HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/18/1999The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Vice Chair Gavaldon.
Roll Call: Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Carpenter, and Torgerson. Members
Meyer and Colton were absent.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Shepard, Eckman, Olt, Schlueter, Stringer and
Macklin.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Blanchard reviewed the Consent
and Discussion Agendas:
1. Minutes of the May 6, July 1, September 16, and October
7, 1999 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings.
2. Resolution PZ99-12 Easement Vacation.
3. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval.
• Discussion Agenda:
4. #1-97A Timberline Church P.U.D. — Final.
S. The Greens at Collindale — Referred Minor Amendment
(Continued).
6. Maxi -Stuff Storage — Modification of Standard.
Member Bernth moved for approval of Consent Items 1, 2 and 3. Member
Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved -0.
Project: Timberline Church (formerly First Assembly of God),
Final P.U.D., #1-97A
Project Description: Request for a portion (Phase One and Phase Two) of
a multi -use church campus. Phase One consists of
114,350 square foot assembly hall/gymnasium with
offices and child care. The assembly hall/gymnasium
would contain 1,352 seats. Phase One also consists
of 5,000 square foot, four -bay bus barn. Phase Two
consists of 86,400 square feet primarily for a
sanctuary/auditorium which would contain 2,500
• seats. The site is zoned LMN and located on the east
side of Timberline Road, north of Pine Cone
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 1999
Page 2
Apartments and approximately one-half mile south of
Drake Road.
Recommendation: Approval with the Condition: "The four foot high berm
that buffers the western parking lot shall be enhanced
with additional evergreen trees, sufficient in number
so that at the time of maturity, the combination of
plant material shall form a solid screen as viewed
from Timberline Road. Such additional evergreen
trees shall be a minimum of eight to ten feet in height
at the time of planting."
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that this item
was continued from the October 215t Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. The
item was continued to discuss the parking and the parking distribution issue.
Planner Shepard reminded the Board that there was a condition of approval that
was part of the discussion last hearing. The Board discussion at one point was
to add a certain amount of trees to the berm along Timberline Road. Through
discussion it was determined to add 2 evergreen trees to the berm along
Timberline. He stated that the Board would have to take action on that item
tonight.
Planner Shepard reviewed the handouts that the Board received tonight and
stated that staff was still recommending approval of the project with the condition
that the 2 trees be added to the berm.
The applicant on the project gave a presentation.
Pastor Frank Estep responded to issues that have been brought up by the Board.
The issues of empty parking lots during the week. He gave examples of
other facilities throughout the city that have empty lots during certain
times. He felt that their church facility is used more than most church
facilities in the state.
The issue of parking lots being expensive. Pastor Estep agreed that
parking lots are expensive and they have resisted relocating as long as
they could, but it is now to the point of not only being inconvenient, but
also dangerous where they are now. He gave the Board
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 1999
Page 3
the estimates he received from several builders for the cost of building a
parking structure, approximately $10,567.00 per space.
3. The issue of parking alternatives. He stated that Rigden Farm has told
them it would be at least 5 years before they do anything commercially to
the north of the church. He also asked the Board to not consider putting
parking in the Meadows East Subdivision. He did not feel it was right to
turn a neighborhood into a parking lot.
4. The issue of questions regarding the formulas or ratios regarding used to
determine parking areas. They have provided those formulas and ratios
to the Board. Option A was what they would like considered because it
involves the Land Development Guidance System. Option A, parking
spaces to the main auditorium. They are suggesting the ratio of 2.8 with
1,452 seats which equals 518 spaces, they are asking for 516.
5. The issue of mitigation. He felt that they were not a traditional church,
they were creative, innovative and also very good at stewardship and
finance. They have committed themselves to maintain a minimum of three
•. services per weekend.
Gary Larson, President of the Larson Group and Architect on the project spoke
about parking on the project. Mr. Larson presented published information on
parking requirements for churches. Both publications recommended 1 space for
every 2.5 seats. Mr. Larson also noted that there is no bus service on Sundays.
Mr. Larson referred to a Chart (F) that was handed out to the Board tonight
which gives Church Attendance and Parking Comparisons of other churches of
similar sizes along the front range. Mr. Larson stated that they have seriously
considered the discussions that were carried out at the last hearing. They
appreciate the suggestion of a compromise, but they do not believe the
compromise is in order, and believe it is in the best interest of the community to
enforce the design guidelines which call for safety, efficiency and convenience
for parking. They are requesting that their 2.8 ratio be upheld for the purpose
that it is already a compromise. To go to any higher ratio would reduce safety
immensely and the LDGS standards for 1 to 5 is a minimum not a maximum.
They have one of the highest landscaping requirements placed upon a church of
this type and they have adhered to every request that the city staff has asked of
them.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 1999
Page 4
Gary Northrup, Senior Pastor spoke about the safety of the 600 kids a weekend
that are walking through the parking lot under sixth grade. There are hundreds of
senior citizens in their community and he felt that adequate parking should be
provided.
Public Input
Gene Little, member of the church gave examples in the community of facilities
that do not provide enough parking for the activities that are held in those
facilities. He felt that this is a community center opportunity for us and we all
share in the responsibility of that.
Dave Pietenpol, Project Manager for Rigden Farm spoke in favor of the parking
ratios proposed by the church. He welcomed the church as a neighbor of Rigden
Farm.
Rex Smithgaul, Administrator at Faith Evangelical Free Church spoke of the
churches similarities in growth and expansion needs. He felt that parking was
also an important issue for them as well. He felt that insufficient parking was a
growth inhibitor. He stated that his church has a seating capacity of 1,000, with
total parking spaces of 432, which equates to a parking ratio of 1 parking space
to 2.3 people in the sanctuary. The church experiences parking problems
because of lots being full and people parking on the neighborhood streets.
Alan Ginsborg, member of the church spoke on parking and parking distributions.
He stated that the residents of this community are the participants and the people
using this property and it was a matter of convenience and accommodation for
people to facilitate the parking. He felt the applicant has been generous in their
approach to the Board and urged the Board to approve the request.
Brad Behoungk, member of the church stated that he did not know the reason to
increase the parking ratio, but several things are clear. One is that you cannot
control behavior through these types of regulatory actions. Just because you
create fewer parking spaces does not create fewer cars trying to park. He was
concerned about the liability of the church and the city because people will park
elsewhere.
Phil Sheridan, resident of the neighborhood where the church is being built. He
stated that he has lived there for 15 years. He stated that he does not like all the
traffic in this town and he is a bike commuter in the summer. He does support
alternative transportation, but can step back and see what is realistic about this
situation. A church does deserve special consideration, primarily by the fact that
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 1999
Page 5
it holds its services at such unique times. A church is considered a positive
addition to a neighborhood compared to a commercial use on vacant land. It
provides a clientele that is well behaved and respectful. The church holds most
of its activities on Saturday evenings and Sunday mornings. A church of this size
will have many members from outside the city limits and have no other
alternative but to drive their vehicles. According to the latest bus route, it does
not provide Saturday evening nor Sunday service. If adequate parking is not
provided, then church goers will park on their streets. He asked that the Board
allow this church to be a positive impact on their neighborhood.
Russell Laughlin resident of Fort Collins spoke about providing a church so that
the church can bring in new members whether from this community or people
who come into this community to learn about god.
Debbie Eckdahl, member of Timberline Church spoke about the singles group
she is involved in at the church. She spoke about the activities at the church that
need adequate parking for safety and convenience. She asked for full
consideration of their request.
• Jeff Witter, member of Timberline Church questioned what violations or
ordinances that they have not met that has made the Board come to the decision
that it should be smaller than it is. He asked the Board to address that question.
Mari Mutter, member of Timberline Church encouraged the Board to see what an
asset it is to the community.
Public Input Closed
Member Gavaldon addressed the question of the Board's role. He explained that
they are all volunteers that are appointed by City Council to review land use
guidelines and policies, to review applications and work with staff in making the
best decisions possible for the community as a whole.
Member Craig also clarified that the Planning and Zoning Board is not a policy
making Board. Policies are made by City Council and the Planning and Zoning
Board only enforces the policies set forth.
Member Craig asked about Criteria A2.4 and was there anything that states that
it is the specific standard to use and was there any place that says that it is a
minimum.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 1999
Page 6
Deputy City Attorney Eckman explained the interpretation of the LDGS for
Criteria A2.4. He stated that in the past it has been interpreted all to be
minimum requirements rather than maximums or absolutes.
Member Torgerson asked the architect of the project about the proposed
condition for additional trees to be planted to screen the parking. He asked if he
thought that it would screen the building.
Mr. Larson replied that he did think that it would screen the building, but he
stated that their priority is parking and screening of the building is a lower priority.
Member Gavaldon commented that he did asked for all the ratios and
comparisons because before, the Board did not have a strong table on it. By
providing the information it helps them understand and gives them the
information to compare and to follow the LDGS to make the best judgement. He
thanked the applicant for the information.
Member Torgerson stated that he would be supportive of the project because he
believes that it is in compliance with all the codes.
Member Bernth commented that at first he did interpret the code to be minimum
parking spaces according to the LDGS. He also is taking into account
neighborhood concerns and does not want the church participants parking in the
neighborhood. He felt it was important to have the parking on site, and for those
reasons he would make the following motion.
Member Bernth moved for approval of the Timberline Church P.U.D.
including the condition for the two Evergreen Trees on the berm along
Timberline Road.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Member Gavaldon stated that he would be supporting the motion
Member Carpenter commented that the Board did not make a decision against
the parking lot at the last hearing, they asked for a continuance for more
information. She would be supporting the motion because she felt that they had
met the LDGS, but she still has a problem with continuing to asphalt the world
because it is cheaper and so we can park. She felt we need to find better
answers than that.
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 1999
Page 7
I- I
L
0
Member Craig would support the motion but would not support the project
philosophically in how the code is read. She felt that changes should have been
made to make the code read like they wanted it to read. She still reads A2.4 as a
specific standard and minimum was not added to it.
The motion was approved ".
