Loading...
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