HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV01 - SUTHERLAND V. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, ET AL - 022B - AGENDA ITEM PART 1Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 27, 2018
City Council
STAFF
Jason Holland, City Planner
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Decision Regarding Johnson Drive Apartments
Project Development Plan PDP 170034.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision to approve
Johnson Drive Apartments Project Development Plan. On February 1, 2018, an appeal was filed challenging
the Planning and Zoning Board Decision made at the January 18, 2018 hearing.
COUNCIL APPEAL HEARING PROCEDURE
Appeals to City Council are governed by Fort Collins Municipal Code (City Code) Chapter 2, Article II,
Division 3, Sections 2-46 through 2-55.
A decision by the Planning & Zoning Board, Building Review Board, Fire Board of Appeals, Landmark
Preservation Commission, or other City decision-maker described in Section 2.2.12 of the Land Use Code
(“Decision-maker”) may be appealed to City Council.
I. Parties-in- Interest – Only parties-in-interest may participate in the appeal. The Code defines “party-
in-interest” to include:
A. The applicant;
B. Any party with a proprietary or possessory interest in the land that is the subject of the application;
C. Any person to whom or organization to which the City mailed notice of the hearing on the matter
being appealed;
D. Any person or organization that provided written comments prior to or at the hearing on the matter
being appealed; and
E. Any person or organization that appeared before the Decision-maker at the hearing on the matter
being appealed.
II. Grounds for Appeal – A Decision-maker’s final decision may be appealed to City Council on the
following grounds:
A. Fair Hearing Issues: A final decision may be appealed on the basis that a fair hearing was not
conducted because the Decision-maker:
1. Exceeded its authority or jurisdiction;
2. Substantially ignored its previously established rules or procedure;
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 2
3. Considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly
misleading;
4. Improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant; or
5. Was biased against the appellant by reason of a conflict of interest or other close business,
personal, or social relationship that interfered with the Decision-maker’s independence of
judgment.
B. Interpretation & Application of the Code: A decision may also be appealed on the basis that the
Decision-maker failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
III. Procedure at Hearing – The City Code provides that Council’s hearing on the appeal is based on the
record of the evidence considered for the decision being appealed. The Council hearing will proceed
in the following order:
A. City Staff: explanation of nature of the appeal and presentation.
B. Councilmembers: comments regarding observations or questions from any site visit.
C. Mayor: establishes limits on time and scope for presentation of argument on the merits of the
appeal and consideration of procedural issues; may include setting of a separate time for Council
to consider and determine (by majority vote) procedural issues related to the hearing, including:
1. Introduction or exclusion of certain evidence;
2. Allocation of time for presentation of arguments; and
3. Concerns or objections related to the record on appeal, including new evidence.
D. Presentation of Argument: by Appellant and any party-in-interest supporting the appeal.
E. Presentation of Argument: by any party-in-interest opposing the appeal.
F. Rebuttal: by Appellant and party-in-interest supporting the appeal.
G. Rebuttal: by any party-in-interest opposing the appeal.
H. Councilmembers: questions of City staff and parties-in-interest.
I. Close public hearing.
J. Councilmembers: motion, discussion and vote; Council may uphold, overturn, or modify the
decision (including addition of conditions).
IV. Final Action by Council – City Council is required to adopt a resolution setting forth findings of fact
and its final decision no later than its next regular meeting after the hearing of the appeal. The date on
which such a resolution is adopted by Council is the date of final action for purposes of seeking
subsequent judicial review of the Council decision.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Johnson Drive Apartments Project Development Plan proposes a five-story mixed-use building at the
southwest corner of Johnson Drive and Spring Court. The project includes a total of dwelling 192 units and 412
bedrooms. A total of 265 off-street parking spaces are proposed within a parking garage located within the first
two levels of the building.
The site includes a total of 2.5 acres and is within the General Commercial (C-G) Zone District and the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone.
ASSERTIONS OF APPEAL
The Appellants are asserting the following grounds for appeal:
I. Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 3
substantially false or grossly misleading.
II. Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
I. DISCUSSION: ASSERTION OF FAILURE TO CONDUCT A FAIR HEARING
The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly
misleading.
The Appellants allege:
“Illustration did not adequately represent building and obstruction of viewscape from park; these will be
provided”
Staff Response:
• On page 12 of the Staff Report, staff explains that views to the foothills and Horsetooth Rock from
Creekside Park are not obscured by the proposed building.
• Photographs of views from Creekside Park are provided on slides 34 and 35 of the staff presentation.
Staff provided feedback on page 8, lines 33 through 42 of the verbatim transcript, that some existing
buildings on the west side of MAX are already obscuring views to the foothills, and this is along the
same view corridor that the Johnson Drive Apartments proposed building is placed. Additionally, staff
did not see that there would be additional view impacts with the development, because the project is
located south of the park and not directly west of the park. Staff also explained that the MAX retaining
wall starts to obscure the views of the foothills towards the middle and western portion of Creekside
Park.
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.”
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.”
Evidence Pertinent to the Assertion the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and
apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code:
A. The Appellants’ first issue states that two Conditions of Approval represent a “departure of
legislative intent of the development review process.”
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 4
The Appellants state: “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 de facto recognition and finding that the application did not meet the standards. Period. It could not
get more idiotic than this.”
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); and.”
Staff Response:
• Conditions of Approval, either recommended by staff or provided by the Planning and Zoning Board,
are permitted by the Land Use Code.
• The Appellants are correct that Step 8 (Standards) is applicable to the PDP. However, Division 2.2,
Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of the Land Use Code
describes 12 steps applicable to the development review process. Conditions of Approval are provided
in Division 2.2 in two key areas of the Land Use Code (underlined for emphasis):
LUC Section 2.2.5 - Step 5: Staff Report
Within a reasonable time after determining that a development application is sufficient, the
Director shall refer the development application to the appropriate review agencies, review the
development application, and prepare a Staff Report. The Staff Report shall be made available
for inspection and copying by the applicant and the public prior to the scheduled public hearing
on the development application. 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.
2.2.9 - Step 9: Conditions of Approval
The decision maker may impose such conditions on approval of the development application
as are necessary to accomplish the purposes and intent of this Code, or such conditions that
have a reasonable nexus to potential impacts of the proposed development, and that are
roughly proportional, both in nature and extent, to the impacts of the proposed development.
B. Allegations regarding compliance with Division 4.21 General Commercial District.
The Appellants state:
“The PDP is not in compliance with the requirements of the General Commercial Zone. The standards
for General Commercial, 4.21 of the LUC, has this to say: While some General Commercial District
areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City's
intent that the General Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many
forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians.”
The Appellants further state that:
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 5
“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.”
And:
“The failure to include a dedication of right of way as a condition of approval is an unacceptable failure
of the PDP to comply with the intent and specific standards of the LUC.”
Staff Response:
• The Appellants’ Land Use Code reference above is from Section 4.21(A) - Purpose of the General
Commercial zone district. A development’s transportation obligations are evaluated based on Land
Use Code Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements. On page 13 of the Staff
Report, staff provides the following comments:
Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service Requirements
A Traffic Impact Study was completed and reviewed for the project. Vehicular levels of
service are met, and no roadway or intersection improvements are needed. City Traffic
Operations will monitor whether any signal modifications are needed at College / Johnson
Drive.
Bicycle and Pedestrian levels of service were also evaluated. There is an interest in providing
a bicycle and pedestrian connection from the intersection of Spring Court and Arthur Drive
directly to the south to provide a more convenient route to both the MAX station and the
commercial shopping area; however, the existing steep incline and grade change surrounding
the Sherwood Lateral and off-site private property to the south of the Sherwood Lateral
currently prevent this applicant from constructing the connection. The City will continue to
pursue construction of a bicycle/pedestrian connection at this location when opportunities
arise.
• On page 14 of the hearing verbatim transcript, staff explained that Traffic Operations and
Transportation Planning staff concur that the PDP met the minimum Level of Service standards, and
that the pedestrian/bicycle pathway to the south would need to be provided by another means such as
a capital improvement project due to the scope of work needed to build the connection and the existing
physical constraints in the area.
• Regarding the Appellants’ issue that the PDP should have dedicated right-of-way for the trail
connection, the area where the future trail connection could be located is not within the boundaries of
the PDP and no right-of-way dedication could be contributed by the Johnson Drive PDP for the trail
connection. Should the trail connection be constructed as part of a public improvement, city staff
would obtain access from other property owners to the south to construct the connection.
• The Johnson Drive PDP does contribute right-of-way and required street improvements along Johnson
Drive and Spring Court in accordance with City Standards.
C. The Appellants allege that The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly apply Section
3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code.
Staff Response:
LUC Sections 3.4.1(I)(2) reads as follows:
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 6
3.4.1(I) -- Design and Aesthetics.
(2) Visual Character of Natural Features. Projects shall be designed to minimize the degradation of the
visual character of affected natural features within the site and to minimize the obstruction of scenic
views to and from the natural features within the site.
• The Appellants reference Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code and its past application to a
different nearby project - The Summit on College Parking Garage Major Amendment.