Project: Modification of Standards in Section 4.23(E)(2)(b) and
Section 4.23 (E)(3)(a)2 of the Land Use Code for the
Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640 Riverside Avenue, #9-99
Project Description: Request for two modifications of Section 4.23(E)
Development Standards in the I, Industrial Zoning
District of the Land Use Code, more specifically
Subsection 4.23(E)(2)(b) Building Design — Orientation
and Subsection 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 Site Design —
Screening. The property is located at 1640 Riverside
Avenue and is on the east side of Riverside Avenue
just north of East Prospect Road. The property is in
the I, Industrial District.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
This project was appealed to City Council and a verbatim transcript is attached.
Other Business
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
•
PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 1999
MODIFICATION OF THE STANDARD FOR THE
MAXI -STUFF STORAGE
Commission Members Present:
Mikal Torgerson
Sally Craig
Dan Bernth
Jennifer Carpenter
Jerry Gavaldon
Staff Present:
Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office
Bob Blanchard, Planning Department
Steve Olt, Planning Department
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
140 W. Oak Street, Suite 266
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506 or (800) 482-1506
Fax: 482-1230
e-mail.- meadors@frii.com
1
• 1 MR. GAVALDON: Welcome back everyone to the -- to
2 the Planning and Zoning Board meeting for November
3 18th. Next item is modification of the standard for the
4 Maxi -Stuff Storage. Steve, are you ready?
5 MR. OLT: We're ready to go. Good evening, Mr.
6 Chairman and Members of the Board. I'm going to do this a
7 little differently than I normally would in that in the
8 interest of expediting the item and with modifications of
9 standards being somewhat nontraditional, I'm going to
10 actually read from the staff recommendation to you because
11 of the citations in the code that are a little difficult
12 to memorize.
13 So moving ahead. Again, as you indicated this is
14 a recuest for two modifications of standards in the land
15 develop -- or in the Land Use Code. I better get into the
16 right system. Land Use Code, being Section 4.23 --
17 4.23(e) development standards in the I, Industrial Zone,
18 again, of the Land Use Code. And more specifically we'll
19 be dealing with subsections 4.23(e)2(b), that's building
20 design orientation, and subsection 4.23(e)3(a)2, being the
21 site design screening.
22 This property is located at 1640 Riverside Avenue
23 and is on the east side of Riverside Avenue just north of
24 East Prospect Road. Again, the property is in the I,
25 Industrial, zoning district.
I
2
1 Pertinent code sections that we'll be dealing
2 with tonight are, again, the subsection 4.23(e)2(b)
3 building design orientation. And that section states,
4 "Along arterial streets and any other streets that
5 directly connect to other districts, the building shall be
6 sited so that a building face abuts upon the required
7 minimum landscaped yard for at least 30 percent of the
8 building frontage. Such a building face shall not consist
9 of a blank wall."
10 The second subsection we'll be dealing with
11 is 4.23(e)3(a)2, site design screening. And that states,
12 "A minimum 30-foot deep landscaped yard shall be provided
13 along all arterial streets and along any district boundary
14 line that does not adjoin a residential land use. If a
15 district boundary abuts upon or is within a street
16 right-of-way then the required landscaped yard shall
17 commence at the street right-of-way line on the district
18 side of the street rather than at the district boundary
19 line."
20 The charge of the Planning and Zoning Board this
21 evening as specified in Section 2.8.2 dealing with
22 modification review procedures states that, "The granting
23 of the modification would neither be detrimental to the
24 public good nor impair the intent and purposes of the land
25 use code and that the plan as submitted will advance or
3
1
protect the public interests and purposes of the standard
2
for which the modification is requested equally well or
3
better than would a plan which complies with the
4
standard."
5
"The second criteria of the granting of the
6
modification from the strict application of any standard
7
would result in substantial benefit to the City by reason-
8
of the fact that the proposed project would substantially
9
address an important community need," and then it goes
10
into specifics about community needs.
11
And the last criteria is, "By reason of
.
12
exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary
13
exceptional conditions or situations unique to the
14
property." And this gets you to the hardship case. In
15
this particular case the applicant has proposed that the
16
modification of standards that they're requesting meet the
17
requirements of sections 2.8.2(h)1 and 3 dealing with
18
their plan being equal to or better than a plan which
19
would comply and the hardship criteria.
20
Moving to staff's evaluation analysis of the
21
modification request. Let me get to that point. See, I'm
22
going to summarize this and then go up to the plan briefly
•
23
before we bring the applicant to the podium.
24
Under the finding of facts and conclusions, staff
25
has determined that the granting of the request of
V
1 modification would not be detrimental to the public good
2 nor would it impair the intent and purposes of the land
3 use code. The plan as submitted will advance or protect
4 the public interest and purpose of the standard for which
5 the modification is requested equally well or better than
6 would a plan which complies for the following reasons:
7 The proposed landscaped parking area in front of--
8 the buildings will increase the amount of vegetation
9 adjacent to Riverside Avenue to an amount equal to a
10 project developed according to the standards set forth in
11 the Land Use Code.
12 The proposed landscaped improvements are similar
13 to or greater than those in the surrounding area that were
14 reviewed under prior land use regulations, either as the
15 use -by -right or the Land Development Guidance System. And
16 the proposed design of the Maxi -Stuff storage facility is
17 more similar to a commercial design and use than a true
18 and sole industrial use.
19 The alterative plan submitted provides for good
20 separation of uses on -site with access and parking for the
21 storefront offices being detached from the self -storage
22 units while still being set back a significant distance
23 from the existing Riverside Avenue.
24 There is a significant amount of landscaping and
25 separation from the existing street, as well as a defined
5
1 pedestrian connection from the sidewalk, the public
2 sidewalk, along Riverside Avenue to the commercial
3 storefronts as proposed.
4 The second criteria that the applicant had cited
5 dealing with hardship, staff's evaluation is a plan
6 submitted that requires a modification of the standard
7 could comply if the facility layout would be moved back
8 from the site further from the street edge of Riverside
9 with a potential for a loss of approximately 4 of the 45
10 storage units. But we don't truly believe that a hardship
11 would be imposed on development of the site.
12 What I'd like to go now is briefly go to the
13 slides. So I'm going to go to the other podium.
14 Again, as I indicated, as you see on the slide on
15 the screen in front of you, the red -shaded area on the map
16 is the site. And that is -- do we have the laser pointer
17 by chance? Then I'll go ahead and use something. Can you
18 see that at all? Then I'm not going to use that. Thanks,
19 Bob. Without touching the screen, I will try to direct
20 you through this.
21 Okay. So we use the cursor. Everyone can see
22 the arrow? That site that I now have essentially overlaid
23 with the symbol is the location. This is Riverside Avenue
24 running along the (indicating) west side of the site, and
25 then this is East Prospect Road.
A
1 You have several uses surrounding the property.
2 This is a large electronics firm previously that had been
3 Public Service Company (indicating), I believe, had been
4 there for many years. Teledyne Water Pik assumes this
5 entire site. I'm not sure if this is vacant ground or
6 parking for Teledyne Water Pik.
7 You have then several commercial industrial uses--
8 directly to the north as a -- a self -storage facility
9 currently and then several other types of uses.
10 This is the site that they are proposing to
11 develop into a future self -storage facility
12 (indicating). But this will be unique in the sense that
13 you'll have access off of Riverside Avenue, which is here
14 at the bottom of the slide. This is the single point of
15 access into the site.
16 And what the applicant is proposing is to
17 construct two buildings at the front of the site
18 (indicating), and both of these would be a combination of
19 offices, commercial storefronts along the west side facing
20 Riverside Avenue, and then storage units in the back of
21 these buildings. And then these buildings to the east,
22 the larger buildings, along the railroad track, would be
23 all inside self storage.
24 What's being requested of the Board this evening
25 is there's two modifications. One is, along Riverside
7
1
Avenue being an arterial street in the I, Industrial,
2
Zoning District, there is a requirement that there be a
3
30-foot landscaped setback from the street right-of-way.
4
And in this particular situation -- I guess, on
5
this plan, it's a little hard to see where that
6
right-of-way would be. But I believe it would be right in
7
this location (indicating). 30 feet from -- or the
8
landscaped yard must be 30 feet from this right-of-way
9
back before you encounter any parking or building. The --
10
that's the one standard that they're requesting a
11
modification for.
.
12
The other standard is, there's a requirement in
13
the -- or I, Industrial, Zoning District that a minimum of
14
30 percent of the building storefronts along this street
15
frontage (indicating) be adjacent to abutting that street
16
right-of-way.
17
And in this particular situation, what they're
18
requesting -- because, again, they're wanting to do a
19
dual -use, be a commercial storefront offices and then
20
storage behind so that they would have customers using the
21
storage, but also meet with their clients in these actual
22
offices along the front of the site.
23
They want to maintain accessability to the
24
storefronts, via, the seven parking spaces. And that's
25
what you see here (indicating). I think there's six
e
1 spaces here and seven over in this location that would
2 access the storefronts. Because at this point there would
3 be a gate back into the self -storage area. And they want
4 to separate those two uses, the self -storage units from
5 the actual commercial office storefronts and provide this
6 parking in these locations.
7 What they will do to create a plan that would
8 conceivably be equal to or better than the requirement of
9 the code that there be a 30-foot landscaped yard from the
10 right-of-way back before you have any buildings or parking
11 is provide substantial landscaping.
12 This is pretty much uninterrupted landscaping
13 along the frontage of both these parking areas with a
14 30-inch high berming for starters. And you've got
15 landscaping on top of that. It would be rather dense,
16 significant, substantially screening the parking
17 areas. And then they would have somewhat a typical type
18 of building storefronts in this location (indicating).
19 These being commercial office buildings rather than truly
20 the self -storage building.
21 So with that, I think I would like to end the
22 presentation, entertain any questions, or if you have
23 anything after the applicant has made their presentation.
24 MR. GAVALDON: Any questions?
25 MS. CRAIG: I have one question, Steve. When
•
9
1 staff was looking at this, why -- why couldn't the parking
2 be in front of their store? Why does -- or their offices?
3 why does the parking have to face west and be in this
4 30-foot setback zone?
5 MR. OLT: Well, if I understand you correctly,
6 Sally, what we're saying is, the parking could be right in
7 front of the units here (indicating).
8 MS. CRAIG: Yes. And their cars would be facing
9 west or north.
10 MR. OLT: Well, that would be east.
11 MS. CRAIG: Or north.
. 12 MR. OLT: They would be facing east. You still
13 have the driveway and parking. What you've done -- you
14 would be just be flip-flopping the driveway and the
15 parking.
