Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/16/2008Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Stockover & Wetzler Excused absence: Smith Staff Present: Olt, Eckman, Waido, Bames, Wray, Maizland, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Interim Director Olt reviewed the Consent and Discussion agenda. He noted that item # 2, Eagle View Natural Area First & Second Annexations, # 30-08 has been moved to the Discussion Agenda per a staff request and item # 3, Prospect South Existing Condition Survey Results and Urban Renewal Plan is being pulled from the agenda to be heard at a subsequent hearing. Citizen participation: None Chair Schmidt asked members of the Board if theyd like to pull any items from the Consent Agenda. No requests were forthcoming. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the September 18 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2A.Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins Discussion Items: 2. Eagle View Natural Area First & Second Annexations, # 30-08 4. Whitman Storage Facility Addition of Permitted Use, # 11-08B 5. Whitman Storage Facility Project Development Plan, # 11-08 Member Stockover moved for the approval of the consent agenda which includes item # 1, September 18, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing minutes and item 2A the Three -Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Project: Eagle View Natural Area First & Second Annexations, # 30-08 Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone approximately 86 acres known as the Eagle View Natural Area. The two annexations encompass an area slightly larger than the 86 acre natural area, or a total of about 90.8 acres, due to the Planning 8, Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 2 inclusion of adjacent County road rights -of -way. The proposed zoning for these annexations is the POL — Public Open Lands (or Zoning District as below) Recommendation: Approval Staff presentation: Chief City Planner Ken Waido reported this is a 100% voluntary request to annex approximately 86 acres known as the Eagle View Natural Area and place the area into the POL — Public Open Lands Zoning District. The annexations encompass an area slightly larger than the 86 acre natural area —a total of about 90.8 acres, due to the inclusion of adjacent County road rights -of - way. The annexations are in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The natural area property is located totally within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The Eagle View Natural Area First Annexation parcel gains its required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with the McCelland's Creek PD & PLD Second Filing Annexation (September 2007) to the west of the parcel. The Eagle View Natural Area Second Annexation parcel gains its required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with the Eagle View Natural Area First Annexation to the north of the parcel The two parcels are being annexed concurrently which is permitted by the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations. Waido reported three adjacent property owners had called to express their opposition to the annexations —their primary concerns were they wanted it to remain in the county and they wondered what the City would be doing with the property. Waido informed them it would remain as City owned natural areas —we were simply annexing it into city limits. Waido said this is the first in a series of city -owned contiguous open -space that will be annexed into the city over the next four -six months. He recommended approval. Board Questions: None Public Input: None Motion: Member Stockover moved to recommend to City Council the approval of item 2, the Eagle View Natural Area First and Second Annexations, # 29-08 and # 30-08 and in support he referred to the Findings of Fact on page 3 of the staff report. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 3 Project: Whitman Storage Facility — Addition of Permitted Use, #11-08B Project Description: This is a request to add Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage as an Addition of Permitted Use in the Commercial zone district specifically for a portion of the property at 209 East Skyway Drive. The property is partially developed. The parcel to be used for the aforementioned vehicle storage is a portion of Lot 3 in the southerly''/2 of the Whitman Storage Facility subdivision plat. It is approximately 1 acre in size and zoned C, Commercial. Recommendation: Approval Staff Presentation: City Planner Steve Olt reported the site currently contains an existing single- family residence, an existing office/retail sales building, and two existing repair shop buildings. The proposed use, Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage, is not permitted in the C-Commercial District. Addition of Permitted Use is a new process. The process is equivalent to a Type 2 review in that a neighborhood meeting is required and consideration is by the Planning and Zoning Board. The process is basically an extension of Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code which, prior to July 1, 2008, allowed the Director to add a use to a zone but only so long as: • Such use is not specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article 4; • Such use is not specifically listed by name as a prohibited use. Now, under the expanded process, the Planning and Zoning may add a use to a zone under the following criteria: • Such use may be specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article 4; • But, such use, if approved, would be allowed only for the one (or more) specific, contiguous parcel(s) as requested by the applicant and not on a zone district -wide basis. The proposed use is Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage on a portion of Lot 3 in the southerly ''/s of the Whitman Storage Facility subdivision plat. It is approximately 1 acre in size and zoned C, Commercial. This use is defined in the City's Land Use Code as: Recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage shall mean the renting of space in an unroofed area for the purpose of storing any recreational vehicle, boat or truck. For the purposes of this definition, a recreational vehicle shall be a transportation structure that is primarily designed as a temporary living accommodation for recreational, camping and travel use including, but not limited to, travel trailers, truck campers, camping trailers and self-propelled motor homes. This use is "outdoor", open storage and must be adequately screened from view by surrounding properties, as set forth in Section 3.2.1(EX6) of the Land Use Code. The portion of the property to be used for Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage is currently undeveloped; however, the property owner has been storing vehicles in this area for a period of time dating back to when the property was still in Larimer County. Now annexed into the City of