HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/2021 - Planning And Zoning Board - Supplemental Documents - Regular MeetingGolden • Steamboat Springs • Loveland • Colorado Springs
Corporate Office: 112 North Rubey Drive, Suite 210; Golden, Colorado 80403
March 11, 2021
Sent via email to Alyssa Stephens, MA, Neighborhood Development Liaison
Planning and Zoning Board Members
City of Fort Collins
8101 Ralston Road
Arvada, CO 80002
Subject: Guardian Self Storage, PDP190020
Dear Board Members:
I am writing this letter on behalf of Bruce Odette, President of Carpet Exchange. Mr. Odette’s company
owns the shopping center north of and abutting the proposed Guardian Self Storage. His company also
owns and operates the Carpet Exchange location at 5000 S. College Avenue within that shopping center.
Mr. Odette opposes the proposed project due to a number of impacts to his property. However, beyond his
property, he is also concerned about the development of the South College Corridor and wants to ensure
that it continues to develop in conformance with the plans and codes of Fort Collins. He asked me to review
the relevant documents and the findings of City staff and provide an objective analysis of the request. In
summary, I found that the proposed mini-storage use does not conform to the South College Corridor Plan
and is a prohibited use in the Fort Collins Land Use Code. For those reasons, we respectfully ask the Board
to deny the proposed Guardian Self Storage Project Development Plan.
South College Corridor Plan
In their report, Staff quotes four policies from the South College Corridor Plan that they deem relevant to
the application. All four policies included by staff are concerned with standards of development related to
the character, orientation, and architecture of the building; strategies to reduce the impact of parking; and
pedestrian access. What is missing is the much more fundamental question of land use – which the plan
does directly address.
On page 38 of the South College Corridor Plan, Policy LU 1.4 states:
Minimize Low Activity Uses. Uses that detract from the overall vitality of the Corridor,
including used car lots, outdoor storage, and storage unit uses, are to be located away from
the South College frontage.
That policy is meant for the entire corridor, but this property actually should have three strikes against it for
the proposed use. Strike one, it directly fronts College Avenue – violating Policy LU 1.4. Strike two, it’s
located on the corner of a major signalized intersection where active uses should be prioritized. And strike
three, it’s within the TOD Overlay where active uses should also be prioritized. In short, it’s absolutely the
last place you would want to locate a storage use according to the plan. While storage may be greatly
needed in the area, it is simply not a transit-supportive use.
Based on the analysis in the staff report, it appears that staff no longer supports some of the policies in the
South College Avenue Plan. But if the plan and policies are due to be revisited, then the proper way to
address that is to go through the process to amend the plan – and engage the stakeholders who have been
ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Page| 2
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
March 11, 2021
relying on it since 2009. Until you are able to do that, you should continue to follow the policies in the plan.
What you should absolutely not do is chip away at the foundation of the plan by approving development
that directly contradicts it.
Fort Collins Land Use Code
Fort Collins, like all municipalities, strives to ensure that its Land Use Code is written to implement the
planning policies found in City Plan and the various subarea plans like the South College Corridor Plan. It
doesn’t always happen that way, but it’s at least what we are all striving for as planners. Well, in the case of
Policy LU 1.4, the Land Use Code is very much aligned with the plan. It does exactly what you would want it
to do.
The applicable section of code is 3.10 – Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) Overlay Zone. In 3.10.2(A), it states the following under the heading of Permitted Uses:
Ground-floor enclosed mini-storage shall be prohibited. Enclosed mini-storage shall be
allowed either below grade or on upper levels of a building.
It’s important to note that under the Purpose of that section (3.10.1(B)), it states:
…in the event of a conflict between the provisions contained in this Division and the
provisions contain in Article 4, this Division shall control.
As you know, Article 4 includes the table of permitted uses for each zoning district. There is no ambiguity
that the prohibition of ground-floor enclosed mini-storage in 3.10 is a land use prohibition that is meant to
modify and clarify the land use tables in Article 4 wherever mini-storage appears within the TOD Overlay
Zone. As a land use prohibition, it simply should not be eligible for an exception request. The only way you
should be able to seek relief from a prohibited land use is to amend the Land Use Code.