• The Appellant appears to suggest that Section 3.4.1(I)(2) applies to Spring Creek for the Johnson
Drive PDP, however, this standard only applies to the Sherwood Lateral at the southern boundary of
the Johnson Drive PDP, not to Spring Creek.
Summit Parking Garage Project, referenced by the Appellants:
• For the Summit Parking Garage, Section 3.4.1 - Natural Habitats and Features required buffer
protection for the Spring Creek Corridor that is adjacent to the north side of Creekside Park.
• Section 3.4.1(2) was applicable to the Spring Creek Corridor for the Summit Parking Garage because
the Spring Creek Corridor and associated buffer protection was within the site.
Johnson Drive Apartments PDP:
• For the Johnson Drive Apartments PDP, Section 3.4.1(I)(2) is applicable to the Sherwood Lateral
Ditch, which is a natural feature adjacent to and affected by the Johnson Drive PDP. Section 3.4.1(2)
does not apply to the Spring Creek Corridor for this PDP because this corridor is not within the site.
• As described in the Staff Report, the Sherwood Lateral Ditch is a highly degraded resource that staff
recommends be ecologically and visually enhanced as part of the Johnson Apartments PDP.
• Section 3.4.1(I)(2) Visual Character of Natural Features, requires that projects be designed to
minimize the degradation of the visual character of affected natural features within the site and to
minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural features within the site. There is no
degradation due to the buffer enhancements recommended along the Sherwood Lateral. Additionally,
there are no scenic views to or from the Sherwood Lateral that are not already obstructed by the
PDP’s existing buildings and the MAX wall to the west. To comply with Section 3.4.1(I)(2), no further
recommendations were made other than the enhancements to the Sherwood Lateral buffer that were
discussed in the Staff Report as follows:
Section 3.4.1 - Natural Habitats and Features [starting on Page 8 of the Staff report]
1) 3.4.1(D)(1) Ecological characterization study. An ecological characterization study
(ECS) was conducted in August 2017, with an emphasis on the Sherwood Lateral
ditch located to the south of the project. Existing vegetation along the ditch is
dominated by non-native and weedy species, as well as a narrow strip of wetlands
along the ditch banks. Urban-adapted songbirds and small mammal species use the
ditch as a movement corridor. A number of significant native and non-native trees are
present on the site and warrant protection or mitigation. The ECS confirmed that a
buffer zone narrower than the 50-foot standard would adequately protect the
ecological functions of the ditch as long as: (1) the buffer is enhanced with plantings of
native trees, shrubs and herbaceous species, (2) the ditch and wetlands are protected
from water quality impacts, and (3) the natural features are protected from nighttime
lighting.
2) 3.4.1(E) Establishment of buffer zones. An average buffer of 42 feet from the
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 7
Sherwood Lateral top of bank is provided, reduced from the standard buffer of 50 feet.
However, additional habitat enhancements in the proposed detention area would
result in more protected habitat area than a 50-foot buffer would require…Additionally,
the project has taken the following measures to satisfy the nine buffer zone
performance standards:
a. No disturbance of the wetlands or banks of the ditch.
b. Additional planting of trees, shrubs, and native seed mixes within the buffer
zone to enhance habitat and provide a visual buffer between the development
and the ditch.
c. A pedestrian path and gathering area to direct pedestrian use away from the
more sensitive areas of the buffer zone.
d. Preservation of six existing trees and planting of mitigation trees within the
buffer zone.
e. Minimized lighting and the use of motion sensor lighting adjacent to the buffer,
as required for pedestrian safety and security (See alternative compliance
discussion in Section 3.2.4).
D. The Appellants allege that The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly apply Section
3.10.5(F)(3) of the Land Use Code.
The Appellants state: “The P&Z failed to properly apply section 3.10.5(F)(3). This standard is
applicable to all is an important standard that is not complied with in this development.”
The standard states:
3.10.5(F)(3) - Development Standards for the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone
Character and Image, Building Height
(3) Buildings greater than two (2) stories in height shall also be designed so that upper
portions of the building are stepped back from the base. The adequacy of upper floor step-
backs shall be determined by the extent to which they advance the following objectives:
(a) providing pedestrian scale along sidewalks and outdoor spaces;
(b) enhancing compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings;
(c) preserving key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces; and
(d) preserving views.
Staff Response:
The standards in this section were discussed in conjunction with other related standards in Division 3.5
Building Standards and with the discussion of TOD standards in Section 3.10. Staff did not
recommend any additional measures to address 3.10.5(F)(3) as all four objectives are addressed in
other portions of the staff report, as follows:
(a) pedestrian scale along sidewalks and outdoor spaces;
o The project incorporates a linear plaza space adjacent to the building along Johnson Drive
and Spring Court that can accommodate outdoor tables and seating.
o The incorporation of transition space along the streets, with building setbacks along
Johnson Drive and Spring Court that accommodate new detached sidewalks, street trees
and foundation plantings in accordance with the standards. The extensive use of masonry,
storefront windows and street-facing entrance canopies at the street level contribute to the
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 8
attractive, appropriately scaled street environment.
o The use of brick, masonry block and textured metals provide a comfortable material scale
and contribute to an appropriate overall scale in relation to the site context;
(b) enhancing compatibility with the scale and massing of nearby buildings;
o Building step-backs, balconies and courtyards are provided at the 2nd building level
around the entire perimeter of the building. The courtyard spaces provide a significant
break in the building mass and are placed along each façade orientation to provide
substantial massing breaks that increase the visual quality of the massing design when
viewed from all directions towards the building;
o In compliance with the general standard (Section 3.5.3 - Mixed-Use, Institutional and
Commercial Building Standards), the building includes human-scaled elements,
architectural articulation places a high priority on building entries and their relationship to
Johnson Drive and Spring Court. Façade step-backs and open courtyard spaces are
utilized along all facades to help reduce the apparent bulk of the building and provide a
recognizable, contextually relatable building character. A significant portion of all building
facades incorporate masonry, particularly along the south and east portions of the building
where the building transitions to the public streets. Although the Land Use Code does not
mandate conformance to a particular building style, the building’s proposed massing,
materials and architectural elements provide and attractive appearance that contributes to
the high level of architectural quality expected in the mid-town area.
o 3.10.5(A) Articulation. The project complies with this standard by providing exterior
building walls that are subdivided and proportioned to a human scale using appropriate
storefront windows, entrance canopies, distinctive materials and roof overhangs in order to
add architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, massive wall with no
relation to human proportions.
o 3.10.5(C) Materials and Colors. The project complies with this standard by providing high
quality exterior building materials including brick, masonry block, metal panels, vertical
siding and stucco in a manner that highlights the articulation of the massing and the base
and top of the building. Appropriate earth-tone colors are used. The color scheme
provided emphasizes the masonry features of the façade and uses more subtle colors for
the upper stories help these upper stories recede and appear more subordinate.
o There are no unusual or significant privacy concerns given the context of the site. The site
is surrounded by public streets, the MAX Guideway retaining wall to the west and the
Sherwood lateral to the south, all of which provide a suitable transition and separation that
mitigate privacy concerns. The proposed building is set back from the north, east and
south property lines to accommodate shade trees that further enhance privacy and soften
views from adjacent properties.
(c) preserving key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces;
o Shadow study exhibits are provided and are attached with this staff report. Shadowing
impacts are minimal and are cast onto the Johnson Drive right-of-way as well as portions
of Creekside Park during portions of the day during winter months. No buildings are
adjacent to the property within the shadow area.
(d) preserving views.
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 9
o Views to the foothills and Horsetooth Rock from Creekside Park are not obscured by the
proposed building;
E. The Appellants allege that 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.
The Appellants state:
“The mitigation strategies claimed in this PDP to effect a reduction in the number of parking spaces are
inherently unenforceable and inconsistent with the framework of the Land Use Code. This Grounds for the
Appeal asserts that these provisions of the LUC are the equivalent of an unconstitutional law and must be
deemed a nullity when considering the sufficiency of the PDP.”
“It is unquestionable that no party including the city has any right or authority to enforce a condition, for
example, that all residents of the proposed residential housing project be provided with transit passes at any
given time in perpetuity. Consequently, allowing a reduction in the number of parking spaces required by the
applicant because of some sort of unenforceable and problematic ‘promise’ has been made simply
contravenes the legislative intent and operation of the LUC. Such a ‘mitigation’ strategy was imprudent in its
origins and is, unfortunately, characteristic of the lack of understanding that attends the Planning Department
as a whole.”
“As a consequence of the above discussion, both mitigation strategies proposed by the applicant must be
construed as nullities. The parking proposed is insufficient to meet the standards required in the TOD.”
In conjunction with this allegation, Appellants state:
“In this regard, transit passes cannot be shown to achieve the desired result. Car sharing probably can.
However, the enforcement of a car sharing plan must be something that can be verified at the time a CO is
issued. The City should look at securing easements within the parking facilities of any project that wishes to
reduce the number of otherwise required parking spaces. However, such an easement is not part of this PDP
and, consequently, Council has no other choice but to overrule P&Z.”