Fort Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 4 Collins, the storage of vehicles in this area is out of compliance with the City's current Land Use Code. The proposed permitted use for the storage of recreational vehicles, boats and trucks is compatible with the existing Commercial (C) zoning to the west and north. The permitted use is similar in nature to the uses in existence in the Commercial (C) zone to the west. The proposed permitted use for recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage will be screened by solid 8' high (minimum) fencing and landscaping to provide a visual barrier and pleasing appearance to the neighborhood to the south and east. The area adjacent to the proposed permitted use located in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone on the site will be used to establish additional landscape plantings to provide screening and habitat within the Natural Area Buffer located at the southeast comer of the site. The existing Low Density Residential (RL) zone located on the Whitman property will provide a transition buffer between the proposed permitted use for storage of recreation vehicles, boats and trucks and the existing low density residential properties to the south, east and north. The proposed use has been reviewed by the criteria of Section 3.5.1, which addresses compatibility with the surrounding area. A neighborhood meeting was held on September 22, 2008 with affected property owners within 800 feet invited to participate. Of the 114 letters sent, only 3 people attended. The only attendee (other than the applicant and the City's project planner) was the owner of the Discovery Montessori School (located directly east of the subject property) where the meeting was held. She had no questions nor did she express concerns. Since the neighborhood meeting there has been additional documentation provided by Brian Schumm, an affected property owner, who is opposing the request. Staff recommends that Recreational Vehicle, Boat and Truck Storage be added as an allowable use specifically for a portion of Lot 3 in the southerly Y2 of the Whitman Storage Facility subdivision plat, being approximately 1 acre in size and zoned C, Commercial - #11-08B. Board Questions: Member Lingle referred to the staff report's finding of fact/conclusion that such use is appropriate to the zone district to which it is added; if that is true, would it logically be allowable use in any other C zone district? What sets this particular parcel of C zone land apart from another? Olt replied in this particular case, we're looking at site specific and contextual differences as well as on a particular portion of the site. As originally proposed, three different partially enclosed structures mostly along the southern portion of the site were to be built to a twelve foot high wall level with the appropriate required landscaping. The plan was changed to an 8-foot high solid wall with enhanced landscaping. Staffs opinion is that this is potentially more attractive than what would be approved in that particular location. Olt said it does appear to be compatible with the surrounding area including the uses that are already existing along the Kalmar strip. Additionally, staff compared it to a use that is permitted in the C Commercial zoning district —vehicle sales and rentals without storage and how that would compare with what is being proposed here. This use is well screened and deemed appropriate in this location. Chair Schmidt said the Board's concern is if we had other commercial property coming in, how would we (given the statements in A & B) be able to say to someone else with commercial property that t his use is not appropriate for their zone. City Zoning Supervisor Peter Barnes said he understands her concern with other properties in the Kalmar strip and the Southwest Enclave Annexation coming in and wanting RV storage. When the Code change was adopted it was to allow the addition of a permitted use on a case -by -case (site -speck) basis. He said in evaluating a proposal, you're going to want to know what the other adjacent property uses are and how what's proposed is comparable or Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 5 compatible. The next applicant who wants a similar use would most likely be a different mix of surrounding properties and use. Chair Schmidt said in the email that Brian Schumm sent, he indicated that was exactly the case with Public Storage. Barnes said that's the first he'd heard of issues related to Public Storage. If they were told they had to remove their storage it must have been by the County (before annexation.) If Public Storage wants a chance, the current zoning would require that they come in and follow the same process as Mr. Whitman. You'd then be looking at that site in the context of what's around them. Barnes said directly to the west of the Whitman property is the U-Haul facility that fronts on Skyway and College Avenue. Their use is classified as equipment, truck and trailer rental. That is a permitted use in the zone as a Type I review. So in the context of Mr. Whitman's property, you have very similar uses that are comparable in terms of outdoor storage. U-Haul is even more visible to the public as we don't require that they have all of their trucks and trailers screened from view. On the proposed Whitman RV storage facility the entire area devoted to that use has to be screened. U-Haut or a similar use could locate onto Mr. Whitman's property and do it as a use by right, Type I review. Barnes said that Mr. Whitman's RV storage is located behind the northwest corner of his property and is much less visible than the uses that are surrounding the property. Olt said Findings of Fact A & B, especially B—"such use (in this case RV, boat and truck storage) conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added." The use could be added to this site in this zone district. Obviously staff has determined that the use as proposed conforms favorably to the basic characteristics of the type of uses we're seeing to the west. Member Rollins asked if there are currently any violations on this property. Barnes replied yes. This property has a long history (five to ten years) of County violations. Larimer County did deal with the violations, even using an enforcement District Court action. When an area like the Southwest Enclave Annexation occurs, the Code requires that any use that is illegal in the County needs to cease within 60 days from the date of annexation. The Code allows you an extension of six months (with an additional three months available.) During that period, illegal uses are allowed to continue. When this property was annexed it was not placed in a zone that allowed enclosed mini -storage (which is what Mr. Whitman first proposed in his development submittal.) With the time period allowed after the Southwest Enclave Annexation, Mr. Whitman was allowed to continue with the uses for 9 months and his Project Development