16 MS. CRAIG: Yeah. You would be parking in front
17 of the offices like you see almost in every situation.
18 MR. OLT: You'll have to ask the applicant. I
19 really -- again, that's a tradeoff. I'm not sure that one
20 solution is better than the other in this particular
21 situation.
22 MS. CRAIG: Well, it would have made them not
23 have to come with the modification. Because the
24 modification --
25 MR. OLT: No.
10
1 MS. CRAIG: -- the 30 feet are at the edge of
2 the parking that they've headed west.
3 MR. OLT: You've got the asphalt, via the
4 driveway or the parking that's got to be in that zone. If
5 you fl_p-flop -- you've got to have the driveway to get
6 the parking in there. You've got one point of access off
7 of Riverside Avenue right here (indicating). So you're
8 either going -o have the parking spaces or the driveway
9 area in that zone.
10 MS. CRAIG: So you're saying to park in front of
11 the offices you would still need that much asphalt?
12 MR. OLT: Yeah, because all you would be doing is
13 flipping the driveway area and the parking area. You have
14 to be able to come in off of this driveway and have a
15 driveway to get you to these parking spaces in front of
16 the building. So you -- you wouldn't take away any
17 parking. You just would be --
18 MS. CRAIG: You wouldn't take away any asphalt.
19 MR. OLT: Or you wouldn't take away any asphalt.
20 You would just flip the parking and driveway.
21 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Another question for staff is
22 that I noticed on this one that there are no street
23 trees. Why are you not requiring street trees on this
24 project?
25 MR. OLT: Again, we are not at the project
11
•
1
development plan. What we're looking at is a modification
2
for those two standards. One being the 30-foot landscaped
3
yard, the other being the 30 percent of the building
4
abutting the right-of-way. At such time that we get the
5
project development plan, then they will have to meet that
6
criteria in the code. We're not reviewing project
7
development plan. We're reviewing request for two
8
standards.
9
So what they're showing us, what they're
10
demonstrating to you that they can certainly provide a
11
development plan that would be equal to or better than a
12
plan that would meet the requirement by substantially
13
increasing the amount of landscaping in this area.
14
But when they come in with a formal development
15
plan, then they will be required to meet their street tree
16
requirements, as per code. But they're -- that's not part
17
of the modification request. That's outside of --
18
MS. CRAIG: Okay.
19
MR. OLT: -- the need for these modifications.
20
MS. CRAIG: So what I'm seeing tonight is not
21
what's going to be reviewed or --
22
MR. OTT: Absolutely not. That's
•
23
correct. Again, this is --
24
MS. CRAIG: That's why I'm talking to staff.
25
Another thing is in here it talks about -- let's
c
12
1 see. Where is it? Here we are. The developer has agreed
2 to dedicate a 17.5 strip along Riverside Avenue. Now
3 isn't that required?
4 MR. OLT: Yes. The City has -- the City
5 engineering --
6 MS. CRAIG: So for us to say he has agreed, what
7 would happen if he disagreed?
8 MR. OLT: Well, he didn't disagreed. The City
9 said --
10 MS. CRAIG: He could disagree. Isn't legally he
11 has to give 17 foot --
12 MR. OLT: The City said we need an additional 17
13 and a half foot of right-of-way for future improvements to
14 Riverside Avenue to bring it to a four -lane arterial
15 street. That's correct. And they --
16 MS. CRAIG: Legally they have to give us 17 and a
17 half feet.
18 MR. OLT: They did it.
19 MS. CRAIG: Okay. That's the point. Legally
20 they have to. So that is not a concession, that's
21 requirement.
22 MR. OLT: I don't think it's ever been considered
23 to be a concession. We said we need that additional
24 right-of-way, and they said they can do that. But what
25 they're requesting is modification outside of that.
13
1
MS. CRAIG: That's all for now.
2
MR. GAVALDON: Thank you. Do we want to go ahead
3
and hear from the applicant? Good evening.
4
MR. GUSTAFSON: Good evening. My name is Bob
5
Gustafson with Wickham Gustafson Architects. And we're
6
here representing the owner for the development that you
7
see before you tonight, the request for the modifications-
8
I think Steve did a very good job of kind of
9
explaining where we're coming from, but I want to give a
10
little bit of a background in the history as to what our
11
intentions are with this type of a development.
12
Earlier this year the developer came to us
13
looking at the possibility of doing a storage facility
14
unlike any others here in Northern Colorado. It was -- it
15
was a facility that was designed specifically for large
16
vehicles, motor homes, people with boats, that they would
17
each have their own space which they could use to house
18
these.
19 We're looking at motor homes that can be upwards
20 to $1 million that could go into spaces like this. You
21 just don't take a vehicle like that and leave it in a
22 field somewhere. There's going to be vandalism,
. 23 deterioration of the vehicle itself.
24 People have a lot of money invested in these.
25 And there's very much of a need throughout the country, in
I fact, for a facility that allows storage of large
2 vehicles, motor homes, boats, trailers, vintage cars. we
3 even have people that have shown interest, they have
4 historic vehicles, fire trucks, other vehicles that they
5 need a place that's secure.
6 The inside of each unit is finished. Given a
7 complete room -- complete space that is just theirs. It'.s
8 not your typical steel shed that they've made into a
9 storage space. These are a specially made, highly secure
10 units.
11 After we looked at that, we also did some
12 research with other professionals in the marketplace,
13 Northern Colorado, and discovered there's also a need for
14 what we term, "professional warehouse space." A place
15 where you may have a contractor, builder, plumber that has
16 a need for -- they may be working out of their office.
17 There's actually several in the storage space to the north
18 (indicating) where they actually open up the garage door
19 and that's their office and warehouse. There's several --
20 several of those.
21 There's a big need of a location where they can
22 have warehouse space in the back for tools, materials,
23 supplies, parking of the trucks at night while they're not
24 on the job and then a space in front where they can work
25 with clients, do their bookkeeping.
15
1
In some instances, if they're a tile installer,
2
that somebody could come in and look at different samples
3
of tile. So that's where we came up with -- in the front
4
here, more of a commercial -type of appearance. Not
5
retail. These aren't retail facility. It's a
6
commercial -- more of -- commercial appearing, but more of
7
an office, warehouse -type of situation.
8
One of the things we also saw was very important
9
was, with this type of a facility, is that there's public
10
access, unrestricted public access to the office
11
commercial front, but highly secured restricted storage to
12
the back here where there is warehouse and storage space.
13
Now everybody has seen in the paper -- over the
14
last several months the number of vandalism and thefts
15
that have been occurring in storage spaces in the Fort
16
Collins area. This is a facility that is designed to
17 prevent that or to at least as much possible to reduce
18 that.
19 One of the things we were also looking at was a
20 centralized location. Some place near the heart of Fort
21 Collins so we didn't have a contractor working at the
22 north end of town that had to drive all the way to
. 23 Loveland or all the way -- hopefully cut down on the
24 vehicle miles traveled that these guys are having to
25 do. So we found a spot here on Riverside.
IV
1 There is a facility similar to this that is out
2 on East Mulberry at Summit View. Very similar to
3 this. Recently has been completed. Again, that's not
4 centrally located. It's kind of out of the way for a lot
5 of people.
6 And again, as I said, this is not just a storage
7 facility. Even though it's called Maxi -Stuff Storage,
8 it's not just storage. We're going to look at it kind of
9 as a mixed -use of different people, different
10 professionals, things like that.
11 We wanted to have something that had an
12 identifiable image. So if the contractor will say, "I'll
13 meet you at my shop here," people would recognize it and
14 it doesn't look like just another industrial building out
15 here on Riverside. So we're going to try to make it
16 visually attractive.
17 But then by taking the office warehouse, we're
18 able to create a buffer between the public roadway and the
19 more industrial appearing storage spaces in the back. As
20 you can see, as you're driving down Riverside right here
21 (indicating), your visibility to the back is fairly well
22 screened by the old Public Service building and then these
23 buildings here. So there's really not a lot of visibility
24 to this back areas.
25 These front buildings, effectively all you have
17
•
1
is a small corridor here where you can actually see. And
2
all you're going to see is more open space. You're not
3
going to see a building.
4
Steve, could you go to the next -- next slides?
5
In your package, there are actually three site
6
plans. You can go one more. Go to the site plans.
7
MR. OLT: I don't think I have that?
8
MR. GUSTAFSON: In your package you'll see that
9
there's actually two compliant site plans and then the
10
site plan that we have in front of you with the two
11
modifications. In those -- in the compliant site plans,
12
one of them we actually took the buildings and turned them
13
90 degrees and slid them to the 30-foot setback. What
14
happens then is the front of the building becomes
15
extremely visible to Riverside. And those have a --
16
because of the nature of them, are going to have more of
17
an industrial appearance to them. So we lose that
is
up -scale commercial appearance that we were trying to
19
obtain.
20 One of the other ones also is where we moved --
21 we actually took the buildings and flipped them and tried
22 to put the parking in the back. Again, what happens
23 there, we end up with a severe conflict between the large
24 vehicles that are going to be getting into that back area
25 into the warehouse portion of the buildings, and then
m
1 parking. We also lose the unrestricted access to the
2 public, and it destroys the security of the facility
3 because no longer do we have those security gates that
4 keep the public from getting back into the secured storage
5 area.
6 In the alterative plan, we feel that it's -- it's
7 better because number one -- Steve, can you go back to
8 that plan, please?
9 You know, the parking here in front is easily
10 accessible from the public (indicating). All you have to
11 do is pull in. To answer Ms. Craig's question as to why
12 the parking is not in front of the building, if you have
13 somebody with a motor home, a 40-foot motor home pulling
14 in here, they're able to stop right here if somebody is
15 driving out.
16 If the drives were actually down here
17 (indicating), there is a much greater -- potential for
18 conflict because people are coming in and out. There's
19 also -- to operate these gates, there's a -- going to be a
20 control panel right here that would be used. So if
21 somebody drives in, they could operate these gates through
22 some type of a key system, and so they can drive
23 through.
24
Whereas if
that
drive
was there,
either the motor
25
home or the vehicle
that
would
be parked,
would be
19
1
sticking in Riverside or they would be blocking internal
2
traffic.