Staff Response:
• The applicant is utilizing the adopted parking standards in the Land Use Code. The PDP complies with
the off-street parking standards as noted on pages 4, 5 and 6 of the Staff Report. It is unclear from the
Appellants’ allegation how the project fails to comply with a specific code provision related to TOD
parking standards.
• The City has the authority to enforce all required elements of an approved project plan, including all
parking provisions such as a property owner’s requirement to provide transit passes to tenants who
may not have a transit pass, or the requirement to provide shared cars for the use of the residents.
This authority is provided in LUC Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) which states, “All demand mitigation strategies
shall be shown on the site plan and in the Development Agreement and shall be subject to audit for
the duration of the project.”
• Updated TOD parking standards were adopted in 2014. In the verbatim transcript, pages 7 and 8, staff
provides an overview of the adopted standards:
“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…the community has provided feedback that while
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 10
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 street network. But, we also want to recognize
that too little parking can contribute to spillover parking.”
• With regards to Appellants’ assertion that easements must be dedicated in relation to car sharing, LUC
Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) does not require the dedication of easements and the authority to enforce any
car sharing requirement is provided in LUC Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a).
SUMMARY
The Appellant asserts that the Planning and Zoning Board:
I. Failed 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.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Clerk's Notice of Hearing (PDF)
2. Notice of Appeal, filed February 1, 2018 (PDF)
3. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Board (PDF)
4. Material Provided to the Planning and Zoning Board before the hearing (PDF)
5. Applicant Presentation to the Planning and Zoning Board (PDF)
6. Citizen Presentation to the Planning and Zoning Board (PDF)
7. Verbatim Transcript (PDF)
8. Staff powerpoint presentation to City Council (PDF)
ATTACHMENT 1
City Clerk’s
Public Hearing Notice
ATTACHMENT 2
Notice of Appeal
- Notice of Appeal filed by Eric
Sutherland and Paul Patterson,
February 1, 2018
ATTACHMENT 3
Staff Report
(with attachments)
Provided to the Planning
and Zoning Board,
Hearing held January 18, 2018
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 1
STAFF REPORT January 18, 2018
Planning and Zoning Board
PROJECT NAME
JOHNSON DRIVE APARTMENTS, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PDP 170034
STAFF
Jason Holland, City Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to construct a five-
story mixed-use building at the southwest corner of Johnson Drive and
Spring Court. The project proposes a total of 192 units of student
oriented housing and 1,000 square feet of general commercial space.
This includes 44 one-bedroom units, 104 two-bedroom units, 16 three
bedroom units, and 28 four-bedroom units, for a total of 412 bedrooms.
A total of 265 off-street parking spaces are proposed within a parking
garage located within the first two levels of the building. Amenity and
commercial space is provided on the ground level of the building.
Outdoor amenity space is also provided within outdoor courtyards
located on the third floor above the parking garage.
The site includes a total of 2.5 acres and is within the General
Commercial (C-G) Zone District and the Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) Overlay Zone.
APPLICANT: Craig Russell
Russell + Mills Studios
506 S. College Ave, Suite A
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNER: Next Chapter Properties - Patrick Quinn
1939 Waukegan Rd, Suite 105
Glenview, IL 60025
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, with two conditions
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Johnson Drive Apartments Project Development Plan (PDP) complies with the applicable
requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically:
The PDP complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review
Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.21, General Commercial
District (C-G) of Article 4 – Districts.
The request to increase the occupancy limit complies with all applicable Land Use Code
criteria including Section 3.8.16(E)(2).
The PDP complies with all relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development
Standards, with two conditions of approval recommended.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North (P-O-L) Public Open Lands Creekside Park
South (C-G) General Commercial Existing Commercial Uses
East (C-G) General Commercial Existing Commercial Uses
West (E) Employment MAX Guideway; Colorado State University
Land Use History:
The site was annexed in 1957 as a part of the South College Avenue Consolidated Annexation.
The proposal includes the redevelopment of four properties. These include the Johnson Drive
Self-Storage business and three duplexes facing Spring Court.
2. Compliance with General Commercial (C-G) Standards:
The project complies with all applicable G-C standards with the following comments provided:
A. Section 4.21(A) – Purpose
The proposed multi-family development is consistent with the purpose of the General
Commercial District, which is described as follows:
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 3
The General Commercial District is intended to be a setting for development,
redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices
and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of
other uses including creative forms of housing.
While some General Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-
related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City's intent that the General Commercial
District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning
and design that accommodates pedestrians.
B. Section 4.21(B) – Permitted Uses
The proposed mixed-use project is permitted as a Type 2 use, subject to Planning and Zoning
Board Approval due to the residential component consisting of more than 50 dwelling units or
75 bedrooms.
C. Section 4.21(D) – Building Height
While this section limits the height of buildings to a maximum of 4 stories in the General
Commercial zone district, the project’s 5-story building height is in compliance with the Land
Use Code because additional stories are permitted in the General Commercial zone district
when the development is within the boundaries of the Transit-Oriented Development (T.O.D.)
overlay zone.
Due to the inclusion of a mixed-use building with a parking structure, the project may include
a total of 6 stories (4 stories plus an additional two stories) as allowed by 3.10.5(F) as follows
from the Land Use Code (underlined for emphasis):
LUC 3.10.5(F) Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Overlay Zone) – Character and Image – Building Height
(1) All buildings shall be limited to the maximum height allowed in the underlying zone
district unless:
(a) The development is mixed-use and contains at least one-seventh (1/7) of its total
building square footage as either residential or office use, in which case the maximum
allowable height shall be the base height plus one (1) story; or
(b) The development is mixed-use and contains at least one-seventh (1/7) of its total
building square footage as residential use and at least ten (10) percent of the residential
units are either affordable housing units for rent or affordable housing units for sale as
defined in Article 5 or structured parking (underground, interior to the site or above
ground), in which case the maximum allowable height shall be the base height plus two
(2) stories; or
(c) the project is mixed-use and contains at least one-seventh (1/7) of its total building
square footage as residential use, and at least ten (10) percent of the residential units
are either affordable housing units for rent or affordable housing units for sale as
defined in Article 5, and the project contains structured parking (underground, interior
to the site or above ground), in which case the maximum height shall be the base height
plus three (3) stories.
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 4
D. Section 4.21(G) – Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development
(T.O.D.) Overlay Zone.
The project is located within the T.O.D. Overlay Zone and is subject to the requirements of
Division 3.10 of the L.U.C. Compliance with the remaining relevant provisions of this section
is discussed in subsequent pages of this staff report.
3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General Development Standards
The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards with the following
relevant comments provided:
A. Section – 3.2.1 Landscaping
1) The applicant has consulted with forestry staff to evaluate the existing trees on the site.
The project area contains 30 existing trees within the property. A total of 7 trees are
proposed to be preserved. Upsized mitigation trees are provided in compliance with the
requirements and are accommodated on-site with the proposed landscape plan.
2) Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) Full tree stocking. Canopy shade trees, evergreen trees and
ornamental trees are provided around the perimeter of the proposed residential
buildings in accordance with the minimum spacing standards of this section.
3) Section 3.2.1(D)(2) Street trees. Canopy shade trees are provided at approximately 40-
foot intervals along the project’s street frontages, in accordance with the standards of
this section.
4) Section 3.2.1(D)(3) Minimum Species Diversity. The project provides not more than
15% of any one tree species in compliance with this standard.
5) Section 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) Foundation Plantings. The project complies with this section by
providing building foundation wall landscape planting along all high-use and high-
visibility areas at least 5 feet in width along at least 50% of such walls. In particular,
foundation plantings have been augmented along the southern perimeter of the project
where the slope of the site creates a greater amount of building wall exposure.
B. Section 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking
In conformance with the Purpose, General Standard, and Development Standards described
in this section, the parking and circulation system provided with the project is adequately
designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians
and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas.
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 5
Minimum required off-street parking for the project is provided in accordance with the Land
Use Code. A total of 261 parking spaces are provided in accordance with the TOD standards
which require a minimum of 255 parking spaces. This includes 1 parking space that is provided
for the ground-level general office use per the minimum non-residential parking requirements.
Because the project is located in the TOD overlay zone, projects may reduce the required
minimum number of parking spaces by providing demand mitigation elements as shown in the
following table:
Demand Mitigation Strategy Reduction of
Parking
Requirement
1) Affordable Housing Dwelling Unit for Sale or for
Rent (equal to or less than 60% Area Median
Income)
50%
2) Transit Passes for each tenant 10%
3) Car Share 5 spaces per
1 car share
4) Within 1,000 feet walking distance of MAX Station.
(Walking distance shall mean an ADA-compliant,
contiguous improved walkway measured from the
most remote building entrance to the transit station
and contained within a public ROW or pedestrian
easement.)
10%
5) Bicycle & Pedestrian Level of Service A 10%
As noted in the applicant’s plans on the proposed land use table (Sheet LS101), the project
qualifies for two of the residential demand mitigation strategies listed, which include transit
passes for each tenant and the provision of six shared cars.