Plan was reviewed by the Board. Members Rollins asked if there were other properties along the Kalmar Strip that are currently in violation. Barnes said that he was not aware of any. Rollins said there is a property to that south that has a number of semi- trailers with "CF" on them. Barnes said the businesses in that area were "grandfathered" in because as far as we know they are accessory use outdoor storage and were not illegal in the County. He is only aware of one violation --Aqua Spas, which occupies the area across the street, (at Skyway and College) started outdoor storage in the area on the south side of their building. Zoning staff cited them for a violation. Because of the height of the fence required to screen the storage, they have to do some engineering work and get a building permit. Chair Schmidt asked Barnes why the RV storage is not a part of the C zoning district. Barnes said he did not know why. It is certainly similar to the equipment, truck and trailer rental establishment that are out there as far as impacts go. Barnes noted the CL district was amended about a year ago as part of the Northwest Sub -area Plan. Previous to that the only CL zone was along Riverside. The CL properties in the northwest area are more restrictive than the CL properties on Riverside. Barnes said Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 6 he has not spoken to the planner for the South College Corridor so he didn't know if he was proposing any additional changes to the CL zone with the South College Corridor. Staff member Olt said he did not know how the South College Corridor Plan would ultimately "shake out" and what their recommendations would be with regard to CL and permitted uses. He noted along Riverside, it consists of vehicles that are towed to the premises and temporarily stored. He said this project does not appear to be thematically different from that. Chair Schmidt said it appears that a lot of those types of things are not permitted except on Riverside with it being even more restrictive on the Northwest Sub -area Plan. Barnes said one other use he'd like to point out as allowed in the C Zone is vehicle and boat sales and leasing establishments with outdoor storage. In the C Zone you can have boat sales; you just can't have storage facilities. Chair Schmidt asked in what zones is outdoor storage allowed. Barnes replied I (Industrial.) Chair Schmidt asked for the definition of mini -storage. Barnes replied it's listed in the terms and definitions as "enclosed mini storage." That's a building containing separate individual private spaces which may be of various sizes and which are rented pursuant to individual leases for various periods of time. Barnes said normally you think of enclosed mini -storage as a long building with individual overhead doors and each of those is a separate enclosed compartment. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way --you can also have one large building with individual private spaces that are delineated with lines on the ground. Chair asked if enclosed mini -storage is being considered for this property. Olt said yes, when we get to the the Project Development Plan review, it is one of the uses being proposed. Chair Schmidt said the request for the addition of permitted use appears to be for with 64,000 square feet of RV storage... is that correct? Olt said it is .9 acres and 40,000 square feet. Member Lingle said in terms of compatibility with properties in adjacent zoning districts (the South Corridor Plan as it is proceeding may recommend that adjacent land be rezoned CL, UE and RL) how is the Board to deal with that in their deliberations tonight? Eckman said he wouldn't put too much stock into speculation. Chair Schmidt asked what type road network is available to make the UE parcels that run north- south useable. Olt said that currently there is nothing available. There is a platted right-of-way on the south side of the UE district parcels south of the subject property. Its land locked until a road network is actually constructed. Staff member Wray said when the properties to the south develop that is when you gain access —south of Skyway on Aran Street. Chair Schmidt asked if both properties were owned by the same individual. Wray said yes. Applicant Presentation: Property owner Randy Whitman, 209 E. Skyway, said the permitted use request follows a long history of zoning concerns both with Larimer County and now the City of Fort Collins. He said the County Land Use Code, Section 4.3 H now allows outside storage in the C (Commercial) zone. He said the County Code was passed after the City annexed the Southwest Enclave. He noted if he was still in Larimer County, outdoor storage would be legal in the C Commercial zone. Whitman said for the past ten years —he's been "between and betwixt" the County and City regulations. At one point the County was about to approve his request when the City intervened asking them not "to do anything" until he comes into the City. It makes it appear as if he's the "bad Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 7 guy" when all along he's been trying to follow the systems, working with staff, to do what he's been asked to do. He noted he doesn't understand why Brian Schumm has issue with the proposal. He doesn't live in the neighborhood at 5807 Ballina Court. He understood that property was transferred in a divorce. He said "it isn't what Brian says all the time." Whitman said he's just a small businessman. He can't afford very much more of what it'll take to redevelop his land. Board questions: Chair Schmidt asked when he came to the City for rezoning, did he consider industrial zoning. Whitman said he worked with staff member Pete Wray on what was allowed. There was so much going on —what was proposed seemed like the best way to go at that time. In retrospect, he wonders if Industrial would have been approved —one small parcel in a commercial zone. Olt said to answer the question if Whitman had considered industrial at the time of his rezoning request; it wasn't considered in context with the surrounding area. Olt said it would have been spot zoning of a parcel of ground of about 2 to 2'/2 acres in the midst of C Commercial, Urban Estate and Low Density Residential (RL.) Member Rollins asked why he was no longer doing the proposed RV storage building as enclosed storage (which is permitted in the C zone.) Whitman said it was designed as enclosed yet opened at the top (similar to a football stadium.) Part of the reason is a sewer line which runs diagonally across the property. Due to delays in redevelopment, he had to forego a signed contract with the Loveland/Font Collins Water District to move the line to the southeast side of his property. He said staff supports the alternative —a solid 8-foot fence with landscaping. Member Campana asked what other zoning districts allowed outdoor storage. Olt said in terms of the type of use being requested, it's only allowed in the I Industrial