3
With this plan, like I said, it screens the more
4
intense industrial storage uses to the back but also has a
5
commercial appearance to it. The building itself will be
6
faced with split -face block, brick, stucco, something that
7
you don't see along Riverside. Right now the Public -
8
Service Company is just an old -block building. These are
9
just metal buildings (indicating).
10
Up here (indicating) you have the styrofoam
11
injection plant, which is all steel buildings and then
12
parking right up close to it. So you really don't have --
13
what we're trying to create is an architectural image out
14
there that may help to define Riverside corridor at some
15
point.
16
And then one of the other things we also did,
17
with the dedication of the 17 and a half feet actually
18
takes the property line right up to here (indicating). At
19
that point we start with a 12-foot landscaped setback
20
which has a 30-inch high berm plus another -- anywhere
21
from 10 to 30-inch plant material on top of that. So
22
there are plants where you can be 5 feet of screening
•
23
between the street and the parking in that area. So in a
24
sense, from the edge of the street to the parking is
25
almost 40 feet of actual landscaped area right now.
20
1 If Riverside ever develops, they would actually
2 develop it as a modified arterial where there would be a
3 6-foot sidewalk from the property line out and then an
4 8-foot parkway and then the curb and gutter.
5 The reason why at this point we don't have any
6 street trees, is we put the street trees on the property.
7 Because if they ever come through and widened Riverside, -
8 if we plant something now, 10 years they widened
9 Riverside, we have to tear it all out. So it's our
10 intention that all of our street trees, all of our
11 landscaping will be contained within the 12-foot area
12 behind the new right-of-way line.
13 To give you an idea of -- in this area
14 (indicating), we could do an additional plan that wasn't
15 really shown to you, but that would conform to the land
16 use code, essentially taking -- removing these two
17 buildings, taking these two buildings and stretching them
18 out to the 30-foot setback would actually -- right now we
19 have 45 combination storage units, office/warehouse. We
20 could have a total of 62 just storage units. So we are
21 actually -- voluntarily by putting the office/warehouse
22 here, reducing the number of storage facilities we have by
23 38 percent. And any more reduction of that creates a -- a
24 feasibility to make this project work by reducing any more
25 of that. So we have voluntarily reduced the number of
21
•
1
units by 38 percent.
2
One of the
other issues that we tried to wrestle
3
with, is in Division
3.7 of the Land Use Code talks about
4
in -fill development.
In trying to spur and encourage
5
in -fill development
and reinvestment in built up areas of
6
the City, obviously
Riverside was developed in the
7
170s. There's still
a few parcels along Riverside that -
8
are undeveloped. Most
of them have either a metal
9
building on it like
this (indicating) with very little
10
landscaping or a situation
like this where the parking is
11
maybe at the most 10
feet. Number of places where the
12
parking is right on
the sidewalk with no landscaping at
13
all.
14 Obviously, this type of landscaping, already
15 creates a situation where we are doing better than what's
16 there now. And even if development -- redevelopment does
17 occur out here, most of it is going to be more of a
18 facelift, remodel. You're going to have -- most people
19 there probably won't come in, raze a building, and try to
20 rebuild.
21 In conclusion, what -- like I said, what we're
22 trying to obtain here is to create an upscale storage
is23 professional looking facility that would be a desirable
24 addition and start to create an identifiable image for
25 Riverside. Try to do a little bit of a facelift but go
22
1 beyond what would -- is actually required by Land Use Code
2 and take it a step further with mixed -uses and with more
3 natural materials. Increase landscaping out there along
4 Riverside. Landscape buffer and things like that to
5 create a nicer appearing facility.
6 If the Board has any questions, I would certainly
7 entertain them at this time. --
8 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Steve, did
9 you get that suggestion that he said that would fall under
10 the Land Use Code, being, removing some units?
11 MR. OLT: I don't understand the question, Mr.
12 Gavaldon.
13 MR. GAVALDON: Did you -- were you able to jot
14 down this information on if two units or, I believe what
15 you said, were removed, it will fall within the land use
16 code. It was towards the end of your presentation.
17 MR. GUSTAFSON: What it was, is if we were to
18 remove these two buildings out front that are the
19 office/warehouse (indicating), take these two buildings
20 and essentially just extend those down to the 30-foot
21 setback line which would be allowed, we can bring the
22 buildings to the 30-foot setback line. We would actually
23 end up with 62 storage spaces. But we would not have the
24 commercial appearance of these two buildings and the
25 screening that these two buildings are providing to the
23
1
warehouse storage areas.
2
MR. GAV_7,LDON: I just want to capture what you
3
were suggesting. So us board members --
4
MR. GUSTAFSON: Did that explain it?
5
MR. GAVALDON: Yes. Thanks. I just wanted to
6
make sure we captured that. Okay. Thank you very
7
much. Are there any Board -- we'll bring it back --
8
before we do that, is there anyone else that would like to
9
speak to this proposal. Just want to give everyone a
10
chance. Fine, we'll bring it back to the Board.
11
MS. CRAIG: I'll start off. Especially since
.
12
Jerry brought that up, having read this development
13
standard 4.23(e), that they're asking for a modification
14
on, I guess I don't understand how they could do what he
15
just suggested and still meet this criteria, and, that is,
16
push the two storage units up to the landscaped setback.
17
MR. OLT: well, that's exactly what they would
18
do. If they were to eliminate the two buildings that
19
they're showing on this plan that you're looking at, the
20
alterative plan., the essentially combined commercial
21
office/warehouse buildings, eliminate those and bring the
22
self -storage buildings that you see then behind them up to
•
23
just the building setback line and have nothing but a
24
driveway entry into the site at that locked gate, that
25
secured gate you go in, it would meet then the intent of
PrV
1 the code, yes.
2 But what they're saying then, that it would
3 sacrifice the office/warehouse portion of the
4 development. The mixed -use, so to speak, portion of the
5 development. It would become one-dimensional. It would
6 become nothing but self -storage units.
7 MS. CRAIG: Now how does it meet the criteria -
8 where it says, "The building shall be sited so that a
9 building face abuts upon the required minimum landscaped
10 yard for at least 30 percent of the building frontage?"
11 MR. OLT: Well, I don't see the plan. What would
12 happen is that the sides of the buildings would come up --
13 the sides of the buildings you see back there, the
14 self -storage units would come up to that street
15 right-of-way line. And as long as you had 30 percent of
16 the building frontage of the entire width of the site,
17 then it would meet the criteria.
18
MS.
CRAIG: I understand now.
Thanks.
19
MR.
GAVALDON: Any other Board
questions?
20
MR.
BERNTH: I had a question for
Bob, a few
21
questions, actually. Bob, I've noticed
that these units
22
are 15 by 40s, 15 by 50s, and 15 by 60s.
Those are the
23
ones I would
assume that would hold the,
like, RV
24
vehicles?
25
MR.
GUSTAFSON: That's correct.
These -- these
25
1 units -- actually either one of these buildings back here
2 (indicating) would be used for housing of the large
3 vehicles, whether it be an RV or boats, campers, whatever.
4 MR. BERNTH: How long are these? I mean, I don't
5 own an RV so I have no clue.
6
MR. GUSTAFSON: Well, an RV can be anywhere from
7
about 20 feet up to some of them are 42 feet. Some are -
8
even built on bus chassis. So you can't have -- that's
9
why we've -- with these buildings (indicating), we have
10
the ability to actually move the interior walls to make
11
them longer or shorter as the need be.
12
MR. BERNTH: Where I'm going with that, Bob, is
13
that in the future of the 17.6 feet we're taking away as a
14
right-of-way, essentially to the front entry gate -- and
15
tell me if I'm wrong here -- would be 30 feet plus the 24
16
feet and then you're at the entry gate?
17
MR. GUSTAFSON: Right.
18
MR. BERNTH: So you really only have 54 feet. So
19
you're like pulling them off the street and your back end
20
is almost hanging off the street?
21
MR. GUSTAFSON: You would actually have -- the
22
actual edge of the street is not too far east of where it
23
would be here (indicating). With the 17 and a half feet,
24
you have a 6-foot sidewalk, an 8-foot parkway that would
25
be in there. So you'd have 14 feet plus the 17 and a half
NEA
1 feet plus the 12
feet. Plus then the 24-foot area. So
2 there is -- even
with the widening of Riverside,
there's
3 more than enough
room to get --
4 MR. BERNTH: 71 feet basically.
5 MR. GUSTAFSON: To get that vehicle completely
6 off of Riverside.
That was one of the comments
that was
7 essentially from
traffic, wherever that control
panel is,__
8 needs to be in a
place so that that vehicle can
get off of
9 Riverside.
10 MR. BERNTH: My second question is, on page 10 of
11 the staff report, the last two sentences on the bottom, it
12 said that other could comply if the facility layout would
13 be moved back from the site further than from the edge of
14 Riverside Avenue with the potential loss for the proposed
15 45 storage units. This would constitute a 9 percent loss.
16 If I'm looking at here the first plan, the first
17 one, first page, whatever, and you can probably pick up 15
18 more feet if you eliminated two of the front spaces and
19 then one at the front at the bottom because obviously
20 they're 15 feet wide, that would give you a 27-foot
21 setback which, obviously, you don't necessarily exactly
22 adhere to the 30-foot. But my question is -- that would
23 only be a loss of three. Where did the four come up with?
24 I was kind of curious on that.
25 MR. GUSTAFSON: Well, actually there's -- there's
27
0
1 two here and one here (indicating). So there would really
2 be three units. But what we're saying is, right -- if we
3 were to just take these buildings and extend them out and
4 create them to conform with the Land Use Code, we could
5 have 62 units. And we've already given up 38 percent of
6 what we could have by putting these buildings in the
7
front. -
8
MR. BERNTH: So the question I'm asking is, to
9
adhere to this and to really keep the idea of the
10
buildings the way they look and what you're trying to do,
11
it would be the developer's standpoint that he could not
.
12
give up an additional three at this point?
13
MR. GUSTAFSON: That's right. It would make it
14
really unfeasible. The other thing that happens, right
15
now (indicating) you can see there's an existing storage
16
unit. There has been some preliminary discussion about
17
maybe some time in the future combining these two and
18
making it into one type of a facility. This would allow
19
us to have a connecting drive right here. So we could
20
have a shared access. By moving everything back 30 feet
21
would eliminate that possibility.