A summary of these parking calculations is provided below for the purpose of providing
information on the quantity of parking that is required, both with and without TOD demand
mitigation, in order to compare these allowances to the amount of parking proposed.
1) Residential:
412 beds x 0.75 spaces per bed
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 6
=309 parking spaces required without demand mitigation.
2) Commercial:
1,000 SF x 1 space per 1,000 SF = 1 space required
3) Residential demand mitigation deductions:
31 spaces mitigated with transit passes (10% total deduction permitted).
30 spaces mitigated with 6 shared cars provided by the development (5
spaces per car share deduction permitted).
Total mitigation permitted: 61 spaces
4) Total required residential vehicular parking with demand mitigation:
309 – 61 = 248 spaces, plus 6 car share spaces (254 spaces);
1 general office parking space;
255 spaces total required with TOD demand mitigation, 6 of which
accommodate shared vehicles
5) Parking Summary:
309 parking spaces required without demand mitigation
255 total spaces required with permitted demand mitigation
261 parking spaces provided (amounts to 4 additional spaces)
All of the parking is located within the building structure and includes handicap
parking spaces in accordance with the minimum requirement in Section
3.2.2(K)(5).
The project is also in compliance with the minimum required dimensions for off-
street parking areas, as outlined in Table A and B of Section 3.2.2(L).
105 of the 261 total parking spaces are compact spaces, which complies with
Section 3.2.2(L)(2) which limits the maximum number of compact spaces to not
more than 40%.
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 7
6) Bicycle Parking Provided:
Bicycle parking is provided in accordance with the minimum requirements. One
space is required per bedroom, for a total of 412 bicycle spaces.
A total of 416 bicycle parking spaces are provided.
168 of these spaces are conveniently located at the west end of Johnson
Drive outside of the building and adjacent to the Spring Creek Trail
access, satisfying the fixed/uncovered bicycle parking requirements.
248 spaces are located on the first and second level of the parking
garage, satisfying the enclosed/covered bicycle parking requirements.
No bicycle parking is proposed within the dwelling units to satisfy the
minimum land use code requirements for this project.
B. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting
A photometric plan was submitted for the project. As proposed, the project complies with the
lighting design standards in Section 3.2.4, with alternative compliance. All walkway and exterior
building lighting is provided by down-directional and sharp cut-off fixtures.
Alternative compliance is requested to address lighting standards within the natural area buffer
zone provided along the Sherwood Lateral. The reason for requesting the alternative
compliance is to balance public safety and security while protecting natural features.
The alternative compliance addresses Section 3.2.4(D)(6) Site Lighting – Design Standards:
Unique areas or neighborhoods within the City may have additional design guidelines for
lighting as part of a neighborhood or area plan. The Community Planning and
Environmental Services Department can provide information regarding neighborhood or
area plans. Natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from
off-site sources.
As discussed in the applicant’s alternative compliance request, the buffer area along the
Sherwood Lateral is protected from light spillage through the installation of 4 motion sensor
activated building mounted light fixtures to be installed along the south portion of the proposed
building illuminating the pathway.
The pathway is required as a secondary means of egress and as a performance standard
within the land use code section 3.4.1(E)(1)(H) – Natural Habitat and Features. The applicant
contends that the proposed plan accomplishes the purpose of this requirement equally well or
better in the following ways, and staff recommends approval of the alternative lighting plan
based on the following justification:
1) The proposed lighting plan utilizes motion sensor lighting along the pathway to
illuminate only when motion is detected by users passing within the motion range.
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 8
A safety light will be above the door to provide security and a destination point for
ingress and egress of the proposed building.
2) The proposed lighting plan illuminates the proposed pathway meeting the land use
code 3.2.4 (C) Residential areas of .5 fc.
3) The proposed lighting plan allows for the protection of the health, safety and welfare
of the public while balancing the light spillage to be minimal within the natural area.
4) The proposed lighting plan creates a condition that achieves both protection of the
health, safety and welfare of the public while also protecting the natural area from
constant light spillage.
5) For all the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests an alternative compliance
of the standard in LUC Section 3.2.4(D)(6) to allow light from off-site sources to spill
into the natural area. The Applicant proposes that the alternative compliance is not
detrimental to the public good, and promotes the purposes of the standard equal to
or better than a plan that could comply with the lighting requirement.
C. Section 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosures
In accordance with the requirements of this section, the project provides sufficient trash and
recycling space in accordance with the standards of this section. It is anticipated the trash and
recycling enclosure plans will be further refined with the final plan submittal.
D. Section 3.3.1 – Plat Standards
The lot’s orientation provides direct access to the adjacent public streets. The layout of street
improvements, driveway locations, utilities, drainage facilities, and other services are designed
in accordance with the City’s engineering standards. The plat demonstrates proper dedication
of public rights-of-way, drainage easements and utility easements that are needed to serve the
area being developed.
E. Section 3.4.1 – Natural Habitats and Features
1) 3.4.1(D)(1) Ecological characterization study. An ecological characterization study
(ECS) was conducted in August 2017, with an emphasis on the Sherwood Lateral ditch
located to the south of the project. Existing vegetation along the ditch is dominated by
non-native and weedy species, as well as a narrow strip of wetlands along the ditch
banks. Urban-adapted songbirds and small mammal species use the ditch as a
movement corridor. A number of significant native and non-native trees are present on
the site and warrant protection or mitigation. The ECS confirmed that a buffer zone
narrower than the 50-foot standard would adequately protect the ecological functions
of the ditch as long as: (1) the buffer is enhanced with plantings of native trees, shrubs
and herbaceous species, (2) the ditch and wetlands are protected from water quality
impacts, and (3) the natural features are protected from nighttime lighting.
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 9
2) 3.4.1(E) Establishment of buffer zones. An average buffer of 42 feet from the Sherwood
Lateral top of bank is provided, reduced from the standard buffer of 50 feet. However,
additional habitat enhancements in the proposed detention area would result in more
protected habitat area than a 50-foot buffer would require.
Standard
Buffer
Proposed Buffer +
Enhanced Detention
Difference
Buffer Distance 50 ft 42 ft (avg) - 8 ft
Total Area 19,933 sf 21,542 + 1,609 sf
Additionally, the project has taken the following measures to satisfy the nine buffer zone
performance standards:
a. No disturbance of the wetlands or banks of the ditch.
b. Additional planting of trees, shrubs, and native seed mixes within the buffer
zone to enhance habitat and provide a visual buffer between the development
and the ditch.
c. A pedestrian path and gathering area to direct pedestrian use away from the
more sensitive areas of the buffer zone.
d. Preservation of six existing trees and planting of mitigation trees within the
buffer zone.
e. Minimized lighting and the use of motion sensor lighting adjacent to the buffer,
as required for pedestrian safety and security (See alternative compliance
discussion in Section 3.2.4).
F. Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources
Due to the age of the four existing residential buildings on the site, the proposed demolition
was reviewed under the City’s Demolition/Alteration review process (Municipal Code Section
14 72). This process determines a building or structure’s eligibility to qualify for recognition as
a Fort Collins Landmark, and if any of the buildings or structures are found to be individually
eligible for Landmark designation they would then be reviewed for compliance with LUC
Section 3.4.7. This review was completed with a finding that the features of the four buildings
do not elevate the style of the buildings to a level of historic significance. Because of this, no
further review is required to demolish the buildings and the historic preservation standards
contained in LUC 3.4.7 are not applicable.
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 10
G. Section 3.5.1(G)(1) – Building Height Review and Special Height Review.
The purpose of this Section is to establish a special process to review buildings or structures
that exceed forty (40) feet in height. Its intent is to encourage creativity and diversity of
architecture and site design within a context of harmonious neighborhood planning and
coherent environmental design, to protect access to sunlight, to preserve desirable views and
to define and reinforce downtown and designated activity centers. All buildings or structures in
excess of forty (40) feet in height shall be subject to special review pursuant to this subsection
(G).
(a) Review Standards. If any building or structure is proposed to be greater than forty (40) feet
in height above grade, the building or structure must meet the following special review criteria:
1. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be
designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and
artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not
limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of
solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night,
contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and
shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to
reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a
structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building mass or redesigning a building
shape.
2. Privacy. Development plans with buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height
shall be designed to address privacy impacts on adjacent property by providing landscaping,
fencing, open space, window size, window height and window placement, orientation of
balconies, and orientation of buildings away from adjacent residential development, or other
effective techniques.
3. Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be
compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative
height, height to mass, length to mass and building or structure scale to human scale.
(b) Submittal Requirements. All development plans proposing building or structure heights in
excess of forty (40) feet shall, at a minimum, include the following information:
1. a shadow analysis that indicates, on the project development site plan, the location of all
shadows cast by the building or structure (with associated dates of the year);
2. a summary of the key conclusions of the shadow analysis, and steps to be taken to comply
with the review standards set forth above.