district. Campana asked how close an industrial zone is. Olt said it's nowhere near. Member Campana asked if Olt knew of any other time it was allowed. Olt said to his knowledge they have not had a request of that nature (outdoor storage in C.) It is being considered tonight as a result of the recently approved Land Use Code (LUC) change that allows for addition of permitted use requests. He said this is a site -specific addition of a permitted use on a portion of the C Commercial district on this property alone. Campana said it probably would require a rezoning. Olt agreed it would have required a rezoning or a text amendment. Barnes said he was not aware of allowing outdoor storage in a C zone prior to the adoption of addition of permitted use. The South College area was zoned HB (Highway Business). There were other areas of town that were zoned C (Commercial.) Prior to 1997, the C zone did allow RV, boat and trailer storage uses. Campana said it appears in the last 11 years we have not allowed outdoor storage in C. Barnes agreed. Member Campana asked once annexed, do properties have to come into compliance with the Land Use Code? It appears, from the photos presented there are all types of zoning violations of set backs, landscaping and fences. Barnes says they are not really zoning violations. The only time they have to be brought into compliance is if the use of the property changes or if the property is redeveloped. There are many properties, not only in this area but throughout the City; where as codes are changed, they are not required to come into compliance. They are what they are until the use changes or until they are redeveloped. Campana asked if the change was required with different owner or different use. Barnes said just different use. Campana asked if the intent over time is that everyone is brought into compliance. Barnes said yes. Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 8 Member Stockover asked if most of the upgrades were landscaping, sidewalks, and setbacks. Barnes said those are certainly the most visible ones but others may have to plat the property if it's not platted, they may have to dedicate additional right-of-way (like this property for Aran Street), or they may have to add handicapped parking, bike racks, or trash enclosures. Member Compana asked if it includes building improvements such as articulation. Barnes said he does not recall that we've required people to remodel the side of the building. Barnes said if the Code says if they are proposing to remodel the fagade, they have to, to the extent reasonably feasible, to comply with LUC Section 3.5.3. Member Rollins asked if there are individuals that take a look at that and stay the way they are because with what they're proposing it just doesn't make sense to do all the upgrades. Barnes said that does happen. Member Lingle asked Olt, given the direction given by Eckman in terms of speculation on rezoning that might take place on the surrounding properties, how 12 foot high RVs in an 8 foot fence are compatible with the least intensive UE & RL residential zoning districts. Olt said that staff is looking at it as an 8 foot high engineered fence with landscaping that will significantly cover vehicles that are 9'/2 to 11 feet tall. They would extend slightly above the fence but when the proposed landscaping matures they will have significant screening. There could feasibly be 40-50 vehicles parked on a site that large. Staff has determined, with the 8 foot fence and enhanced landscaping, it's an insignificant visual impact to adjacent properties. Barnes said that actually the UE zone allows industrial uses and does allow some commercial uses — plant nurseries and green houses, small scale reception centers, composting facilities, resource extraction processes and sales. Certainly some of those uses will have an outdoor storage component as a part of those uses. Chair Schmidt asked if that means mining such as gravel. Barnes said operations such as Lafarge and Connell would have big facilities for their paving and concrete processes. Schmidt asked if someone on a small acreage could start digging gravel. Barnes said yes. Rollins asked if Lafarge's zoning is LIE. Barnes said they are not in the City limits but they could do it in an UE zone. Chair Schmidt asked what distance you have to stay away from the sewer line on the property. Olt said that is problematic on how buildings can occur over that line —it pretty well cuts a large block of property in half. Olt spoke with a representative of South Fort Collins Sanitation District who said they would allow the property owner to relocate at his expense (estimated to be $30,000) but they would not allow a building to be constructed on it. Campana said it would be a 20- foot wide easement. Member Lingle asked Olt to explain the previously proposed enclosed RV, boat and trailer building design. Olt said it would have been a linear building the length of the site (250 feet long) with two 12- foot walls on the south and east sides and a partial roof projecting 10 feet at a very low angle. Looking at the building elevations it looked like a 12-foot high wall. Lingle said that even though the building would not be considered enclosed by definition it was not considered outdoor storage correct? Barnes said that's correct. The building, even though it had an opening, still met the definition of buHding (which he confirmed with the Building Department) and would have been considered enclosed mini -storage which is a permitted use. Member Campana asked how long Mr. Whitman has owned the property. Whitman said since '94 or '95. Campana asked if the sewer easement existed at that time. Whitman responded yes. Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 9 Campana asked if an easement going diagonally across the property affects its value. Whitman said it probably does affect value. Campana asked if they got price estimates to do a modified enclosed mini storage building without a roof. Whitman said with engineering it was cost prohibitive, not to mention it would have to be designed around the easement. Chair Lingle asked Eckman with regard to permitted uses —what do we have with which to evaluate this proposal. Eckman replied we have LUC amendment —Section 1.3.4 (Ordinance 73, 2008 adopted July 1, 2008.) LUC changes are in paragraph 5 and 6 of the ordinance: 5. Such use is not specifically listed by name as a prohibited use in the zone district to which it is added, or if such use is prohibited, the proposed uses is specific to the proposed site, is not considered for a text amendment under paragraph (B) below and is specifically found by the Planning and Zoning Board to not be detrimental to the public good and to be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1; 6. Such use is not specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article 4 or if such use is not specifically listed, the proposed use is specific to the proposed site, is not considered