Staff mentioned in the Board’s work session that they do intend to propose a code amendment at some
point in the future. When you debate that amendment, I hope you will continue to implement the South
College Corridor Plan and only allow mini-storage away from the College Avenue frontage. But most
importantly, the use should not be allowed on the College Avenue frontage within the TOD Overlay or at the
corner of a major intersection. The vitality of the corridor depends on it.
Additional Staff Findings
In addition to staff’s finding concerning conformance with the South College Corridor Plan and staff’s
interpretation that a land use prohibition is eligible for an exception, there are several other findings with
which I respectfully disagree.
1.Staff points to the fact that the subject property is at the far south end of the TOD Overlay Zone to
support deviating from the land use policies and prohibition of mini-storage. This is simply not
relevant. The area is served by the South Transit Center. This property is closer to the transit center
than properties at the intersection of Harmony Road and College Avenue. The investment in transit
has been made – and that investment deserves to be supported by active land uses.
2.Staff points to a lack of active street front on this portion of College Avenue as a reason to approve
an even less active use on a major corner. The implementation of plans is a long-term proposition.
The plan will never be achieved if land use decisions are compared only to the current conditions.
3.Staff states that the proposed building reflects an enhanced level of architectural design. Perhaps
that’s true in comparison to other storage buildings. There might even be a case for it in
ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 1
Page| 3
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
March 11, 2021
comparison to most of the buildings in the area. But neither of those should be the benchmark. It
should be compared to the architectural design that would be achieved by a more active,
conforming use. And it should be compared to what Fort Collins is striving for in terms of
architectural design.
4.Staff points to the completion of Snead Drive and the provision of sidewalks as a benefit of the
project. While those are benefits, they are not unique to this project. Any development of this
corner will be required to provide those same benefits.
5.Staff states that including a ground floor active use, with storage above and below, is a hardship for
this location. In reality, it’s a hardship for any location because mixed-use mini-storage projects are
quite rare. That rarity really suggests that the prohibition of enclosed mini-storage on the ground
floor is essentially a full prohibition of enclosed mini-storage within the TOD Overlay. It should not
be seen by staff as a hardship to overcome if they can just take care of the pesky ground floor
problem. Instead, they should be encouraging developers to find sites outside of the TOD Overlay
for enclosed mini-storage.
6.Staff states that enclosed mini-storage is similar to a parking structure. While there are some
similarities, the purpose they serve in a mixed-use and TOD environment are completely different
because of what is stored in each. A parking structure is an important part of a mixed-use and TOD
area because it facilitates activity. It provides efficient storage for cars that each represents one or
more people that are either on foot in the immediate area or taking transit to another active area.
Enclosed mini-storage is for people’s extra stuff and has no benefit whatsoever to a mixed-use or
TOD area.
7.Staff states that the downtown parking structure does not meet 3.10.2(A) in the Land Use Code.
But that standard only applies to enclosed mini-storage, not to parking structures.
In consideration of the issues I have raised, I respectfully ask the Board to deny the proposed Guardian Self-
Storage Project Development Plan. Thank you for everything you do for Fort Collins.
Sincerely,
Ben Thurston, AICP
Planning Director
Baseline Corporation
c: Bruce L. Odette, President, Carpet Exchange
Jon T. Bradley, Attorney, Bradley Devitt Haas & Watkins, P.C.
ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 1
From:Pete Wray
To:Alyssa Stephens; Rebecca Everette
Subject:FW: Public Hearing on Self Storage
Date:Friday, March 5, 2021 9:55:35 AM
Alyssa her is another comment to be included for the record. What folder are these being available?
Thanks, Pete
From: Jamie Alexander <alexajam@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 6:28 PM
To: Pete Wray <PWRAY@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Hearing on Self Storage
To Whom it May Concern,
I live in the subdivision directly behind the proposed storage unit. The neighborhood is
Fossil Creek Meadows and is an older neighborhood in Fort Collins. I realize someone owns
the property and it was bought to be developed. However, we would like something to
complement our neighborhood and not distract from it. I am concerned about the height of
the buildings backing up to individual homes and also the color of the buildings. I have heard
they will be very commercial looking with bright blue trim. I do not want this area to look like
a continuation of the strip mall south of us. I am hoping you will also require landscaping and
trees planted. Several/many large cottonwoods were removed to develop this property, any
time a large tree is removed it changes the character of the area surrounding it. Bright colors,
no trees or landscaping and large/tall buildings do not really fit the character of a residential
neighborhood. I am hoping you will take these comments to heart and require this developer
to use colors consistent with a neighborhood, landscape and plant as many trees as were
removed or more (since they were very large) and to hold down the height of the building in
deference to the homes that will back up to it.