Staff analysis:
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 11
Shadowing:
With buildings taller than 40 feet, further review is required based on the criteria described
above. The criteria require that buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall
be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and
artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not
limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of
solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night,
contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and
shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to
reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a
structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building mass or redesigning a building
shape.
Shadow study exhibits are provided and are attached with this staff report. Shadowing
impacts are minimal and are cast onto the Johnson Drive right-of-way as well as
portions of Creekside Park during portions of the day during winter months. No
buildings are adjacent to the property within the shadow area.
The effects of shadowing are limited to the winter months and should not affect adjacent
landscaping in Creekside Park. The additional shadowing of Johnson Drive could
contribute to the accumulation of snow and ice along the street corridor. This may
require that increased measures be taken to clear snow and ice along the street and
sidewalk frontages during portions of the winter months. While this represents a change
in current conditions for the Johnson Drive street frontage, this change in shadowing is
not a unique street situation that would represent a substantial adverse impact.
Privacy:
There are no unusual or significant privacy concerns given the context of the site. The site is
surrounded by public streets, the MAX Guideway retaining wall to the west and the Sherwood
lateral to the south, all of which provide a suitable transition and separation that mitigate privacy
concerns. The proposed building is set back from the north, east and south property lines to
accommodate shade trees that further enhance privacy and soften views from adjacent
properties.
Neighborhood Scale:
The project provides appropriate design elements to address neighborhood scale within the
surrounding context. This is achieved through a combination of design elements:
Building step-backs, balconies and courtyards are provided at the 2nd building level
around the entire perimeter of the building. The courtyard spaces provide a significant
break in the building mass and are placed along each façade orientation to provide
substantial massing breaks that increase the visual quality of the massing design when
viewed from all directions towards the building;
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 12
In addition to the massing design, a base course of block masonry and two colors of
brick are incorporated into all prominent facades, including views form the MAX
corridor, further contributing to the quality of the building with no façade face treated as
an inferior view. The use of brick, masonry block and textured metals provide a
comfortable material scale and contribute to an appropriate overall scale in relation to
the site context;
Views to the foothills and Horsetooth Rock from Creekside Park are not obscured by
the proposed building;
The incorporation of transition space along the streets, with building setbacks along
Johnson Drive and Spring Court that accommodate new detached sidewalks, street
trees and foundation plantings in accordance with the standards. The extensive use of
masonry, storefront windows and street-facing entrance canopies at the street level
contribute to the attractive, appropriately scaled street environment.
H. Section 3.5.3 – Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Building Standards
1) 3.5.2(B) General Standard. The proposed building is in compliance with the general
standard of this section, which requires that mixed-use buildings shall provide
significant architectural interest and shall not have a single, large, dominant building
mass. The street level shall be designed to comport with a pedestrian scale in order to
establish attractive street fronts and walkways. Walkways shall be designed principally
for the purpose of accommodating pedestrians and pedestrian connections while
secondarily accommodating vehicular movement. Buildings shall be designed with
predominant materials, elements, features, color range and activity areas tailored
specifically to the site and its context.
2) In compliance with the general standard, the building includes human-scaled elements,
architectural articulation places a high priority on building entries and their relationship
to Johnson Drive and Spring Court. Façade step-backs and open courtyard spaces
are utilized along all facades to help reduce the apparent bulk of the building and
provide a recognizable, contextually relatable building character. A significant portion
of all building facades incorporate masonry, particularly along the south and east
portions of the building where the building transitions to the public streets. Although the
Land Use Code does not mandate conformance to a particular building style, the
building’s proposed massing, materials and architectural elements provide and
attractive appearance that contributes to the high level of architectural quality expected
in the mid-town area.
3) 3.5.3(C)(1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. The project complies with this
standard by providing direct connecting walkways along the south and east plaza
spaces, which are required to be at least 6 feet in width, connecting the building’s
primary entrances to the sidewalks on Johnson Drive as well as the Spring Creek Trail.
4) 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings. The building is
positioned along Johnson Drive and Spring Court not more than 15 feet from the right-
of-way in accordance with the “build-to” requirement of this section.
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 13
5) All building elevations provide a recognizable base and top treatment in accordance
with Section 3.5.3(D)(6).
6) The overall design satisfies the institutional building requirements of Section 3.5.3.
“Variation in massing” requirements are satisfied by breaking up the building mass into
a series of intersecting wall planes in a module format. Variations in massing,
juxtaposed materials and forms, and repeated patterns of recesses and projections
provide vertical and horizontal interest, breaking down the overall scale of the buildings.
7) Areas of wall plane where stories are expressed over large expanses receive a
substantial base plane treatment to provide vertical relief and human scale. Entrance
canopies, window treatments, balconies, courtyard placement and variations in
materials are used to further emphasize the base of the buildings and provide vertical
relief.
I. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements
A Traffic Impact Study was completed and reviewed for the project. Vehicular levels of service
are met, and no roadway or intersection improvements are needed. City Traffic Operations
will monitor whether any signal modifications are needed at College / Johnson Drive.
Bicycle and Pedestrian levels of service were also evaluated. There is an interest in providing
a bicycle and pedestrian connection from the intersection of Spring Court and Arthur Drive
directly to the south to provide a more convenient route to both the MAX station and the
commercial shopping area; however, the existing steep incline and grade change surrounding
the Sherwood Lateral and off-site private property to the south of the Sherwood Lateral
currently prevent this applicant from constructing the connection. The City will continue to
pursue construction of a bicycle/pedestrian connection at this location when opportunities
arise.
J. Section 3.8.16 – Occupancy Limits; Increasing the Number of Persons Allowed.
This requirement is triggered by the 4-bedroom units, of which there are 28 units.
This section limits the maximum occupancy allowed per dwelling unit in a single-family, two-
family or multi-family dwelling to either:
(1) one (1) family as defined in Section 5.1.2 and not more than one (1) additional
person; or
(2) two (2) adults and their dependents, if any, and not more than one (1) additional
person.
The above limitation requires that any units with more than 3 bedrooms address an increase
in occupancy based on the following code provision (underlined for emphasis):
Increasing the Occupancy Limit.
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 14
With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the type of
review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant and
upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Code have been satisfied, increase the
number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units.
The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied that the applicant
has provided sufficient additional amenities, either public or private, to sustain the
activities associated with multi-family residential development, to adequately serve the
occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. Such
amenities may include, without limitation, passive open space, buffer yards, on-site
management, recreational areas, plazas, courtyards, outdoor cafes, limited mixed-use
restaurants, parking areas, sidewalks, bikeways, bus shelters, shuttle services or other
facilities and services.
Staff Analysis:
The standards of this section are addressed through the design of the 4-bedroom units, the
provision of an on-site manager, the inclusion of on-site amenities including outdoor courtyard
spaces within the building envelope, street-level benches and seating, common amenity space
on the ground level within the building, and the provision of an outdoor seating area outside of
the building along the Sherwood lateral.
On-site Manager:
Given the scope of the development and the increase in occupancy, staff is recommending the
inclusion of an on-site manager as an appropriate, reasonable measure to adequately serve
the occupants and address the standards of this section. The on-site manager is recommended
to help address operational and neighborhood issues that may occur. The intent of the on-site
manager would be to proactively manage and address operational issues as an initial point of
contact for residents of the development, and to be promptly available as a designated, primary
point of contact to communicate with the residents, the public and City staff in order to help
resolve issues related to the development in a timely manner.
Dwelling unit design:
Because multi-family is broadly defined and could include 4-bedroom rental buildings in a
number of contexts, this code provision can be a significant project consideration. However, in
terms of added impacts relevant to this development, additional impacts of the units are more
limited.
The remaining impacts of the occupancy are addressed with the unit designs. Detailed unit
designs are attached with this staff report. Within the units, each occupant has an individual
private bedroom, full bath, study area and storage closet. Sufficient common area space is
also provided within the units. This unit layout provides sufficient private and shared amenity
space to serve the four occupants.
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 15
Other amenity Space:
All bedroom unit types (1, 2, 3, and 4), provide an appropriate amount of space within the units
for the occupants. The amount of amenity and private space provided with the 4-bedroom units
is not inferior, and there does not appear to be any difference in impact between the 4-bedroom
unit types and other unit types. An equivalent overall building occupancy could be
accommodated with a different mix of units, such as an increase in 2 and 3 bedroom units.
Because of these factors, staff is not recommending a need for additional common areas above
and beyond what is provided on the main level of the building and the outdoor courtyard
amenity space provided that is intended to address the increase in unit occupancy.
Conclusion:
Impacts of the occupancy are addressed appropriately through a combination of unit designs,
common amenity space on the ground level and within the outdoor courtyards and on-site
management. These measures are also sufficient to address 3.5.1(J) Operational/Physical
Compatibility Standards.
K. Section 3.10 Development Standards for the Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
Overlay Zone
These standards apply to all development in the TOD overlay south of Prospect Road.
3.10.3(C) Site Planning – Outdoor Spaces. To the extent reasonably feasible, buildings and
extensions of buildings shall be designed to form outdoor spaces such as courtyards, plazas,
arcades, terraces, balconies and decks for residents' and workers' use and interaction, and to
integrate the development with the adjacent physical context. To the extent reasonably
feasible, a continuous walkway system linking such outdoor spaces shall be developed, and
shall include coordinated linkages between separate developments.