22
MR. BERNTH: That was my last question. Thank
23
you.
24
MS. CRAIG: Steve, this is another one for you.
25
Trying to understand when the street is improved to what
W-
1 we hoped it will be improved to, where would the east edge
2 of the sidewalk be? Would it be right against their
3 parking lot? Would it take out their landscaping? Would
4 it be just before their landscaping?
5 MR. OLT: Let me -- I have a drawing up there,
6 and it's going to be hard for you to see. What I'm going
7 to do is close -- close across the screen to get the -.
8 drawing a little closer to you in the light and try to
9 describe it to you. And if you want me to bring it up, I
10 will. If you can hang on just a second.
11 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
12 MR. BLANCHARD: While Steve's doing that,
13 remember that in the -- I don't know any of you have ever
14 seen the street design criteria, remember when we're
15 talking about right-of-way that that includes the walk.
16 So within the -- within the boundaries of the right-of-way
17 which that additional 17 feet of dedication would be, that
18 the sidewalk will be contained in that area.
19 MS. CRAIG: I understand that. What it does,
20 though, is the edge of the sidewalk ends up against the
21 parking lot.
22 MR. BLANCHARD- Okay. I just wanted to make sure
23 it was clear that the sidewalk was not going to be outside
24 of the right-of-way.
25 MS. CRAIG: No. I understand.
29
1 MR. GUSTAFSON: Actually, Steve, if I could
2 clarify that a little bit. The actual 12 foot between the
3 parking and the property line will be maintained whenever
4 they do widen Riverside.
5 That 12 feet is from the -- from the dedicated --
6 17 and a half foot dedicated, there's an additional 12
7 feet to the edge of the parking spaces. So any
8 improvements that they do to Riverside, that landscaping
9 will remain. Unlike the site at 1450 Riverside, where
10 they had -- where they widened Riverside, they ended up
11 with at one point a 1-foot landscaped setback to a 9-foot
. 12 landscaped setback.
13 MS. CRAIG: Okay. I do appreciate. Thank you
14 very much. That was helpful, but I still want Steve to
15 continue.
16 MR. OLT: Yeah. If I can elaborate on Mr.
17 Gustafson's comments. And I know this is difficult to
18 see. Again, if you want me to bring it closer, I will.
19 The yellow block that you see here
20 (indicating) -- and this is future conditions. This is
21 existing conditions. If you were to approve the
22 modification, they were to develop this as they want, this
. 23 is the existing edge of Riverside Avenue now. So there
24 would be the parking, the building, this would all be
25 landscaping.
30
1 Future conditions, if we improve this to a
2 four -lane arterial as it's proposed with that 17 and a
3 half foot of additional right-of-way, there would be the
4 edge of parking (indicating) that they're proposing today
5 or tomorrow, the 12-foot landscaped strip would be
6 maintained. The sidewalk in that new four -lane arterial
7 would be right along that -- inside the street —
s right-of-way but along that edge. So there's your 6-foot
9 sidewalk and then the 10-foot parkway that's required and
10 then th`_s be the edge of street.
11 So again, as Mr. Gustafson said, that 12-foot
12 landscape strip would be maintained in the form that they
13 want to do. Your sidewalk then would be right against
14 that 12-foot edge of the landscaping and then the parkway
15 and then the street.
16 MS. CRAIG: That was very helpful. Thank you
17 very much, Steve.
is
MR.
BERNTH: Steve, do you have a -- we have a
19
cross section that shows
the right-of-way today and in the
20
future. Do
you have one
of those on screen by any chance?
21
MR.
OLT: No, I
don't. I'm sorry.
22
MR.
GAVALDON:
Any other Board questions? I have
23
a couple, if
Mr. Gustafson
can come up.
24
MR.
GUSTAFSON:
Yes, sir.
25
MR.
GAVALDON:
I'm concerned about the
31
•
1
modification from the 30-foot setback. And Dan gave me a
2
real good sense of this by his past question. And is
3
there cpportunity to go 27 versus the reduction you want
4
and lose three spaces? Is that a real -- is that a real
5
showstcpper in this project?
6
MR. GUSTAFSON: It is. Because of the nature of
7
the project, if we lose those spaces, I can tell you the _.
8
project is more than likely dead.
9
MR. GAVALDON: Because it seems -- just in my
10
observation, the modification and what you're trying to do
11
and taking down the modification -- taking the
.
12
modification to reduce the 30 feet, it seems like you're
13
putting a lot of intensity into it. Into what you're
14
looking to do with the parking, with the commercial
15
building, the storage units. And looking at the -- these
16
mobile homes that I know them very well, I don't own one,
17
but I've been in them. I see some traffic issues.
is
And the security seems to ride this whole
19
development. I think there's something else that could be
20
done to not compromise it but accommodate. And I feel
21
that the three spaces is -- will make a better project
22
overall. I just have a hard time -- hard time
•
23
understanding three will be a showstopper.
24
MR. GUSTAFSON: Let me tell you what would happen
25
if we lost those three spaces and had to move these
32
buildings back to, say, 27 feet. More than likely gone
2 ahead and turn this all into storage spaces. So you would
3 not have the commercial appearance of these and the
y screening that these buildings provide to the storage
5 spaces in the back. Simply because of the number of units
5 that -- to make this economically feasible that we have to
7 have to make it work financially, if these move back, we_..
8 lost these spaces, more than likely what would happen is
9 we would eliminate this and turn this into storage, pull
10 these buildings closer and give it much more of a
11 industrial appearance and lose that commercial appearance.
12 MR. GAVALDON: I understand. But I don't see as
13 that as -- you know, a good approach to things because the
14 intent of the land use was to, you know -- with Riverside
15 and its potential in the future being a major arterial --
major street of our City, I feel that there's a lot of
17 things we can do on this.
18 And I hate to -- you know, I'm not saying that
19 this is going to be a showstopper, but I'd like to see
20 some more opportunities to balance this out and come out
21 with a win/win on this.
22 MR. GUSTAFSON: And we really have looked at how
23 do we manage this. And we don't want -- we really don't
24 want this to be another steel building out here on
25 Riverside with an industrial appearance. That's not our
33
•
1
intent for this development.
2
I'm just saying that by you putting these
3
buildings here (indicating) with a commercial storefront
4
appearance to them acting as a buffer between these uses
5
and then these uses back here which are more of an
6
industrial appearance with the overhead doors that would
7
be on either side here, this acts as a good buffer.
8
Otherwise, if we turn these buildings 90 degrees to
9
maintain that 30-foot setback, you'd have much more
10
visibility of those overhead doors and the industrial
11
appearance that those give from Riverside.
a
12
MR. GAVALDON: Another question, it was about the
13
parking there. If there was opportunity to adjust the
14
security, like I was talking earlier, and pushing it --
is
I'm not trying to design your project. I'm just giving
16
you ideas, sharing some opportunities.
17
If there was a revisiting of the security
18
approach to it and the parking be more in the security
19
area or less secured with the staging security, it seems
20
like -- and keeping it commercial as you want and more to
21
pedestrian friendly, is there opportunity to look at that?
22
MR. GUSTAFSON: Well, the parking that's out here
•
23
(indicating) is for people that are going to meet maybe a
24
plumber or a tile person. Or coming in here that they
25
need -- they just need access to the front of the
34
1 building. They're not actually getting into the back.
2 Take this parking (indicating), this parking is
3 more for the public and not for the people that are
4 tenants in this space, per se. And if you try to take
5 this parking and move it around back, creates conflict of
6 the security and the public access. And also you have
7 trucks that are moving in and out, turning back here, and__
8 then you have parking in the way. Much greater conflict
9 of accidents to occur between a truck and a car.
10 MR. GAVALDON: I understand. Thank you.
11 MR. BERNTH: Bob, I had another question. I'm on
12 economics now, so
13 MR. GUSTAFSON: Okay.
14 MR. BERNTH: Purely from the standpoint -- and
15 again, we don't want you to build metal buildings
16 here. That's not the point here. We're trying to find
17 some compromised situation. At least I am. I can't speak
18 for the rest of the Board, obviously.
19 MR. GUSTAFSON: And we don't want to do the same
20 thing.
21 MR. BERNTH: Okay. So the question is, is
22 purely -- I'm going to assume that most of these units are
23 leased by -- per unit, not by square foot or whatever. So
24 where they're 49-feet -- excuse me -- 49-feet wide or
25 50-feet wide, it's probably fairly immaterial. And we're
35
• 1 just asking -- I guess, I'm asking is, if these units
2 become 15 feet by 39 feet instead of 15 feet by 40 feet,
3 you essentially end up with the same number of units. One
4 foot less. Does that kill you?
5 MR. GUSTAFSON: Again, the units are arranged
6 north/south and not this direction here (indicating). So
7 you have an overhead door roughly every 14 feet down this
8 side, this side, and this side. So you access from this
9 point.
10 And so we need to maintain that 14-foot width of
11 the spaces. The length is somewhat immaterial. We can
• 12 adjust that to the requirements of the tenant. But that
13 width -- that 14-foot width, and that's what gets us from
14 the length of this building from the east side to the west
15 side is based on a 14-foot bay length. It's really the
16 minimum that we have to maintain for someone to pull a
17 vehicle in there and still be able to access around it for
18 any -- if they have to change a tire or do any detailing
19 or maintenance on the vehicles, and to also have room that
20 they can maneuver around those vehicles.
21 MR. BERNTH: So we're basically off again. Just
22 doing the numbers, if we lose 3 units, we're off 6.6
. 23 percent. Again, I know that's an economic issue. And I
24 see what you're saying about the width versus the
25 length.
36
1 Again, I'm just asking if there's any compromised
2 situation where you'd build the same project but be
3 willing to, you know -- again, try to accommodate in any
4 way from a design standpoint more than a 12-foot setback.
5 Between 12 and 30, I guess.
6 MR. GUSTAFSON: One of the things we possibly
7 could do is move these buildings a couple of feet back —
8 (indicating). But as you can see where these buildings
9 are placed, and this is an actual aerial photograph, the
10 further we push that behind, the further behind these
11 buildings that becomes less visibility people traveling
12 down Riverside have of that facility. Which puts us at a
13 disadvantage as trying to market the property. If it's
14 sitting back 50 feet off of the street, people that were
15 going to pay to be tenants in these spaces, they want some
16 visibility off of an arterial street.
