student housing; 412 bedrooms;
• 2.5 acre site;
• 261 off-street parking spaces are
proposed within a parking garage;
• General Commercial Zoning (C-G)
and the Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Overlay Zone
Assertions of Appeal
3
I. Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board
considered evidence relevant to its findings which
was substantially false or grossly misleading.
II. Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Land Use Code.
4
Allegation Regarding
False or Misleading Evidence
I. Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board considered
evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or
grossly misleading.
The appellants state: “Illustration did not adequately represent building
and obstruction of viewscape from park; these will be provided”
Staff Response:
Staff presented an analysis of views from Creekside Park
Views from the Park
5
Views to the foothills and Horsetooth
Rock from Creekside Park are not
obscured by the proposed building
Views from the Park
6
Views to the foothills
and Horsetooth
Rock from
Creekside Park are
obscured by the
MAX wall.
7
Allegation Regarding
False or Misleading Evidence
“Illustration did not adequately represent building and obstruction of viewscape
from park; these will be provided”
• Staff Comments: Additional view impacts were not observed by staff due to:
o MAX wall and existing buildings shown in photographs;
o project’s location south of Creekside Park and;
o separation provided by Johnson Drive.
• No additional building or site design recommendations were made by staff
or the Board to address views from the park.
Assertions of Appeal
8
II. DISCUSSION: ASSERTION THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING
BOARD FAILED TO PROPERLY INTERPRET AND APPLY RELEVANT
PROVISIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE
The Appellants raise five issues in the Notice of Appeal:
A. The two Conditions of Approval represent a “departure of legislative intent of
the development review process.”
B. “The PDP is not in compliance with the requirements of the General
Commercial Zone. General Commercial is required to have infrastructure to
allow pedestrian access. The PDP failed to provide a pedestrian/bicycle
pathway to the commercial areas to the south, even though such a pathway is
completely within the realm of possibility.”
Assertions of Appeal
9
C. “The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly apply Section
3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code.”
D. “The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly apply Section
3.10.5(F)(3) of the Land Use Code.”
E. “The ‘mitigation strategies’ claimed in this PDP to effect a reduction in
the number of parking spaces are inherently unenforceable and
inconsistent with the Land Use Code.”
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
10
The Appellants’ first allegation:
“departure of legislative intent of the development review process” regarding the two
Conditions approved by the Board in conjunction with the PDP.
The Appellants state: “It is axiomatic that the PDP did not meet all of the standards of
the LUC if conditions must be imposed to bring the design into compliance at some
later date and time. This is precisely the sort of issue that an attorney paid to advise staff
and the P&Z should identify as a clear deficiency in the process. The LUC requires that
the decision maker find that the PDP meets all of the development standards. Not
almost all. An approval with conditions that certain standards that were not met by
the applicant be complied with by some sort of soon-to-be-forthcoming design
modification is a defacto recognition and finding that the application did not meet
the standards. Period. It could not get more idiotic than this.”
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
11
The appellants further state that:
“In particular as it applies to this matter, the P&Z failed to properly apply
Section 2.4.2 (H), which states ‘Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A project
development plan shall comply with all General Development Standards
applicable to the development proposal (Article 3) and the applicable
District Standards (Article 4)”
Appeal – Land Use Code Provisions
12
Staff Response:
Conditions of Approval, either recommended by staff or provided by the Planning
and Zoning Board, are permitted by the Land Use Code:
LUC Section 2.2.5 - Step 5: Staff Report
The Staff Report shall indicate whether, in the opinion of the Staff, the
development application complies with all applicable standards of this Code.
Conditions for approval may also be recommended to eliminate any
areas of noncompliance or mitigate any adverse effects of the
development proposal.
the…
CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Alright, thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Board about this
item tonight? This will be your only chance to address the Board or ask questions about the project.
Ma'am, go ahead and come down please.
MS. KATHERINE PIERCE: Hello, my name is Katherine Pierce; I’m the owner…one of the
owners of 2008/2010 Spring Court, which will be the last duplex on that road. And we are concerned
about our tenants and where the staging is going to take place for the construction. So, if you could tell us
that.
CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Board about this item?