3.10.4(A) Streetscape. Developments shall provide formal streetscape improvements which
shall include sidewalks having street trees in sidewalk cutouts with tree grates, planters or
other appropriate treatment for the protection of pedestrians, and shall provide seating and
pedestrian light fixtures. Specific design details shall be subject to approval by the City
Engineer in accordance with the design criteria for streets.
The project complies with these standards by providing improvements along
Johnson Drive and Spring Court including a detached sidewalk with street trees and
benches placed along the sidewalk frontage.
The project incorporates a linear plaza space adjacent to the building along
Johnson Drive and Spring Court that can accommodate outdoor tables and seating.
Additionally, courtyard and balcony space is provided at upper levels which help
integrate the development with the adjacent physical context and provide
opportunities for resident interaction in accordance with the standard.
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 16
3.10.4(D) Parking Structure Design. To the extent reasonably feasible, all parking structures
shall meet the following design criteria: (1) Where parking structures face streets, retail or other
nonresidential uses shall be required along at least fifty (50) percent of the ground level
frontage to minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity. The decision maker may
grant an exception to this standard for all or part of the ground level frontage on streets with
low pedestrian interest or activity. (2) Awnings, signage and architectural elements shall be
incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity at the street-facing level.
The project complies with this standard to the extent reasonable feasible by
providing amenity, office support space and 1,000 square feet of leasable general
office space on the ground floor of the building along both street frontages. The
space provided along the Spring Court frontage is 42% of the total building length,
and the space provided along the Johnson Drive frontage is 50% of the total building
length. As justification for an exception to the standard, the building’s ground floor
face is well proportioned and provides appropriate architectural elements at the
street level including awnings, brick masonry, and parapet details. Additionally, a
storefront window system is utilized along the entire street faces of the building,
including the frontage of the parking structure, in order to provide an attractive,
cohesive design that satisfies the intent of the standard.
The applicant contends that the project location does not have adequate visibility
from South College Avenue and that the street corridors are not sufficiently active
to be suitable for a significant amount of leasable non-residential uses, beyond the
1,000 square feet of general office space that is proposed on the ground level. Staff
recommends that an exception to the standard be granted because the proposed
parking structure is appropriately designed along the facing streets and the amenity,
management and general office uses along the parking structure frontage are an
acceptable exception to the standard. Given the context of the site, the project
satisfies the standard to the extent feasible by providing 1,000 square feet of
general office space as well as the remaining ground floor amenity and office
support uses that are provided for the residences.
3.10.5(A) Articulation. The project complies with this standard by providing exterior building
walls that are subdivided and proportioned to a human scale using appropriate storefront
windows, entrance canopies, distinctive materials and roof overhangs in order to add
architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, massive wall with no relation
to human proportions.
3.10.5(B) Rooflines. The project complies with this standard by providing a flat-roofed building
design at the 5th story with an appropriate cornice treatment on all walls facing or visible from
the adjacent streets.
3.10.5(C) Materials and Colors. The project complies with this standard by providing high
quality exterior building materials including brick, masonry block, metal panels, vertical siding
and stucco in a manner that highlights the articulation of the massing and the base and top of
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 17
the building. Appropriate earth-tone colors are used. The color scheme provided emphasizes
the masonry features of the façade and uses more subtle colors for the upper stories help
these upper stories recede and appear more subordinate.
4. Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 28, 2017 at Christ United Methodist Church. The meeting
notes are attached to this staff report.
Four key concerns were raised in the meeting:
1. Neighborhood parking impacts on nearby public streets;
2. Amount of parking provided for the project;
3. Views from the public park and from areas east of College.
Parking continues to be a concern in the area, and at least some of this issue stems from past concerns
related to the Summit student housing development (now called the State on Campus). The Summit
student housing project, located north of Creekside Park, had issues with parking because it was
originally intended to be supplemented by overnight parking permits in CSU parking lots that where
later not allowed by CSU parking policy. City Council adopted new on-site parking ratios for rent-by
the-bed developments in the TOD Overlay Zone in order to address the need for on-site parking for
projects in the TOD zone. The Johnson Drive Apartments proposal is meeting these adopted TOD
parking standards.
Parking on nearby public streets continues to be in high demand. Much of the nearby on-street parking
has been placed into RP3 parking zones, with some parking areas east of College restricted to 2-hour
parking, north of Spring Park Drive. Parking along Johnson Drive is currently unrestricted. The north
side of Johnson Drive will likely be restricted to 2 hours in order to provide parking opportunities for
Creekside Park. Spring Court is already included in a separate RP3 zone.
Due to the separation provided by Johnson Drive and the general location of the project, the view
corridor to the foothills and Horsetooth Mountain from Creekside Park is not obscured by the proposed
building. Some views are already obscured from Creekside Park by the existing CSU buildings west
of the MAX Guideway.
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
The Johnson Drive Apartments Project Development Plan (PDP) complies with the applicable
requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC):
A. The PDP complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development
Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
B. The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.21, General
Commercial District (C-G) of Article 4 – Districts.
Agenda Item #5
Item # 5 Page 18
C. The request to increase the occupancy limit complies with all applicable Land Use
Code criteria including Section 3.8.16(E)(2).
D. The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development
Standards, subject to two conditions of approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approve The Johnson Drive Apartments Project
Development Plan PDP170034 based on the findings of fact and two conditions of approval included
in this staff report, subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall provide, no later than Final Plan approval, a detailed trash and
recycling enclosure design, including truck access and circulation, compactor and/or
dumpster locations, in a manner substantially compliant with the Planning and Zoning
Board approval and in accordance with adopted Engineering Standards and Trash and
Recycling Standards in Section 3.2.5 of the Land Use Code.
2) The applicant shall provide, no later than Final Plan approval, material samples and
colors to ensure compliance with Section 3.10.5(C) of the Land Use Code.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map (PDF)
2. Applicant’s Planning Narrative/Objectives (PDF)
3. Applicant’s Request for Increase in Occupancy (PDF)
4. Site Plan and Details (PDF)
5. Building Plans, Shadow Analysis and Details (PDF)
6. Landscape Plans and Details (PDF)
7. Lighting Plans (PDF)
8. Alternative Compliance Request – Buffer Zone Lighting (PDF)
9. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (PDF)
10. Traffic Impact Study Memo (PDF)
11. Traffic Impact Study (PDF)
12. Traffic Impact Study Appendix (PDF)
13. Buffer Performance Standards (PDF)
14. Environmental Characterization Study (PDF)
15. Plat (PDF)
16. Utility Plans (PDF)
17. Public Comment (PDF)
Colorado State University
Trinity Lutheran Church Preschool
Spring Creek Country Day School
Spring Park
Creekside Park
Spring Creek
Spring Creek Park Pond
«¬287
Bay Rd
Parker St
Purdue Rd
Mathews St
Peterson St
Frontage Rd
Yale Way
Rutgers Ave
D
a
r
t
m
o
uth Trl
Y
a
l
e
A
v
e
Bay Dr
Vassar Ave
Johnson Dr
Alpert Ave
Loyola Ave
Spring Ct
Choice Center Dr
Person Ct
Arthur Dr
W Stuart St
Mathews St
Mathews St
Centre Ave
Mathews St
E Stuart St
Columbia Rd
Center Ave
Spring Park Dr
Remington St
S College Ave
W Prospect Rd
Remington St
255 Johnson Drive /
500 250 0 500 Feet
Site
Vicinity Map
ATTACHMENT 1 to
Staff Report to P&Z
Johnson Drive Apartments: Statement of Proposed Planning Objectives
255 Johnson Drive, Fort Collins, CO
August 30, 2017
This project shall be titled Johnson Drive Apartments - consisting of the following
components:
• Mixed-use development consisting of multi-family housing with ground floor
office/commercial/retail space.
• Garden and mezzanine level parking
This project is located within the GC District located within the TOD Overlay Zone.
Site Area Information
Parcel Size: 122,093 SF (2.80 AC)
Existing Parcel Designated as Public Right-of-Way Area: 17,555 SF (.40 AC)
Additional Public Right-of-Way Improvement Area: 787 SF (.02 AC)
Parking and Drive Area: 64,570 SF (1.48 AC)
Landscape Area/Open space: 34,737 SF (.80 AC)
Office Space: 3,934 SF
Dwelling Units: 192
Gross Density: 80 DU/AC
Net Density: 115 DU/AC
Project Description
Johnson Drive Self-Storage currently exists on the site as well as one single family
residence and three residential duplexes situated in the current Spring Court
Subdivision. All existing residences and Johnson Drive Self-Storage will be removed
from the proposed project site, and lots consolidated with the existing self-storage lot.
The project is located along the south side of Johnson Drive and East of Spring Court.
The project will be a mixed use development/retail space accommodating 192 units with
a total of 412 beds. Units range from 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms. Rent will be charged per
bed and primarily marketed to university students who will benefit from the close
proximity to CSU, Spring Creek Trail system, access to alternative transportation, and a
wide variety of commercial businesses.