17 And we have looked -- it may be possible to take
18 this and maybe move it to a 15-foot setback by reducing
19 some of the space back here (indicating).
20 MR. BERNTH: Does any of the other Board members
21 have any thoughts on that just from a standpoint of, you
22 know, trying to go after a compromised situation? I'd be
23 interested in hearing that.
24 MS. CRAIG: To be honest with you, Dan, that 3
25 feet really doesn't concern me because of the sidewalk.
37
1
People walking on the sidewalk, they're going to be
2
looking at the landscaping anyway. And having gone up and
3
down that street a zillion times in hopes that it's going
4
to be something that it's probably never going to be, I
5
think that what this applicant is proposing is not a bad
6
addition to that area.
7
So the 3 feet, for him to go through that, to go-
8
from 12 feet to 15 feet in this one, I don't see what
9
we're gaining from it. If it meant that the parking lot
10
was on the edge of the sidewalk, then that 3 feet would
11
become very important to me. But when the edge of the
12
sidewalk has got another 12 feet of landscaping, then I
13
feel comfortable with it. And that's what I understood.
14
Is it, that the landscaping will be there? Is that right?
15
Okay.
16
MR. BLANCHARD: That's correct. For perpetuity.
17
MR. GAVALDON: Mikal, do you have anything?
18
MR. TORGERSON: Yeah. I'll just share my
19
thoughts. One of my -- I guess one of my concerns is that
20
the applicant is mentioning that they want to keep these
21
building facades as close to Riverside as they can in
22
order to compete. But under the code, if everybody were
•
23
meeting the code, they would be a uniformed distance back
24
and we'd keep some of the uniformity in the landscaping
25
and the parking lots.
[cI=]
1 And then in theory if this were to develop out
2 without modifications, access between parking lots
3 wouldn't be as much of an issue as trying to tie into
4 existing buildings that were there.
5 So that to me doesn't strike me as much of a
6 hardship because I think everbody's going to be under the
7 same set of rules there.
8 MS. CARPENTER: I am having a hard time believing
9 that three spaces here is a showstopper or that it
10 couldn't economically work and that we can't come up with
11 any kind of a compromise.
12 I do think we need to be looking at this street
13 as changing. And if we continue to grant a modification
14 for -- for encroaching into that, we're not ever going to
15 get there. And it really concerns me to be -- you know,
16 we keep -- we keep doing this. And it really does bother
17 me that we're -- we're there. And this one just seems to
18 me there's got to be a way to compromise this and make it
19 work so that we're at least a lot closer to the 30 feet.
20 I don't know that 3 feet helps me much to go from
21 12 to 15 feet. I think we can actually get closer than
22 that. So I'm not inclined to vote for it or approve it.
23 MR. GAVALDON: Does anyone have any questions for
24 Mr. Gustafson? We're at the discussion stage. If we have
25 any questions, we can certainly ask him. Does anyone have
39
• 1 any questions?
2 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah. I'd like to know what he's
3
thinking.
4
MR. GUSTAFSON: Well, I'd like to address your
5
comment, Ms. Carpenter. We could make this development
6
comply. Like I said, we could bring these buildings right
7
out here, right to the 30-foot and make it look like an
8
industrial building. We do not want to do that. That is
9
not our intention.
10
Our intention is by putting a more up -scale
11
facility that is not out there on Riverside until you get
12
clear down by the hospital, to buffer from the public
13
right-of-way these more industrial appearing buildings.
14
We could put a building that looks very similar
15
to this on there (indicating), but we don't want to do
16
that. So we have come in with this plan saying with
17
strict letter of the Land Use Code, we could do this,
18
essentially. We don't want to do that.
19
So by some modifications, we could address up
20
this front here (indicating), make it more of a commercial
21
appearance and create that as a buffer from here to the
22
more industrial appearing buildings in the back. That
•
23
is -- that is our intention of asking for the
24
modification.
25
We could develop this property in compliance with
all
1 the Land Use Code. It's not something that I think we
2 would really be proud of as an addition out here on
3 Riverside. So it would just propagate the industrial
4 appearance of Riverside.
5 MS. CARPENTER: I do understand that. But when
6 we're looking at the street as a whole and eventually what
7 we want to have happen is to have that be widened and have
8 it be the arterial width that it needs to be, and then to
9 have the buildings comply. It's not going to be pretty
10 enough to be sticking out that much further than the rest
11 of the buildings. You know, we need to try to start
12 getting to that. So I think that I would like to see some
13 kind of compromise that does both, to -- I . . .
14 MR. GUSTAFSON: Okay. And the other thing is, as
15 you go west here (indicating), these buildings are even
16 closer to the street. In most instances reality is that
17 these buildings are not going to get torn down and
18 rebuilt. They're going to get remodeled. The structure
19 is fine. They don't look very good, but they could dress
20 them up. But you've got parking 10 feet off the street.
21 And this is an in -fill project. There's a lot
22 here (indicating). There's a couple other lots up the
23 street. Those are really the only vacant pieces of
24 property on Riverside.
25 So by trying to -- these properties, as they
0
41
•
1
redeveloped, they could come in for either modification or
2
variances from the DBA to dress up their facility and have
3
their parking closer than we would have our parking out
4
here on the street.
5
MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. I have a
6
question, if I may. Steve and Bob, if he's talking about
7
remodeling a new building, if the buildings get a new
8
facelift, do they still have to come through the process
9
and still have to meet the 30-foot if there's new
10
development going on along Riverside?
11
MR. OLT: I doubt that just a facelift would
12
require something like that. We'd have to look and see
13
what would trigger actually some sort of development
14
review that would then enable us to get into the -- the
15
articles, the pertinent articles of the Land Use Code.
16
But if they wanted to repaint, did some
17
remodeling or something like that, I don't know what in
18
the code that would bump that up to a major amendment or
19
even a change of use or something like that. No. I doubt
20
seriously, unless it's dramatic.
21
MR. GAVALDON: But if they did a change of use or
22
redevelopment, they would follow the same process,
•
23
modification or whatever if they wanted to make some
24
differences.
25
MR. OLT: If whatever they do triggers their need
!E
1 to comply with Articles 3 and 4, yes. Then they would be
2 subject -o the same rules that this development proposal
3 is.
4 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
5 MR. BLANCHARD: Now remember if it is a change of
6 use, it may be processed as a minor amendment. It does
7 not mean that they're going to have to do a modification-
8 and come into -- or come into compliance with the code to
9 test for a minor amendment, which I have been cautioning
10 you not to use on another project, is that you do not go
11 into any further noncompliance than you already are.
12 So my suspicion is that along Riverside, as long
13 as -- even if there is a change of use, as long as it's
14 not a change in character and it's proposed as a minor
15 amendment, you're not going to see anything come into any
16 closer compliance except as perhaps landscaping.
17 MR. GAVALDON: okay. Good. Thanks, Bob.
16 Jennifer?
19 MS. CARPENTER: Here we are again. I'm having a
20 problem with this. We set a policy to change the
21 character of Riverside that we are -- we are supposed to
22 implement. But yet we get told that it's never going to
23 happen and then we go through all these modifications. It
24 does not make sense to me.
25 We have a policy in front of us that we're --
43
•
1
that the powers that be decided that was the policy. We
2
didn't decide it. We're supposed to implement it, and
3
then we get the modification. If it's never going to
4
happen, why don't we get it changed so that we're not
5
having to deal with this policy all the time? Sorry. It
6
makes me crazy.
7
MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thanks. Mikal? -
8
MR. TORGERSON: Yeah. I had a question for Mr.
9
Gustafson. I'm looking at one of the plans that you said
10
was compliant with the -- with the LUC, 7 of 7 where you
11
brought the parking behind the building.
•
12
MR. GUSTAFSON: Right.
13
MR. TORGERSON: And that obviously creates a bit
14
of the conflict with the warehouse use and perhaps a
15
conflict between the buses and the parking. But aside
16
from that, what was the major detriment from your
17
standpoint?
18
MR. GUSTAFSON: That causes a real security
19
problem by having the parking in the back which was
20
primarily for public use. There's no way to secure the
21
rest of the storage back there without having multiple
22
gates and entrances that we have to control. And it just
.
23
creates a security problem back there.
24
And with the rash of thefts and vandalisms that
25
have been in the storage units in Fort Collins, and if you
m
1 don't have a secured facility that has monitors and
2 everything else and fencing, it's going to continue. So
3 that's -- our concern about that is the security and also
4 the conflict that can happen. Some guy's backing his
5 truck with the trailer and runs into somebody's car, then
6 he has a liability. And that's something that they're
7 going to look at. So I don't want them to have that -
8 possibility that that's going to happen here. My
9 insurance has to pay to fix this guy's car.
10 MR. TORGERSON: Sure. But that would require
11 only two security gates versus one. It might be that
12 that's a better location to have your vehicle well off of
13 Riverside when he's punching his code in rather than
14 barely pulling off of Riverside and punching his code in.
15 MR. GUSTAFSON: It gets a little bit harder when
16 you start getting multiple entrances and multiple security
17 points. It gets harder to maintain the security of
18 those. Somebody drives through an opening, somebody may
19 be sneaking -- maybe it's at night he sneaks in and gets
20 in there and nobody sees him. Where at least with one
21 entry point we have secured -- we have security over that
22 point. The property really isn't that wide. I mean, it
23 isn't such a wide property that we need multiple
24 entrances. One entrance would give us the best security
25 possibility.
45
1 MR. TORGERSON: But it doesn't reduce your number
2
of units or create an economic hardship.
3
MR. GUSTAFSON: No. It would not, but it would
4
be a definite security concern on our part.
5
MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thank you.
6
MR. GAVALDON: I have a couple of comments. I
7
have to agree with Jennifer on this. And I think if we _
8
start making a lot -- this modification, and then with
9
reference on July 1st modification, but I'm going to stay
10
with this particular modification because I feel that
11
there is opportunity to compromise and to make a better
.
12
plan. I happen to like the 7 to 7 plan. And I don't
13
think that's something that we can say we want the 7 to 7
14
versus the preferred plan.