Okay, seeing none, I’m going to go ahead and close the public participation portion of this hearing and
we’ll turn it back to the applicant and staff to address the questions that were raised during the public
comments.
MR. HOLLAND: I could go first with a few of the questions. I’d like to get the applicant and
their traffic consultant to talk about the connectivity and ped…get their thoughts on that, and maybe I can
follow-up and provide a little bit of follow-up information after that. But, I’m just looking here through
the questions. I think the main thing here, you know…we can discuss the ped access to the south and
connectivity that Mr. Sutherland brought up. Certainly understand the concerns with growth…really all
that staff can do is evaluate these projects based on the Land Use Code. Understand the concern with
development adjacent to the park…it certainly helps, I think, in this case, to have, you know, some street
separation there with Johnson Drive to separate the development from the park. That does provide some
natural buffer area there. And, there is some recognition that this is a transit overlay district and that it is
an identified redevelopment area of town, and it is indeed anticipated that there could be some
redevelopment…you’ve got a TOD project that is adjacent to the Spring Creek Trail, and adjacent to the
42 MAX, and adjacent to a park, and they are meeting the Code requirements.
meeting all tree stocking requirements and landscape requirements with the project.
TOD parking…we’ve had a lot of questions. I just want to provide a little bit of background on
this. We’ve gotten a number of letters about parking ratios in the TOD zone. Just wanted to provide a
little bit of background here for folks that might be watching. You know, this was looked at in 2007, as
you all know. It was originally adopted in 2007…excuse me. And at that time, there were not minimum
standards in the TOD zone for parking. You know, the intent is to provide higher density to support the
investment that we’ve made in the TOD zone. With the 2014 update, these were some of the concerns
that we saw at that time: lack of development-provided parking in relation to the demand, the potential for
parking spillover, the need for parking structures to accommodate the density, and for developments to
make investments in parking structures. And then, of course, the community has provided feedback that
while the whole area is walkable and transit-oriented, that there is still going to be a need for car storage.
So, those are some of the things that we addressed with the 2014 update. And at that time, minimum
parking ratios were established, and there was an extensive study that was conducted with that and
adopted along with the standards. And, at that time, a lot of research about best practices in other
communities was conducted. There was extensive outreach with that process, and that’s when the new
minimum parking ratios were reviewed and adopted.
So, the goal is to provide the right amount of parking, and we’re looking at that very closely.
We’re also looking at, as we go along, analyzing the use of the parking structures associated with all the
developments. So, some of the things that were done here, again…we’ve tailored the best practices and
the research from peer cities to meet the needs of Fort Collins. Too much parking, certainly, can
encourage vehicle use…that was part of the parking study…and can add to overall congestion within the
City’s network. But, we also want to recognize that too little parking can contribute to spillover parking.
TOD updated standards, so, minimum parking was adopted. And, again, we continue to monitor
42 that as additional projects come online with parking garages. So, along with that, we did adopt…and here
CORRUGATED METAL
PANEL CLADDING
SYSTEM
CORRUGATED METAL
PANEL CLADDING
SYSTEM
CRANK
PERIMETER WINDOW
TRIM
PERIMETER WINDOW
SEALANT, TAPE AND LAP
WITH BUILDING PAPER PER
WINDOW MANUFACTURER.
PERIMETER WINDOW
SEALANT, TAPE AND LAP
WITH BUILDING PAPER PER
WINDOW MANUFACTURER.