The low income housing across the street from us is an example of poor architecture and
color use. Many people comment negatively on the lime green and yellow building that was
allowed to be built on South College. Please do not allow this trend to continue with a garish
use of color/architecture on this building. It is up to you as a Board to guide the developer to
be a good neighbor.
Thank you for your time,
Jamie Alexander/ Fossil Creek Meadows
ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 2
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Alyssa Stephens
Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 12:05 PM
To:Katharine Claypool
I have received a voicemail from Jamie Alexander opposing the project, in particular because of the bright colors and the
height of the building. She requested that the project not be approved unless they are required to use more muted
colors.
Alyssa Stephens MA
Neighborhood Development Liaison
City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services
Submit a public comment| Track Development Proposals
ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 3
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Alyssa Stephens
Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 12:10 PM
To:Katharine Claypool
I received a voicemail from Sandra Holt expressing opposition to the Guardian project because of the large size of the
building and issues with drainage. She did not want a building of such a large size in the middle of her
neighborhood. She expressed concern that the developers would not be using a French drain, and worried about the
potential for flooding on surrounding properties.
Alyssa Stephens MA
Neighborhood Development Liaison
City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services
Submit a public comment| Track Development Proposals
ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 4
ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 5
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Katharine Claypool
Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 1:28 PM
To:Katharine Claypool
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Guardian Storage Building--hearing tonight
Categories:P&Z
From: K Rose <esorke@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 12:36 PM
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>
Cc: Paul S. Sizemore <psizemore@fcgov.com>; Ross Cunniff <rcunniff@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Guardian Storage Building‐‐hearing tonight
To the Planning & Zoning Commission:
Jeff Hansen, Ted Shepard, Per Hogestad, Jeff Schneider, William Whitley, Michelle Haefele,
David Katz
I and other homeowners in the Fossil Creek Meadows neighborhood adjoining this proposed building object to it for the
following reasons:
1.It has evolved WITHOUT A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING into a FOUR story building. The public meeting
claimed it would be a 2 story near the homes with a 3 story closest to College Ave. They are now proposing a
FOUR story building.
2.The empty lot has been built up at least 10 feet higher than originally ‐‐‐‐increasing the height of the entire
build. The developer verbally claimed he would remove all the build‐up. I don’t see any written requirement for
that to happen.
3.The original plans showed a building of a different and more compatible color ‐‐‐NOT the Bronco blue and
orange now planned.
4.Development of this property will remove all‐season long natural spring and willow/tree habitat for wildlife that
has existed for over 50 years.
5.A realtor/appraiser has said each of the homes adjacent to this development will devalue by at least
$10,000. No compensation has been mentioned.
6.The current HOA Board signed an easement agreement and sold it to the City to provide a pipeline to drain
water (from the land and the spring) for the developer. The HOA attorney at the time questioned the Board’s
right to do so without HOA member agreement. The Board ignored their attorney (due to cost they
claimed). Other HOA members are considering a legal challenge as our Covenants state “The right of the
Association to dedicate or transfer all or part of the common area to any public agency, authority, or utility for
such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to by the Members, provided that no such
dedication or transfer shall be effective unless approved in writing by the Members entitled to vote two‐
thirds(2/3) of the votes….and unless written notice of the proposed agreement and action is sent to every
Member at least thirty (30) days in advance of any action taken…….
ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 6
2
This plan is not ready to move forward!