15
I was wondering if the Board would be inclined to
16
support a continuance to allow the applicant to come back
17
date certain with a plan similar to 7 to 7, and a
18
justification for supporting 7 to 7 or not supporting 7 to
19
7, and why. And try to -- try to achieve some balance and
20
compromise. And even safeguard the security system. Is
21
this something that the Board would be inclined?
22
MR. TORGERSON: The one note I would make, we're
.
23
not approving any plans, we're just giving him the
24
modification to the standard.
25
MR. GAVALDON: Okay.
OEM
1 MR. TORGERSON: And he can go through with any of
2 the alternate plans given this modification. So we
3 couldn't really just vote on a plan.
4 MR. GAVALDON: I agree with that, but I just
5 wondered maybe continuing would allow them to come back
6 either with a modification that's better than the current
7 one. It seems like we're struggling with it. -
8 MS. CARPENTER: Let me ask a question. If we
9 denied this, could he still come back with a different
10 modification? Okay. So there's really no reason to
11 continue it.
12 MR. GAVALDON: I understand. Any other questions
13 or any Board thoughts? Are we getting close to a motion?
14 MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Chair, before you do a
15 motion, just a quick response to Jennifer's comments about
16 her frustration. I -- you know, and I -- this isn't for
17 discussion or anything unless you care to comment back.
18 But one of the things to remember about this
19 criteria, is that it implies throughout the industrial
20 zone property throughout the City. The frustration may be
21 experienced on one segment of the industrial zoned
22 property which is Riverside Avenue.
23 But, in fact, when you express frustration with
24 the criteria, just remember -- I would ask that you
25 remember that it is a valid criteria because we've got a
47
•
1
fairly amount -- a fairly large area of vacant industrial
2
lands in the city limits. And that criteria is going to
3
have to be applied throughout that zoning district. It's
4
not an isolated criteria for Riverside Avenue. So any
5
industrial district that, you know, fronts on an arterial
6
street, they're going to have to comply with that also.
7
So it was just kind of a clarification -
8
recognizing the frustration that this Board has expressed
9
with a couple of projects that we've looked at along
10
Riverside. But do remember that it goes beyond just
11
Riverside Avenue.
12
MS. CARPENTER: I appreciate that reminder.
13
Thanks.
14
MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Bob.
15
MR. BERNTH: I had a question for Paul. Paul, if
16
we grant this modification, does that mean that they can
17
use whatever -- excuse me -- whatever plan they want as
18
long as they get the 12-foot setback? In other words,
19
could they do, you know, just the one straight buildings
20
or do they have to adhere to this plan?
21
My only concern is granting that modification
22
then comes back with what we don't want to see.
•
23
MR. ECKMAN: This is just the modification
24
without a -- without a PDP coming before you. So yes, you
25
would -- your granting of this modification is kind of
Lt.]
1 absent of any particular PDP and would apply to whatever
2 plan
they want to present,
I believe.
You don't really
3 have
a plan to consider at
this time so it's hard to pin
4 this
to any specific plan.
5
MS. CRAIG: Dan,
I guess what
we need to think
6 about
in this regard is --
you know, I
agree with what
7 you're
saying. Would you
be comfortable if you knew it
8 was
connected to a plan?
9
MR. BERNTH: Yes.
I would be
more comfortable
10 with that.
11 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Now what this applicant can do
12 then, is he can come through the system. This would be a
13 Type 2 with a modification on it. So he would be bringing
14 a -- I think I'm going in the right direction on this one.
15 He would be bringing a plan in front of us as a Type 2,
16 but we would have a plan. And then we could grant the
17 modification with the guaranty that it went with the
18 plan.
19 So I'm just letting you know that to keep in
20 mind. If this does end up getting denied tonight, he
21 still has an option which is very similar to what he did
22 tonight, but it makes us more comfortable because we have
23 a guarantee that it's attached to a plan.
24 MR. GUSTAFSON: Maybe I can shed some light on
25 that, Dan. The reason we came before you tonight without
M
0
1 a plan is that we don't want to go through the full
2 engineering drawings spending 30, $40,000 to have a
3 project come in here and get shot down in flames. We
4 wanted to see if there was an acceptance of this type of a
5 plan before we go through all of that, engineering and
6 everything else.
7 If this is approved, that's what you would see.
8 If this is denied, then, to be that blunt, that's not what
9
you're going to see.
10
MR. BERNTH: Under those perimeters, you're sort
11
of in a Catch-22 -- I think the Board is in a Catch-22, is
.
12
if we deny this, we're at risk at seeing a project that
13
obviously would not be as attractive as this.
14
So essentially, again, I feel like I'm in a
15
Catch-22 from the standpoint that I would like to see what
16
they're trying to do. It is an in -fill project. It will
17
be an attractive project. For that reason I would have to
18
support this modification at this time.
19
MR. GAVALDON: Are you prepared to make a motion?
20
MR. BERNTH: I would make a motion that --
21
recommend approval of the modification of standards in
22
Section, 4.23(e)2(b) and Section 4.23(e)3(a)2, the Land Use
23
Code for Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640 Riverside Avenue.
24
MR. GAVALDON: Is there a second? Not seeing a
25
second, the motion dies for lack of second. Maybe we want
50
1 to try another motion or more discussion?
2 MR. ECKMAN: Maybe I could interject.
3 MR. GAVALDON: Yes, Paul.
4 MR. ECKMAN: Bob and I were just talking. If you
5 were inclined to approve this modification, but you don't
6 have a plan but you kind of have a concept, I don't know
7 how comfortable you would feel in conditioning it on a
8 plan being brought -- that this modification would be
9 approved on condition that the plan that's presented be in
10 accordance with the concept you've been presented
11 tonight.
12 I know that's kind of general, but at least it's
13 got -- may have enough specificity in it to give you
14 comfort that when the plan comes in you can pin it to
15 that, that you see. That's just another possible way you
16 can go, if you want to try to motion.
17 MR. BLANCHARD: What I was thinking, Dan, is
16 listening to your comments, you've got a concern that
19 there's no guarantee that those two front buildings are
20 going to appear like they've been described. The only
21 thing we've got is the record. And if I'm interpreting
22 your concern right that you may be more comfortable with
23 the granting -- or approving a modification provided that
24 you have a nonindustrial appearance to those front two
25 buildings that you're going to see from the public way.
51
•
1
And I think that there's some language that could
2
be developed for a condition that would guarantee that.
3
That the hearing officer would then be -- have the
4
authority and also the responsibility of enforcing the
5
condition applied on the project by the Planning and
6
Zoning Board.
7
So if you're only comfortable with reducing 30 _
s
feet to 12 feet with the assumption that what those front
9
buildings are going to look like as what's been described
10
here, use that kind of a language in a motion and
11
condition the modification. Then it's incumbent upon the
12
staff and the hearing officer to do that.
13
MR. GAVALDON: Paul, before we go with a motion,
14
don't we need to note that this is equal or better than
15
these causes?
16
MR. ECKMAN: Yes. There are several things. You
17
need to find that this is not detrimental to the public
is
good, that it advances the intent and purposes of the land
19
use code. And then one of those three criteria, I guess
20
they were using the -- that it advances the purposes of
21
the standards as well or better than compliance would
22
have.
•
23
Although, I saw in your staff report some reference on
24
the hardship standard. I don't know which they're really
25
pursuing or which the Board favors. But certainly not the
52
1 one that has
to do with
affordable housing in advancing,
2 that kind of
thing.
3 MR.
GAVALDON:
Okay. Thanks. Anyone? Sally, go
4 ahead.
5 MS. CRAIG: I need -- just wanted to ask one
6 question for clarification. Steve, if this was the
7 employment district, what -- how far from the right-of-way
8 would they have to be? What are the -- footage on that?
9 Because, you know, they're right across the street from
10 employment. And that was one of the things we were hoping
11 to accomplish on Riverside is to make it look more like
12 employment and less like industrial.
13 And so it would be interesting to see -- because
14 we're kind of caught up on that 30-foot setback -- whether
15 if -- if they make it look like an employment and if
16 employment is allowed to be so many feet from it, then
17 maybe we're getting what we want, especially if we can get
18 a condition that somehow the hearing officer will make
19 this look like what they're claiming the plan, that we
20 supposedly haven't seen, look like.
21 MR. OLT: We're assuming -- in the E, Employment,
22 Zoning District, Bob and I are looking through the code
23 and we're not seeing the same kind of absolute setback
24 requirement in the E, employment, that you have in the I,
25 Industrial. That has been specifically designed for that
53
•
1
I, Industrial, Zoning District.
2
It's our belief that this would go to the
3
mixed -- mixed -use, nonresidential commercial section of
4
Article 3.5.3, I believe it is. We deal with the building
5
setback from -- from right-of-way. Bob is getting into
6
that. So I think we'd be looking at that criteria.
7
This being an arterial street, I'm assuming it
8
would be between -- what is it? 10 and 25 feet from the
9
right-of-way line is where the building could be in the E,
10
Employment, Zoning District.
11
MS. CRAIG: So it could be as far away as 25
12
feet?
13
MR. OLT: From the right-of-way line.
14
MS. CRAIG: And that's the building. So that's
15
saying that they could have parking in front?
16
MR. BLANCHARD: No. You're still required that
17
you can't cross -- well, they could -- no. You can't --
18
not across the entire front facade because there's still
19
the requirement that you can't cross drive isles that
20
we've dealt with on other projects. So it falls into that
21
whole -- two line section of the code that we've used on
22
others.
23
The reason -- I've always characterized the
24
reason for this 30-foot landscape setback in the
25
Industrial Zoning District is the type of uses you get in
MI
1 the Industrial Zone. It's designed to be a visual buffer,
2 not necessarily a screen, but a visual buffer. And it's
3 desired to set back further. And that's the only case in
4 the Land Use Code where you do set back further.
5 Everything else has to comply with the build to line.
6 MR. OLT: You're encouraging the buildings to be
7 closer to the streets and sidewalks with direct pedestrian
8 access including in the E, Employment, Zoning District
9 right across the street.
10
MS.
CRAIG: But
what we're
losing
on this one is
11
the parking
lot between
the buffer
and the
building which
12
you wouldn't
find in an
employment
district
across the
13 street.