SIDING + PANEL
MANUFACTURER
APPROVED
TERMINATION
FLASHING
HEAD
SILL
JAMB
THE WINDOW UNIT SHALL BE TAPED AND
FLASHED ACCORDING TO THE SELECTED
WINDOW MANUF. INSTRUCTIONS
BLDG. WEATHER
BARRIER OVER WALL
SHEATHING OVER
FLASHING
MASONRY VENEER
(BRICK OR STONE -
SEE ELVATIONS)
MORTAR NET
MTL. FLASHING
& WEEPS
STEEL LINTEL PAINT
PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION
WEATHERPROOF
SEALANT/BACKER
WINDOW UNIT
WINDOW UNIT
WEATHERPROOF
SEALANT/BACKER
STONE SILL-SLOPED
FOR DRAINAGE
MASONRY VENEER
(BRICK OR STONE -
SEE ELVATIONS)
WINDOW UNIT
WEATHERPROOF
SEALANT/BACKER
MASONRY VENEER
(BRICK OR STONE -
SEE ELVATIONS)
BUILDING WEATHER
BARRIER OVER WALL
SHEATHING
5
8" GWB
BATT INSULATION
2X6 WD FRAMING
SEALANT ENTIRE
PERIMETER
CULTURED MARBLE SILL IN
PURE WHITE COLOR
EXTEND EDGE PAST
DRYWALL 3
4"
5
8" GWB
2X6 WD FRAMING
BATT INSULATION
5
8" GWB
SEALANT
SILL BEYOND
SEALANT
5
8" GWB
5
8" OSB SPACER
5
8" GWB
2X WD FRAMING
HEADER W/12" O.S.B.
SPACER - SEE
STRUCTURAL
SHEETS FOR HEADER
SIZES
STONE LINTEL
MTL. FLASHING
WINDOW AT CORRUGATED METAL SIDING WINDOW AT BRICK
3"
3"
3"
3"
3"
3"
TYPICAL MATERIAL DETAILS
PAINTED STEEL
HANDRAILS
DARK UTILITY
SIZED BRICK WITH
STANDARD
TRADITIONAL GRAY
MORTAR COLOR TO
INSURE BRICK
COLOR STANDS OUT
ALUMINUM WINDOW UNITS - SLIGHTLY
RECESSED TO GIVE RELIEF AND
SHADOW LINE TO EACH WINDOW
CORRUGATED METAL "S" WAVE SIDING
WITH EXPOSED FASTENER SYSTEM -
GIVES CHARACTER AND SHADOW LINES
TO BUILDING FACADE - DURABLE AND
LONG LASTING PAINT WARRANTY
POWDER COATED PAINTED STEEL
BALCONY RAILS, POSTS, AND SUPPORT
CHANNELS- ALL WITH S.S BOLTED
CONNECTIONS PROVIDING LONG LASTING
DURABLE MAINTENANCE FREE FINISHES
PRECAST CONCRETE BALCONY SLABS
WILL BE SET ON STEEL SUPPORTS -
WELDED IN PLACE. SLAB IS MADE WITH
SLOPE AND DRIP AT EDGE FOR GOOD
DRAINAGE
CORNICE DETAILS MADE FROM
COMBINATION OF FLAT 16 GAUGE
POWDER COATED STEEL SHEET
MATERIALS AND FIBER CEMENT TRIM
BOARDS - (NO PAINTED WOOD OR VINYL)
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING
SYSTEM USED ON ALL PODIUM LEVEL
AREA FOR CONSISTENT LOOK - FRAMES
WILL BE RECESSED TO GIVE RELIEF AND
SHADOW LINE TO EACH OPENING
LIGHT UTILITY SIZED BRICK
FIBER CEMENT BOARD TRIM
DETAIL BUILT OUT TO BREAK
BETWEEN BRICK AND
UPPER CORRUGATED METAL
MATERIALS
DESIGN CONCEPT:
TO EMULATE, AND BRING SOME OF THE OLD
DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS CHARACTER AND FEEL TO
THIS LOCATION USING BRICK, BRICK DETAILS, COLORS,
METALWORK THROUGH CORNICE DETAILS, CANOPIES,
TIE-RODS, AND OLDER LOOKING BOLTED
CONNECTIONS, CHANNELS, LINTELS SEEN IN FORT
COLLINS 1800'S AND 1900'S DOWNTOWN BUILDINGS.