Commercial buildings border the project to the east, with natural areas and Creekside
Park bordering the north and south, and the MAX transit line to the west. Tenant access
is provided along Spring Court, with the project facing portion of the street meeting a
modified version LCUASS local connector roadway width and Right-of-Way
requirements with a 6’ walk in place of the typical 4.5’ walk. Emergency access is being
improved per PFA recommendations by enlarging the turn-around/cul-de-sac at the west
Applicant's Planning Narrative/Objectives
ATTACHMENT 2 to
Staff Report to P&Z
side of Johnson Drive.
The project will utilize internal storm water chambers to capture, treat and store storm
water and discharge based on the release rate to the Historic 2-year rate of all the
pervious area plus the 100-year rate of the existing imperviousness area.
The project will provide natural area restoration per City of Fort Collins recommendations
to the south of the property within the habitat buffer area adjacent to the Sherwood
Lateral Ditch. Buffer widths along the ditch vary from 21’ to 75’ and alternative
compliance for the 50’ natural area buffer requirement utilizing the aforementioned
habitat enhancement approach.
Architectural Description
The proposed mixed-use building provides garden level and mezzanine level parking,
with four floors of multi-family apartment units wrapping all sides of the building in a
massing configuration that creates courtyards facing all sides of the building for visual
relief as well as resident amenities. Roughly three thousand nine hundred thirty-four
(3,934) square feet of office/ commercial/ retail space will occupy the front northeast
corner of the building. The building will provide a raised entry with steps, ramps and
retaining walls/planting beds along the north and east sides to raise the building above
the base flood elevation, and providing additional human scale along the highest
anticipated pedestrian traffic area.
Building façade materials emphasize brick at the ground floor with a variety of additional
materials including concrete and architectural metals to enhance the exterior and
provide variety along facades. Refer to the submitted elevations and massing sheets
provided in the PDP submittal for specific materials and scale.
The building is anticipated to be treated with high-rise fire code treatments including
three stairwells with access to roof tops and fully sprinklered with FDC locations to be
determined.
Adjacencies
The project site is currently a self-storage facility with one single family residence, and
three duplexes which are bordered by a duplex residence, and two commercial
properties to the east, with Sherwood Lateral ditch, MAX transit line and Creekside Park
on the south, west and north sides.
Access, Vehicular/Pedestrian Circulation and Parking
Primary pedestrian access is provided from Johnson Drive and the Spring Creek Trail.
Vehicular access to parking is provided with one access point from Spring Court. The
only vehicular access point is located off of Spring Court. Spring Court will be widened to
meet the LCUASS local connector roadway width and Right-of-Way requirements with a
Applicant's Planning Narrative/Objectives
ATTACHMENT 2 to
Staff Report to P&Z
6’ sidewalk as recommended by City of Fort Collins Staff.
• 414 bike parking spaces are provided, 288 covered spaces, and 126
uncovered spaces.
• A total of 309 parking spaces with 7 handicap accessible spaces required,
255 parking spaces are provided based on parking mitigation elements
allowable within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone.
o 10% reduction for Transit Passes for each tenant
o 10% reduction for Bike and Pedestrian Level of Service A
o Reduction of 5 spaces/1 car share, 6 car share cars available.
o Total reduction from mitigation, 75 spaces.
1. CITY PLAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES ACHIEVED BY THE PROPOSED PLAN
City Plan
ENV 1.1: Protect and Enhance Natural Features
A habitat buffer zone has been established by City of Fort Collins Environmental Planning department, the
project is installing all native plants to enhance the habitat corridor as well as other recommendations from
the Ecological Characterization Study.
LIV 4.1: Ensure Adequate Public Facilities
Access points, sidewalks and street trees/roadway landscaping within the project will be paid for by the
developer. Project is an infill within existing city area.
LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill
This site is within Figure LIV1, Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas of the City Plan and meet this policy.
LIV 5.4 – Contribute to Public Amenities
This site will provide pedestrian plaza space at the corner of Johnson Drive and Spring Court and will
contribute sidewalks, street trees and parkways along edges. Also enhancing the existing pedestrian
underpass for the Spring Creek Trail at Creekside Park
LIV 6.1 – Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas
In close proximity to CSU campus and the Mason Corridor this site will add commercial/retail amenities at
the ground floor, and additional needed residential living space for students and non-students.
LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods
Located in the GC district, the architectural design shall be in context of its surroundings with commercial
architectural forms and materials emphasized along Johnson Drive, massing and articulation along all sides
of the structure.
LIV 7.1– Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations
Multi-family attached housing will provide an additional housing type along the Spring Creek Trail Corridor,
and Mason Corridor in an otherwise commercial area.
LIV 7.2– Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing
Development helps to maintain an adequate supply of multiple-family housing near CSU campus.
LIV 7.7– Accommodate the Student Population
Applicant's Planning Narrative/Objectives
ATTACHMENT 2 to
Staff Report to P&Z
Located in proximity to CSU campus, Mason Corridor, and alternative transportation connections, the
project is accommodating the student population.
LIV 10.1 – Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets
Private drives and well lit walkways with low-water use planting are included within the development.
LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees
9 additional street trees will be added along the adjacent ROW.
LIV 14.1– Encourage Unique Landscape Features
The building will have rooftop courtyards with planting and vine screens will be installed.
LIV 14.2 – Promote Functional Landscape
All planting will be designed with native/adaptive plants, emphasizing foundation planting and buffer planting
from the right of way to the structure and the habitat buffer zone along the south property line.
LIV 14.3 – Design Low Maintenance Landscapes
Native and adaptive planting and a minimized turf area will allow a minimum of maintenance. Shrub beds
will be maintained without excessive pruning or ‘snow-balling’ of shrubs.
LIV 22.5 – Create Visually Interesting Streetscapes
With native landscape and street trees the streetscape on Johnson Drive and Spring Court the streetscape
will be visually interesting and will provide foundation planting, anchoring the building to the site.
LIV 23.1 – Provide Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces
With the preservation and enhancement of the natural area at the south boundary, a seating area and trail
connection to the building provides a passive outdoor space.
LIV 23.2 – Integrate Natural Features
An existing stand of trees are to be preserved at the southeast corner of the property.
LIV 26.3 – Promote Compatibility of Uses
The multi-family attached building provides compatibility with the adjacent commercial uses to the east
through building articulation, massing and varying material elements.
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED OPEN SPACE, WETLANDS, NATURAL
HABITATS AND FEATURES, LANDSCAPING, CIRCULATION, TRANSITION AREAS,
AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERING ON SITE AND IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE
PROJECT.
The site plan works to preserve existing Siberian Elm trees along the southeast property
boundary. The habitat buffer zone will be enhanced to meet the City of Fort Collins
requirements by utilizing native plant species, and City approved seed mixes along the
Sherwood Lateral Ditch. Other enhancements will be followed per recommendations
from the ECS report.
3. MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS
Applicant's Planning Narrative/Objectives
ATTACHMENT 2 to
Staff Report to P&Z
The property owner or property manager shall perform all maintenance on private
residential/commercial lots. In addition, the property manager shall maintain all
sidewalks and landscaped common areas, and any other non-private amenity and or
feature.
The City of Fort Collins shall only be responsible for typical ROW maintenance of
infrastructure and snow removal within the roadway.
Storm water infrastructure
Landscape maintenance and trash removal within storm water infrastructure including
detention areas, swales, culverts, inlets, etc. shall be the responsibility of the property
owner/manager. This maintenance shall include all required mowing, weeding, cleanout,
removal of trash and debris and other typical maintenance required in order to ensure
storm water infrastructure and features function according to their designed intent.
Landscape
All landscape maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner/manager.
Snow Removal
The property owner shall perform snow removal ROW for sidewalks, entrance drives
and parking lot.
Trash – The property owner or tenant for each lot shall perform all trash removal.
4. ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL, AND
INDUSTRIAL USES.
Commercial – Currently estimated at 5 employees FTE.
5. DESCRIPTION OF RATIONALE BEHIND THE ASSUMPTIONS AND CHOICES
MADE BY THE APPLICANT.
Several conversations with Engineering, Planning Staff and PFA staff have been held to
determine appropriate site entrance drives, building frontages and setbacks for the
mixed use development.
6. EVIDENCE OF COMPLETION FOR APPLICABLE CRITERIA.
Refer to Section 5 explanations.
7. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF HOW CONFLICTS BETWEEN LAND USES OR
DISTURBANCES TO WETLANDS, NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES AND OR
WILDLIFE ARE BEING AVOIDED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE OR ARE
MITIGATED.
Applicant's Planning Narrative/Objectives
ATTACHMENT 2 to
Staff Report to P&Z
The primary land use conflict is between the multi-family use on-site and the adjacent
natural habitat to the south. This is addressed through establishing a habitat buffer zone
with City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Environmental Planning Staff. In addition, the
development will enhance the existing habitat buffer with native plant material.
