The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018CV01 - Sutherland V. City Of Fort Collins, Et Al - 022J - Agenda Item Part 7Bar-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