METAL SUN SHADE DEVICE/
CANOPIES OF PERIMETER
CHANNEL AND SLATTED AND
SOLID METAL INFILL WITH 1"
DIAMETER TIE RODS BACK TO
BUILDING FACADE TO GIVE
CHARACTER/ VISUAL INTEREST
AND PEDESTRIAN SCALE
BRICK SOILDER COURSES
WILL BE PLACED AT
LOCATIONS WITHIN BRICK TO
GIVE INTEREST TO BRICK
FACADE
Architecture
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 1, JOHNSON DRIVE APARTMENTS, APPLICANT PRESENTATION (SUBMITTED AT HEARING)
Applicant Presentation to P&Z
MATERIAL OF
GATE WILL BE
METAL TO
MATCH
BUILDING
FACADE
GRADE LINE
PARAPET 3
PARAPET 2
PARAPET 1 PARAPET 2
PARAPET 2
PARAPET 1
BRICK,
LIGHT
BRICK,
LIGHT
BRICK, DARK
BRICK,
DARK
ALUMINUM
WINDOW, TYP.
LOFT WINDOW
BUILDING
STEPS BACK 10'
CORRUGATED
CORRUGATED METAL, DARK
METAL, LIGHT
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
BUILDING
STEPS BACK 8'
BUILDING
STEPS BACK 6' BUILDING
STEPS BACK 6'
STEEL BALCONIES WITH
CONCRETE SLAB FLOOR
CORNICE DETAIL AND ROOF ABOVE, TYP.
AT PARAPET 2
HEIGHT, TYP.
BRICK, LIGHT
GRADE LINE
ALUMINUM
WINDOW, TYP.
PAINTED
CONCRETE
BUILDING
STEPS BACK 6'
COURTYARD
WITH RAILING
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
PARAPET 2
PARAPET 2
PARAPET 2
ALUMINUM
WINDOW, TYP.
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
COURTYARD
WITH RAILING
(ANGLED)
PARAPET 1 PARAPET 2 CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK PARAPET 1
ALUMINUM
WINDOW, TYP.
PAINTED
GREEN SCREEN, CONCRETE
TYPICAL. SEE
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
DRAWINGS
BRICK,
LIGHT
BRICK,
DARK
West Elevation
East Elevation
Architecture
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 1, JOHNSON DRIVE APARTMENTS, APPLICANT PRESENTATION (SUBMITTED AT HEARING)
Applicant Presentation to P&Z
BRICK
SOLDIER
COURSE -
DARK, TYP.
PARAPET 1
PARAPET 2
PARAPET 1
PARAPET 3
PARAPET 1
PARAPET 2
PARAPET 1
PARAPET 3
PARAPET 1
BUILDING STEPS
BACK 30'
BUILDING STEPS
BACK 8'
BUILDING STEPS
BACK 7'
COURTYARD
WITH RAILING
THREE
PRIVATE
TERRACES
CORNICE DETAIL
TYPICAL AT ALL
DARK BRICK
SECTIONS
CORNICE DETAIL
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
BRICK, DARK
BUILDING STEPS BRICK, DARK
BACK 7'
STEEL BALCONIES WITH
CONCRETE SLAB FLOOR
AND ROOF ABOVE, TYP.
CORNICE
DETAIL AT
PARAPET 2
HEIGHT, TYP.
PARAPET 3
CORNICE
DETAIL
TYPICAL AT
ALL DARK
BRICK
SECTIONS
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
COURTYARD
WITH RAILING
PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS
PATHWAY
GRADE LINE
BRICK, LIGHT
ALUMINUM
WINDOW, TYP.
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
PARAPET 1 PARAPET 1 PARAPET 1 PARAPET 1
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
CORRUGATED
METAL,
DARK
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
BRICK, DARK
PAINTED
CONCRETE
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
ALUMINUM
WINDOW, TYP.
(ANGLED)
PARAPET 2 PARAPET 2
PARAPET 1
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
CORRUGATED
METAL, DARK
BRICK, LIGHT
CORNICE
DETAIL
BRICK, DARK
GRADE LINE GREEN SCREEN,
TYPICAL. REFER
TO LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
DRAWINGS
PARAPET 2
BRICK, LIGHT
CORRUGATED
METAL, LIGHT
PAINTED
CONCRETE
GREEN SCREEN,
TYPICAL. REFER
TO LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
DRAWINGS
South Elevation
North Elevation
Architecture
ITEM 5, EXHIBIT 1, JOHNSON DRIVE APARTMENTS, APPLICANT PRESENTATION (SUBMITTED AT HEARING)
Applicant Presentation to P&Z