14 MR. OLT: That's correct. They would have to
15 mitigate that. If they wanted to do something like this,
16 it would have to be mitigated in some fashion in the E,
17 Employment, Zoning District.
18 MS. CRAIG: Thank you.
19 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. You want to attempt another
20 motion?
21 MR. BERNTH: That's all right. Paul, I'm going
22 to ask another question. Can we do that with -- again, we
23 don't have a plan, but conceptually we do have this
24 plan. Can we make that modification -- or excuse me --
25 that request of the applicant?
55
• 1 MR. EC10 AN: You can make that condition, and
2 then you have to rely on the hearing officer to understand
3 what your condition means. So I'd recommend that you --
4 you word it as carefully as you can and tie it to whatever
5 it is you think is important in this plan's presentation.
6 If you have specific slides, for example, that you want to
7 ask the hearing officer to focus on, that might be
8 helpful.
9 MR. BLANCHARD: We do have the elevation slides
10 if you want to take a quick look at those again that we
11 didn't have -- didn't show tonight. We've got a set of
• 12 elevations.
13 MR. OLT: Was my interpretation fair, Dan, of
14 what your concern was?
15 MR. BERNTH: It certainly was. Again, my concern
16 is that we grant a modification, and then they don't build
17 what we think they're going to build. But if we have the
18 assurance from the applicant, I feel comfortable with
19 that.
20 The other concern is that it's tough to deny
21 because someone else may build a similar project. Maybe
22 not this particular applicant, but another project that
. 23 is -- adheres to the code but is not as nice a project
24 that we're looking at now. In other words, the metal
25 buildings that they can build in -- on Riverside Drive.
56
1 And that's -- my main concern is I don't want to see the
2 same stuff we've seen on Riverside Drive that we've seen
3 before.
4 MR. ECKMAN: In making a condition, I just think
5 you ought to -- maybe the entire package is what you ought
6 to refer to. But if you had certain things you wanted to
7 emphasize, such as those elevation or other things, -
8 just -- it would be helpful to the hearing officer to
9 emphasize those particular things that you think are
10 important to you.
11 MS. CARPENTER: While you guys are talking, can I
12 ask another question? We requested at work session that
13 we get a different cross section so that it showed that
14 the berm was raised. Did we get the - remember the cross
15 sections didn't show a raised berm? Or at least we
16 couldn't find it.
17 MR. OLT: I don't think we got -- that's not what
18 was given to me. The way it was expressed to me,
19 Jennifer -- obviously I wasn't at the work session. Is
20 there berming? Obviously the statement that there will be
21 berming has been given. There's a commitment for that.
22 That the drawing doesn't show it in text, it's shown on a
23 streetscaped plan. But that's, you know, again, an
24 elevation plan.
25 MS. CARPENTER: Well, if the commitment is there,
57
• 1 it's okay with me. I just wanted to be sure since it
2 didn't show it.
3 MR. GUSTAFSON: Actually, if you look at sheet 5
4 of 7, shows a cross section through the -- through the
5 site showing where the trees are, a berm there. In
6 actuality that's probably not a real accurate
7 representation because from that point the land slopes to -
8 the east. So as you get further from Riverside, the
9 ground is going to slope away from Riverside. And so
10 you're actually going to be lower as you get further from
it Riverside.
r12 So even with the 30-foot -- the 30-inch berm
13
right there,
cars are going to
actually be lower because
14
the ground
continues to slope
to the east. If you look on
15
sheet 5 of
7, that gives you a
representation of now and
16 then when --
17 MS. CARPENTER: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I
18 understand what you're -- okay. But this doesn't show
19 this going down. So I --
20 MR. GUSTAFSON: So that's why I said it's kind of
21 a misrepresentation is that we didn't -- we just drew the
22 paving flat, that it will be at the same level of
• 23 Riverside. Where actually the parking is going to be
24 lower than the street of Riverside.
25 MS. CARPENTER: So from walking down the
m
1 sidewalk, then is there
going
to be a raised area that's
2 landscaped between you
and the
parking
lot?
3 MR. GUSTAFSON:
Yes.
Yes. It
will -- from the
4 sidewalk, it will come
up to 30
inches
and then drop back
5 down probably 3 feet, 3
and a
half feet
before you even
6 get to the parking lot
level.
7 MS. CARPENTER:
Okay.
And if
we just have that _
8 on the record, does that make
it legal
even though this is
9 wrong?
10 MR. ECKMAN: Well, I think so. But I was
11 thinking about that condition some more in looking at
12 these elevations and wondering if I might have advised you
13 a little bit too far with that. Because if you pin -- if
14 you pin a condition to specific elevations, that might
15 have been Mr. Gustafson's general idea of what a building
16 might look like, but it might not actually turn out to be
17 exactly like that.
18 So maybe you should refer to it as being
19 substantially similar or something along those lines so
20 that the hearing officer doesn't have to mandate the
21 buildings look precisely like those pictures.
22 MR. GAVALDON: Well, anyone want to do another
23 run on a motion?
24 MR. BERNTH: I'll take a stab and embarrass
25 myself one more time.
59
•
1
First, I would recommend the approval of the
2
modification of standards in Sections 4.23(e)2(b) and
3
Sections 4.23(e)3(a)2, the Land Use Code for Maxi -Stuff
4
Storage, as long as they substantially adhere to the
5
conceptual plans delivered to the Planning and Zoning
6
board, those plans being number 1, number 3, and number 4
7
and number 5 of 7 outlined on their initial plans, and
8
that granting the request for modification would not be
9
detrimental to the public good nor would it impair the
10
intent and purposes of the Land Use Code, and
11
additionally, the plan as submitted will advance and
12
protect the public interest and purposes of the standard
13
for which the modification is requested equally well or
14
better than a plan which complies with the standard for
15
which a modification is requested.
16
MR. GAVALDON: Is there a second to the motion?
17
Very good motion. Okay. Not seeing a second, that motion
18
dies for lack of a second. Does anyone want to make an
19
attempt on the motion or do we need more discussion?
20
MS. CRAIG: I might as well get right out there
21
with Dan.
22
I move that we deny it. I don't feel that it is
•
23
equally well or better than a plan. I think that
24
somewhere here we're between industrial and employment,
25
and they aren't meeting either by this modification. And
m
1 that bothers me. I have the same concerns Dan does.
2 Well, what is going to come in? Are we losing by not
3 letting this? But on the other hand, we can't let every
4 person that stands up there -- that's what we keep running
5 into with these modifications. They make us feel so
6 doggone bad, that I just wish that we could get over the
7 hump on these things. And I don't know how that's going -
8 to happen. That's my motion.
9 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Is there a second to the
10 motion?
11 MR. TORGERSON: I'll second.
12 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. We have a first and second
13 for denial. Any Board discussion?
14 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah. I just wanted to say, I
15 think it's a very nice plan. And compared to what's
16 there, it's substantially better. I'm kind of hung up
17 on as -- achieves the purposes as well or better than a
18 plan that substantially complies. I just can't seem to
19 meet that criteria. And I'm judging the merit of this
20 modification specifically based on what the code requires
21 me to not based on the project's merit because it is a
22 nice project and it's substantially better than what's
23 there.
24 I just think, you know, looking at the long-range
25 urban planning goals, at some point, maybe it's a thousand
•
M.1
0
0
0
1 years from now, those buildings will redevelop. And if we
2 can stay with the standards, it will ultimately be a
3 better -- better urban streetscape.
4 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Paul, did we cover the
5 denial and the specifics we need so in case it goes appeal
6 we have given Council our reason for denial?
7 MR. ECKMAN: I think so. From what I heard, you
8 had indicated the reasons why you didn't think it advanced
9 the standard as well as compliance would have, and that it
10 was -- did I hear it was detrimental to the public good?
11 I cant remember if I heard that.
12 MR. GAVALDON: Sally, you want to clarify that
13 for us?
14 MS. CRAIG: No. To me it's that "equally well or
15 better than." It's number one. "The plan as submitted
16 will advance or protect the public interest and purposes
17 of the standard for which the modification was requested
18 equally well or better than would a plan which complies
19 with the standard for which a modification is requested."
20 MR. ECKMAN: I think that's sufficient to support
21 a denial.
22 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Sally, for
23 clarifying. we just wanted to make sure we have good
24 specifics. Any other Board discussion? Jennifer.
25 MS. CARPENTER: I'm really struggling with this
rF
one because I do also agree with Mikal that it is a nice
2 plan, better than what's there. But I just -- having the
3 same problem I can't get past that "better than or equal
to."
5 So I agree with Sally that these modifications
6 are tough ones, but I just still feel like we can come up
7 with some kind of a compromise that we can make it work -
8 for both sides and actually meet -- maybe be able to do a
9 slight modification and meet the equal to or better
10 than. So I'll support the motion.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I'm going to be supporting
12 the motion, too. I think Dan attempted on some neat
13 suggestions. But with concepts and stuff, and I'm
14 struggling with the two. And I'm looking at the bigger
15 picture and what Riverside is going to bring. And with
16 the issues and the process on this, it just seems like we
17 could have achieved a compromise and better plan. But I
18 didn't see that.
19 So I'm going to support the motion as made and
20 second it because I feel that it does not meet that
21 particular part of the modification process.
22 May we have role call, please?
23 THE CLERK: Torgerson.
24 MR. TORGERSON: Yes.
25 THE CLERK: Craig.
63
• 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
. 23
24
25
MS. CRAIG: Yes.
THE CLERK: Carpenter.
MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
THE CLERK: Bernth.
MR. BERNTH: No.
THE CLERK: Gavaldon.
MR. GAVALDON: Yes. Motion's denied. Any other -
business? The modification is denied. I'm sorry. Thank
you.
[Z!
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 ) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF LARIMER )
4 I, Anne Hansen, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary
5 Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the
6 preceding videotape was transcribed, Request for
7 Modification of Maxi -Stuff Storage; that said precedings -
8 were taken down by me in stenotype notes and thereafter
9 reduced under my supervision to the foregoing 65 pages;
10 that said transcript is an accurate and complete record of
11 the proceedings so taken.
12 I further certify that I am not related to, employed
13 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys
14 herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the
15 case.
16 Attested to by me this 7th day of December, 1999.
17
IN
19
20
21
22
23
24
Anne Hansen
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
140 West Oak Street, Suite 266
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506
25 My commission expires: 02/13/03