8. WRITTEN NARRATIVE ADDRESSING EACH CONCERN/ISSUE RAISED AT THE
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING(S), IF A MEETING HAS BEEN HELD.
The main concern voiced at the neighborhood meeting was traffic, and parking related
issues, which will be reviewed and resolved based on the traffic study recommendations.
A parking inventory on other comparable building types is being conducted this spring to
establish percent occupancy of the other structures. See attached exhibit A for more
information.
9. NAME OF THE PROJECT AS WELL AS ANY PREVIOUS NAME THE PROJECT
MAY HAVE HAD DURING CONCEPTUAL REVIEW.
This project shall be titled “Johnson Drive Apartments”. During Conceptual Review it was
titled “255 Johnson Drive”
10. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Summer 2018. Improvements on commercial lot will happen concurrently with residential
lot sale and improvement, as such development is contingent on sale of residential lot.
Applicant's Planning Narrative/Objectives
ATTACHMENT 2 to
Staff Report to P&Z
THE STATE
Total Beds Total Parking %Parking/
Bed
Occupied %Occupied Max
665 437 65% 337 77%
THE DISTRICT
Total Beds Total Parking %Parking/
Bed
Occupied %Occupied Max
650 467 72% 336 72%
Actual Parking Utilized = 51% of Bed Count
EXHIBIT A
Similar development closest to project site
Actual Parking Utilized = 52% of Bed Count
Applicant's Planning Narrative/Objectives
ATTACHMENT 2 to
Staff Report to P&Z
Similar developments with parking garages
EXHIBIT A
Applicant's Planning Narrative/Objectives
ATTACHMENT 2 to
Staff Report to P&Z
JOHNSON DRIVE APARTMENTS
Request for Increased Occupancy Limit
Johnson Drive Apartments is planned to be a student-oriented mixed-use project that
will include 192 dwelling units with 412 bedrooms, 2,934 square feet of supporting
office/retail space, and 1,000 square feet of general office space for lease. It is located
along the spring creek trail directly west of College Ave. and Johnson Drive, directly
south of Spring Park.
The residential component is planned to include a mix of 44 one-bedroom, 104
two-bedroom, 16 three-bedroom and 28 four-bedroom apartments.
The maximum occupancy allowed per multi-family dwelling unit is three unrelated
persons, unless the decision maker increases the number of individuals allowed to
reside together. Although a majority of the apartments (85%) are either one- two or
three-bedroom units that house less than three unrelated persons, the Applicant de-
sires to include a small percentage (15%) of higher occupancy four-bedroom units.
In order to provide the 35 four-bedroom units intended to be occupied by four (4)
unrelated persons, the Fort Collins Land Use Code requires the Applicant to provide a
written request as follows:
3.8.16 Occupancy Limits; Increasing the Number of Persons Allowed
(E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit.
(2) With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the
type of review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the
applicant and upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Land Use Code have
been satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individ-
ual dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied
that the applicant has provided sufficient additional amenities, either public or pri-
vate, to sustain the activities associated with multi-family residential development, to
adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent
neighborhood. Such amenities may include, without limitation, passive open space,
buffer yards, on- site management, recreational areas, plazas, courtyards, outdoor
cafes, limited mixed-use restaurants, parking areas, sidewalks, bikeways, bus shel-
ters, shuttle services or other facilities and services.
Justification
From its prior experience building student housing communities across the country,
the Applicant has found that four-bedroom units are a popular lifestyle alternative for
many students. It allows the students residing in these units to share an apartment in
a well managed environment. It is more secure than most single-family home rentals
and, because higher occupancy units typically rent for less per bedroom, they offer a
more affordable alternative to students on a budget. The tenants that are likely to oc-
cupy these units are also the ones likely to occupy single-family rental properties near
campus. By providing safe, efficient, high quality, and higher occupancy apartment
units, Johnson Drive Apartments will simultaneously help to relieve the burden on
surrounding neighborhoods by freeing up affordable single-family rental housing for
families, employees of CSU and the greater community. In support of its request to
allow 28 four-bedroom units in the Johnson Drive Apartments, the Applicant offers the
following list of project elements that sustain the activities associated with the project,
Applicant's Request for
Increase in Occupancy
ATTACHMENT 3 to
Staff report to P&Z
adequately serve its occupants and protect the adjacent neighborhood:
Open Space and Amenities
Site Location:
• The site is located in a commercial zone district also adjacent to an employment
zone district directly to the west. The nearest residential neighborhood is located
across College Ave., a major arterial street, and is somewhat inconvenient to ac-
cess from the site. The site’s location adjacent to Spring Creek Trail and the Mason
Trail allow residents to access campus and commercial/neighborhood centers
conveniently, safely and without travel through residential neighborhoods.
• The convenient access to multi-use trails which provide access to both CSU’s cam-
pus and nearby amenities without having to cross arterials and few local streets
encourage residents to walk or bike to these destinations. Day to day vehicle use
is unlikely by residents due to this and parking in nearby neighborhoods will likely
prove to be more hassle than it’s worth, making it likely that students with vehicles
will purchase parking passes.
Security:
• The facility provides 24-hour, on-site management services. This allows manage-
ment to address noise, maintenance issues, or safety concerns at any time of day.
Recreation:
• On-site recreational facilities at the facility will include: 23,000 square feet (approx.
1/2 acre) of rooftop amenity areas adjacent to each set of units with planters, ta-
bles and chairs, grills and games.
• On the ground floor, a fitness center and computer lab are provided, as well as
±1,000 square feet on the ground floor for the management/leasing office.
• Access to passive outdoor open space will be provided in a naturalized area to the
south of the facility, within the Natural Open Space Buffer Zone. This area will be
planted extensively with pollinator flowering trees and shrubs as well as perennials,
providing access to nature. A walkway with a small gathering area provides access.
Existing mature trees provide shade here and the area can be used for small group
gatherings, studying, or relaxing.
Pedestrian Spaces:
• The R.O.W. streetscapes along Johnson Drive and Spring Court provide a 6’ de-
tached walk with street trees, special paving, seat walls, planters, street furniture,
and bike parking.
Supporting Office/Retail:
• A small snack and coffee shop will also serve residents of the community located
near the corner of Johnson Drive and Spring Court on the ground floor.
General Office:
• A 1,000 square foot general office space will be for lease on the ground floor.
Contextual Amenities:
• Spring Park provides public open space immediately to the north of the facility on
Johnson Drive. This park primarily consists of lawn and shade trees with a picnic
shelter/shade structure. The park is ideal for pick-up sports and games as well as
relaxing and other passive uses.
Applicant's Request for
Increase in Occupancy
ATTACHMENT 3 to
Staff report to P&Z
• Spring Creek Trail can be accessed directly to the northwest of the facility through
a proposed pedestrian/bike connection. This trail can be used for recreation or
access to campus as it connects directly to the underpass at Prospect Rd. and Cen-
ter Ave. The trail also provides a direct connection to Mason Trail and MAX transit
stops, allowing residents to use the railroad overpass to access MAX to the south
or through a short walk to the north to a MAX transit stop near Prospect Rd.
• Residents are also within walking and biking distance of Gardens on Spring Creek,
Spring Creek Park and Rolland Moore Park along the Spring Creek Trail.
• Access to amenities and services is highly convenient as the project achieves the
acceptable level of service ratings for area considered as “Transit Corridors.” More
information can be found in the Memorandum from Delich Associates dated De-
cember 8, 2017.
Parking:
• Parking permits will be available to residents with vehicles and spaces will be
designated in the on-site parking structure. The proposed ratio will be more than
adequate to serve the needs of students that have cars with ample spaces left for
guest parking, the leasing office and the retail space.
• Six car share spaces are provided to augment parking and provide vehicle use for
students without cars.
• Four hundred and twelve (412) bicycle parking spaces are provided within the
parking structure and on site with a total of 247 enclosed and 165 fixed spaces.
Services:
• The proposed site is adequately served with standard public infrastructure includ-
ing water, wastewater, police and fire facilities. The existing street network has
adequate capacity to absorb the additional traffic within level of service standards,
with the addition of a left turn signal at Johnson Drive and College Ave. See the
Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Delich Associates.
• Commercial and neighborhood centers are located directly to the south of the
facility as well as directly north near the intersection of Prospect Rd. and College
Ave. The neighborhood center directly to the south provides access to two gro-
cery stores as well as other retail and restaurants. Both commercial centers can be
accessed via the Mason Trail or College Ave. in a convenient manner.
Sustainability:
• Locating higher-density housing for students where they can access the campus,
shopping and recreational opportunities without using an automobile is a key
component of being an environmentally responsible community. The facility will
house 412 students in a location where having a vehicle is not necessary to have
access to all necessary amenities. The units with increased occupancy are an essen-
tial component of the projects that allows higher density to work in this location.
Higher density housing protect adjacent neighborhoods by providing appropriate
housing for students in one location, discouraging them from living in single family
neighborhoods.
Applicant's Request for
Increase in Occupancy
ATTACHMENT 3 to
Staff report to P&Z