Sincerely,
Karen Rose
Fossil Creek Meadows homeowner & HOA member
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
ITEM 4, CORRESPONDENCE 6
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Katharine Claypool
Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 6:55 PM
To:Katharine Claypool
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Concerns about the proposed Guardian storage facility next to Fossil Creek
Meadows subdivision
Categories:P&Z
From: jaspenced@aol.com <jaspenced@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 4:58 PM
To: Sharlene Manno <smanno@fcgov.com>; esorke@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Concerns about the proposed Guardian storage facility next to Fossil Creek Meadows subdivision
3/11/21
We live at 5212 Greenway Drive, Fort Collins, CO. 80525, in the fossil creek meadows subdivision
We have the following concerns about the the proposed storage facility:
1. The proposed height of 4 stories exceeds the height of any other commercial property in the vicinity, where nothing
appears to exceed 2 stories.
2. The proposed colors ( Bronco blue and orange ) clash with the earth tone of all other commercial buildings in the
vicinity and cheapens the appearance of the area, potentially affecting property values of our subdivision.
The height should be reduced and the colors should be restored to earth tones.
Glenn and Janet Drasner
glenndrasner@aol.com
1
Katharine Claypool
From:Development Review Comments
Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:58 PM
To:Sharlene Manno; Katharine Claypool
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Apex-Haven apartment PDP210002
Attachments:Picture A.JPG; picture B.JPG
Categories:P&Z
Hi there,
Below is a comment for Apex‐Haven tomorrow night. Mr. Swanstrom has requested that the photos be available to
show on screen during his comment.
I’ll be passing along all other comments I have received this afternoon.
Thanks!
Alyssa Stephens MA
Neighborhood Development Liaison
City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Services
Submit a public comment| Track Development Proposals
From: Jim Swanstrom <j.swanstrom@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:54 PM
To: Development Review Comments <devreviewcomments@fcgov.com>; Pete Wray <PWRAY@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Apex‐Haven apartment PDP210002
Hello Ms Stephens
I would like this email and the attachments to be handed out to the board. I will be wanting to
address the board Thursday evening please have these pictures available while I am speaking
Hello, my name is Jim I have been the owner of 638 W Prospect for going on 25 years and one
of my sons will be the future owner. I point this out because I am not interested in
selling. Maybe my children or grandchildren will be. It is an unusual “L” shaped lot. The lot
wraps behind 640 and 714 to have a common property line with the Apex Haven property.
ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 1
2
As stated in the last meeting I was against the rezone of this area into High density, but
understand it is in place. I understand the proposed massive apartment buildings have finally
come into code compliance by moving the building back the required 25 feet. But doesn’t the
25 feet mean the whole new structure including the roof overhang? It looks like the 25 feet is
currently to the building wall. Also, since the current fence is well over 25 years old and
current Colorado law would imply that the existing fence of that age is the property line. I
have been maintaining and caring for the ground on my side of the fence for all the time I have
owned the property.
I also am concerned about the very mature trees existing on my property and 714 that are
right up against the property lines. For some reason these trees do not seem to appear on the
Tree protection plan on file I saw. (Picture A and B please). Why wouldn’t it be required to
note such trees so they can be property planed and cared for? These trees are reaching over
the property line maybe 20 feet so I assume there roots are doing the same. I have no issue
with an arborist properly trimming and cleaning the trees but am very concerned with possible
damage or complete death. I would request that provisions be added that no work can take
place within the drip line of these trees and no change in the grade. Furthermore, if said trees
should die within three years of the completion of this project the owner of the new
development at that time be completely responsible for the remove of the dead trees and
stumps.
I would also like to see a masonry fence between my property and this project.
I would also like to strongly disagree with a quote contributed to me in the project Narrative
item 7 second paragraph! In that meeting there was a claim that bushes and trees on my
property and others owners property provided sufficient screening proposed new project and
the single family house to the east. While I totally disagree with that motion. My statement
was it was wrong for this development to not be providing their own screening as I intended
to remove all the brush and trees on my property and this was done before the last zoning
meeting.
I never said “all of the boundary trees that were shown had been removed” while at that
meeting!! I said they could be removed as they are on someone else’s property. I really
question why this very bad quote was made!!! There was even a proposal to plant new tree
on my property at that meeting. Use your own property! That is the purpose of the twenty
five foot set back!
ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 1
3
Thank you
Jim Swanstrom
ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 1
ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 1, ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 5, CORRESPONDENCE 1, ATTACHMENT 2