for a text amendment under paragraph (B) below, and is specifically found by the Planning and Zoning Board to not be detrimental to the public good and to be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1 Eckman said it has to be appropriate to the zone district and it has to conform to the basic characteristics —noise, dust odor (and so on.) Olt said that information is listed in the findings of fact starting on page 6 of the staff report. Chair Schmidt asked Mr. Whitman what is the anticipated number of vehicles that you could have stored there. Whitman said he hadn't even thought that far... he's assuming we would have space for between 40 and 50 vehicles. Chair Schmidt asked Eckman when the Board votes can this be considered a precedent. Eckman said each time a request comes to the Board they need to go through criteria 1-6 for the addition of permitted use in the Land Use Code. A decision would not be precedent setting. Olt added each case (even those in the Kalmar strip) need to be measured on a site -specific basis and evaluated against the addition of the permitted use criteria. Member Lingle asked (as they did on the North College addition of permitted use request,) if they could still consider the compatibility criteria in Section 3.5.1. Eckman said yes. For example, they need to find that it's not detrimental to the public good and that it would be in compliance with the requirements of Section 3.5.1. Member Lingle said if the Board is inclined to approve this, I would think we'd like to add conditions considering the fencing and the landscape screen so in the event the PDP is approved or denied; those conditions could continue to apply just as the conditions of an addition of a permitted use would continue to apply to that parcel regardless of the PDP. Eckman said that if the Board wanted those conditions you would just go to staff report —page 5, paragraph 6. The last sentence in the first paragraph has to do with the 8 foot high fence ... all you'd need to do is take out the word "proposed." To condition landscape plantings, you could also take "proposed" out of the first sentence in the second paragraph. Chair Schmidt asked Barnes when landscape plans get approved and they get installed has their obligation been met. Barnes said no, there is a section in the LUC Section 3.2.1 regarding landscaping. In addition to the installation in compliance with the approved plan, it has to be maintained. If landscape elements die or are removed and it comes to the City's attention, we would Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 10 notify the applicant the planting needs to be replaced and if they failed to do that, they could be issued a Municipal Court summons. Chair Schmidt asked if there is any evaluation on how much traffic is generated by this kind of use. Olt said no —maybe Mr. Whitman can offer some information. Whitman spoke with Traffic Operations staff member Ward Stanford who told him a traffic study is not required. Whitman said that currently their regular business is open from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Most of the time, RV customers come Sundays to return a vehicle. Schmidt asked how many vehicles are on the premises now. Whitman said 10 (6 RVs and 3 or 4 boats.) Schmidt asked about the vehicles on site. Whitman added he is temporarily storing Pedersen's hail damaged cars but he's not getting paid for those. Public Input None Board Discussion: Member Stockover said that first and foremost we are charged with protecting the general public. In this case we're hearing no opposition except for the one gentleman who has some very valid points. He's weighed the facts with the improvements that Whitman's making and they outweigh the concern raised by the one person who's noted his opposition to the request. He thinks the improvements are a substantial start to the revitalization of that area. When he weighs all, he is in favor of the request. If approved, he would encourage Whitman to be a good neighbor and try and stack all the lower height RVs and boats along the fence. Member Campana said that this is a tough one. Compatibility is what he's wrestling with —looking at the photos for the area and the improvements being proposed --does it fit, is it compatible? I think the intent is for properties to come into compliance or be better aligned with the Land Use Code over time. Campana didn't think this permitted use request is compatible and he's not going to support it. Chair Schmidt said she agreed with both Members Campana and Stockover—it is a difficult situation. She's wrestling with how certain improvements will be made; she finds it hard to find a situation where she could say no to any other commercial property that comes in and wants to have this use. It's possible they may consider asking for additional requirements. Member Stockover thought the Board could look at any future situation without tying it to this property. The Board's charge is to look at each project individually. Schmidt said the criteria you're considering has to be the same for each project if you're basing it on compatibility. It would probably be similar if you're considering commercial to commercial. Stockover disagreed. He thinks it's based on where each property is in its life span. That's what weighs very heavily on this project. We're looking at an area that definitely needs some help —he'd look at it differently if a property was mid -way or not so far along in their life cycle. Campana said he'd have an easier time supporting it if an industrial use was near. He said we're one block off of South College and it's not a permitted use in anything surrounding it. Staff member Pete Wray said he'd like to share some information that gives the staff's perspective. This is a unique situation specific to this site. It's adjacent to commercial (Kelmar Strip) and similar to the back yards of those commercial properties. The vision for the South College Corridor Plan (or even East Mulberry Corridor) is to promote development over time (infill, change of uses, or improvements to the commercial corridor along the immediate frontage of those highways.) We do not see this as a precedent because each case will be evaluated on its merit —each new proposal will be looked at closely and the pros and cons evaluated. In this case, we came to the conclusion to Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 11 support this given the other buildings and use on this property and the compatible appearance of the adjoining commercial. Provisions such as the fence and additional landscape requirements insured that it would be sufficiently screened. There's been no opposition to the east, the closest affected neighborhood. We've had the same discussion on East Mulberry —part of the vision language and policy language says we would encourage outdoor storage behind the immediate frontage of East Mulberry, and in this case South College to encourage more quality, commercial projects along the immediate interface of the highway. Member Rollins said as the plan stands right now, she will not support it. Her concerns are the residential to the north and east and the Urban Estate zone to the south. She has reservations about a use that's only allowed in Industrial. She completely disagrees with the finding that it's compatible. She did notice, when driving by, that the Poudre school district property had an open roof barn parking structure that they depressed and bermed, resulting in a very slight visual impact. She said you can see the Whitman site from the surrounding properties. She said we'd have to see extensive berming and extensive landscaping to completely hide this use. When the Board talked about allowing additional uses, we talked about setting the bar extremely high. From what she's seen so far, it's not high enough on this project. Member Stockover asked what it would take to get it high enough. Rollins responded you'd need to refer to the standards but she thinks the berms should be at least 5 feet high. If there was berming with landscaping on top, the visual appearance would really help to improve what's out there today. Member Campana said he was trying to think of another location in Fort Collins that would be similar to what's taking place here when Aran Street comes in. It might be similar to what you'd find on both College and Mason near the REI store. He thinks an 8 foot fence and outdoor storage is not compatible should development similar to what is taking place by the REI store takes place. Chair Schmidt said Mr. Whitman mentioned that were he in the County today there would not be any illegal use. She said the City put a lot of effort into the Southwest Enclave annexation process to try to mitigate the effect on property owners coming into the City. If it is true that if he were in the County today, he'd be able to have outdoor storage, she thinks it's something the Board may want to take into consideration. Olt said he has not verified that, but his research shows he was in FA Farming. Mr. Whitman has stated that the County has changed their Land Use Code to allow this use in their C Commercial district. Campana said the "what if" is if a zoning change had taken place to C, then the use would have been allowed. Whitman said it would be the same process as what we're doing right now in the City but he would have been done with it years ago. He said the County was going to approve the use with a special exception but CPES (Community, Planning & Environmental Services) Director Greg Byrne wrote a letter requesting the County wait until the annexation into the City. Member Lingle says he thinks a review such as this is a little premature. If the South College Corridor process had played itself out and we knew where we were with regard to CL zoning; he could look at this differently. But with it currently being UE and RL, he definitely agrees with Rollins in terms of the compatibility and the evaluation of this project needing to be at a high level. He doesn't find Staff Report Finding E--to be in compliance with Section 3.5.1. He can't support it at this juncture. If the UE land does become zoned CL in the future, he thinks he could be persuaded to change his opinion if it came back to the Board at that point. Olt said he had a discussion with Senior Planner Timothy Wilder relative to the South College Corridor Plan. Wilder, who has brought project updates to the Board on many occasions does not believe any Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 12 red flags have been raised by the Board from the land use and zoning perspectives. He indicated that staff will propose the property in question be zoned CL with the adoption of the South College Corridor Plan. Chair Schmidt said that although it is probably accurate to say the Board has not raised any red flags on this aspect of the Plan, our discussions about the South College Corridor Plan have focused on different things —the latest being the expense of people trying to redevelop given the improvements they'd have to make. The Board hasn't discussed every one of the recommended Plan changes. She, personally, has concerns with the change to CL because it's going to be so close to a natural area. Since the Board has not been given all aspects of the Plan and the chance to review each carefully and in total, we can't be sure it will be approved as proposed. Member Stockover asked if the vote was a tie, would that be the motion fails. Eckman replied yes. Member Stockover moved to approve the Whitman Storage Facility —Addition of Permitted Use, # 11-08B and in support of his motion he adopts the findings of facts and conclusions as contained on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report with the exclusion of item G on page 7 because there is known opposition. He would also include striking the word "proposed" as conditions of approval to the staff report page 5, item 6, the 2nd sentence of the first paragraph and the 15t sentence of the 2nd paragraph. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. The motion failed 4:2 with Members Campana, Rollins, Lingle and Schmidt dissenting. Chair Schmidt noted the Board's reservations but that the discussion indicated that if another proposal came back with additional landscaping and if at that time the zoning is changed for that other parcel of property, the outcome may be different. Project: Whitman Storage Facility, Project Development Plan (PDP) — #11-08 Project Description: This is a request for a commercial & residential project on a property that is 3.6 acres in size. The existing and proposed uses are: 1. Single-family detached residence (as a legal, non -conforming use in the Commercial District) 2. Accessory office for business, with retail sales of small engine equipment 3. Workshop and custom small industry for repair of mowers, golf carts, snow blowers, and other small equipment 4. Enclosed mini -storage 5. Open storage of recreational vehicles, boats and trucks The site does or will contain an existing 2,585 square foot single-family residence, an existing 570 square foot office/retail sales building, an existing 1,830 repair shop building, an existing building containing a 3,382 square foot repair shop and 2,668 square feet of enclosed storage, a proposed 7,200 square foot enclosed storage building, and approximately 1 acre of proposed (outside) recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage. Access to the existing and proposed development site is from East Skyway Drive. The property is located at 209 East Skyway Drive, on the south side of the street approximately 500 feet east of South College Avenue, and is zoned C, Commercial and RL, Low Density Residential. Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 13 Recommendation: Approval Discussion concerning review of the PDP: City Planner Steve Olt wondered if we could move forward with the Project Development Plan (PDP) review given the outcome of the previous request. We'd have to exclude the addition of permitted use from the PDP because it is identified on the PDP site plan. Deputy City Attorney Eckman wondered how the Board could consider it when the application is for that use. If the applicant is still applying for that use, you'd be looking at a PDP for a use that is not permitted in the C (Commercial) zone. Zoning Supervisor Peter Barnes wondered if the Board could approve other aspects of the Plan with that particular use not considered and approved. Eckman asked if that would change the map and the site plan quite a bit. Olt said no. Olt said the development plan could be approved for the uses in the other buildings and not the use on the southwest portion of the site. Eckman said there would be no use approved on the addition of permitted use site ... that portion of the property would "lie fallow." Barnes said there could not be any outdoor storage there given what just occurred on the addition of permitted use request. Eckman said we could go forward with that if the applicant is interested in doing that. Barnes said part of the problem is the deadline —the Code allows only 9 months for the continuation of illegal use and this evening's meeting was the last day of that extension. Chair Schmidt asked if the applicant wanted to enlarge and park RVs in the enclosed existing structure or if there is some other zoning possibility for parking outside? Barnes said that would all be part of the RV, boat and trailer storage use —the use just denied. The applicant could not have any non -personal items stored there. Member Lingle asked it there was an option for the Board to continue the hearing to a later date — would that automatically continue the extension. Barnes said that given the Code states that if an application is not approved within the allowed time..."the use shall be discontinued within 30 days following the decision of denial or expiration of said six month period (whichever one first occurs.) In this case, the Director (per Section 2.12.4) granted one extension for 3 months but that expires tonight. Member Stockover asked if the only thing that was not in compliance is the RV storage component. Barnes said that and the outdoor display of small engines. Barnes said you could not continue to do the existing small engineer repair in that facility. You also couldn't have RV storage in that building. Campana asked if we removed the outdoor storage portion of and if everything else was approved tonight, would that be a major amendment if they came back for some other use on the one acre on the southwest portion of the lot. Olt said it would probably be a major amendment as there would be a change of character. Campana asked if Major Amendments go to the Planning Director. Olt said it would be reviewed by the Board. Olt said this is a PDP in its entirety. There are some uses proposed that are type 1 uses and some that are type 2 uses. If any portion of the development plan is type 2, Planning & Zoning would review the entire plan. Eckman said from what Barnes said, the extension deadline is up. Olt said the property was rezoned in January, 2008—he had six months to bring it into compliance. That would have occurred mid -July. The former Current Planning Director Cameron Gloss granted a three-month extension to October 16"' (today) for the property to be brought into compliance. Eckman recommended the Board take some action tonight Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 14 Member Lingle asked how we'd deal with it. Would the Board proceed with the addition of permitted use that was not approved but the 8-foot fence and landscaping is shown on the PDP. Barnes said that normally we would not require a fence to screen a building and we might require landscaping. Olt said you would eliminate consideration of the use on the southwest portion of the site. The two things that would potentially be eliminated are the request for the addition of permitted Oust denied) and the fence. Other than that, you would consider the new building, the uses that are occurring in the existing building, and the street frontage situation —fencing and street improvements. Member Rollins asked if there was a time constraint on those. A number of issues expire today, is that correct? Barnes said correct. He said the decisions needed tonight are the existing activity in the northwest building that are not permitted, the outdoor display areas that aren't permitted, and the fence situation along the frontage that is not permitted. Member Campana asked if there would be conditions for the approval. How do we deal with that? Olt said we could certainly condition the PDP approval and then delegate to staff the responsibility that the final plan reflects the conditions of approval. Chair Schmidt asked if the applicant wants to do that. Mr. Whitman said he believes with the prior decision that he's basically been put out of business. Eckman asked the Board for a recess to provide an opportunity for staff to advise Mr. Whitman of his options with regard to hearing the PDP tonight —if not reviewed and approved he'd have to cease illegal use within 30 days. On return from recess review of the PDP continued: Staff Presentation: Olt reported The Whitman Storage Facility, PDP proposal complies with applicable requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION; • Standards located in Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 - Engineering Standards, Division 3.4 - Environmental and Natural Area Protections Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; • and applicable district standards located in ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STANDARDS, Division 4.4 RL, Low Density Residential and Division 4.21 C, Commercial Zoning Districts. The Whitman Storage Facility, PDP proposal does not comply with the following requirement of the Land Use Code: • The standard located in Section 3.8.11 - Fences and Walls, Subsection 3.8.11(C) (1) of the LUC regarding fence or wall locations. This subsection sets forth the requirement that: • Fences or walls shall be nor more than four (4) feet high between the front building line and front property line. The existing 6' high chain link fence along the front of the property is approximately 33 feet north of the closest building face to the front property line along Skyway Drive and approximately 11 feet south of the curb for Skyway Drive. The applicant has set forth in Section 2.8.2 of the Single-family detached dwellings are permitted in the RL, Low Density Residential Zoning District, subject to an administrative (Type 1) review. The RL District is intended for predominantly single- family residential areas located throughout the City existing at the time of adoption of the Land Use Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 15 Code. This proposal complies with the purpose of the RL District as it includes a 26,610 square foot lot in the district for future single-family dwellings. Offices, retail establishments, workshop and small industry uses, and enclosed mini -storage are permitted in the C, Commercial District, subject to either an administrative (Type 1) or Planning & Zoning Board (Type 2) reviews. The C District is intended to be a setting for development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing. This proposal complies with the purpose of the C District as it includes a small combined office/retail sales building, enclosed mini -storage, and a workshop and custom small industry use. Applicant's Reauest: In accordance with the City's Land Use Code, Section 2.8, Modification of Standards, this request is made with regard to the existing six (6) foot high chain link security fence that is located along the East Skyway Drive frontage at the subject site. The Design Standard identified in Section 3.8.11, Fences and Walls, does not allow chain link materials, a fence height in excess of four (4) feet or barbed wire attached to the fence for security purposes. This request is being made to allow the six (6) foot high security fence to be relocated within the street frontage of the subject site. The fence is to be positioned at thirteen (13) feet back of the existing curb and gutter. This location will allow for: a six (6) foot wide landscaped parkway between the back of curb and the sidewalk; a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk; and a two (2) foot wide open area with ground cover between the back of sidewalk and the fence location. This will allow for the sidewalk to be placed in its ultimate location and will provide a parkway for the installation of street trees. Additional shrubs and plants will be provided behind the fence to provide additional landscaping. The chain link fence is necessary to provide security for the antique farm equipment that is displayed as `yard art' and security for the lawn maintenance equipment and golf carts that are on display for sale. The barbed wire that is currently attached to the top of the fence is to be removed when the fence is relocated. The modification request is based upon the following information: • The modification is desired in order to allow for the six (6) high chain link fence to be located within the property frontage. • The location of the fence will allow for the public sidewalk along East Skyway Drive to be installed at its ultimate location. • The public sidewalk along East Skyway Drive is to be installed in conjunction with the relocation of the fence. • The health, safety and welfare of the general public will not be jeopardized by granting of the Modification. • The design life of the improvements will not be reduced nor will additional maintenance costs be incurred due to the granting of the Modification. Staff, in reviewing the proposed plan for purposes of determining whether it accomplishes the purposes of this section as required. The Planning and Zoning Board shall take into account whether the proposed plan demonstrates innovative design and best meets the intent of the Land Use Code. Based on the standards in Section 2.8.2(H), Staff has determined that: Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 16 Granting the requested modifications would not be detrimental to the public good; and that, the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The proposal enhances an existing condition relating to the location, character, and function of a fence on the front of the property along East Skyway Drive. The 6' high chain link fence was installed legally, in its present location, in Larimer County several years ago. The fence is used for security of outside display of merchandise associated with the small engine repair and sales business operation. Currently there is no sidewalk along the small engine repair and sales business operation. Currently there is no sidewalk along this portion of Skyway Drive, nor are there any street trees as required in the City of Fort Collins. This proposal will upgrade the property frontage by moving the 6' high fence back approximately 2'; constructing a 5' wide detached concrete sidewalk, and providing a 6' wide parkway with street trees and turfgrass. If the fence were lowered to 4' it would not have to be moved, which would make the provision of a detached sidewalk and street trees in a preferred location very difficult. A modification of standard related to the height of the fence was denied in July 2008. The new request for modification of standard for the Whitman Storage Facility, PDP is supported by the criteria set forth in Section 2.8.2(H) (4), subsections (A) through (N), of the LUC. Staff recommends approval of the modification of the standard set forth in Section 3.8.11(C) (1) of the LUC and approval of the Whitman Storage Facility, Project Development Plan - #11-08. With regard to the just denied request for addition of permitted use, the 8 foot fence along the south and east portion of "lot 3" is no longer required. At most foundation plantings and full tree stocking at 50 feet will be required. The trees at 40 foot spacing along the lot lines would not be required without the open storage. Staff recommends approval with conditions of approval as outlined in his memorandum dated October 14, 2008. Specifically: To ensure final approval and implementation of the proposed development in a timely manner, staff is recommending that the applicant submit the required Final Compliance Plans within 30 days of Project Development Plan approval. The applicant is proposing that two ((moot point with denial of request for addition of permitted use-2) maintenance gates be placed in the 8' high solid fence along the east side of Lot 3. Staff does not support the need for the proposed north gate. )The outdoor display area for the small engine repair and retail business must be limited to the area between the north face of the existing metal building and the landscaping inside the 6' high chain link fence along Skyway Drive, and between the entry drive from East Skyway Drive and the west property line. Until such time as the new 7200 square foot enclosed storage building is constructed, the portion of Lot 3 on which the structure is to be located must be fenced off from the approved outdoor storage area in order to ensure that outside storage of RV's, boats, and trucks does not occur in this area. Therefore, staff is recommending that the following four (4) conditions be placed on approval of the Whitman Storage Facility, Project Development Plan should the Planning & Zoning Board take that action: The applicant must submit required Final Compliance Plans to the City for review within 30 days of approval of the Whitman Storage Facility, Project Development Plan - #11-08. 2. Moot point with denial of request for addition of permitted use. As part of the Final Compliance Plan submittal, the applicant must remove the proposed north maintenance gate in the 8' high solid fence along the east side of Lot 3, being the east edge of the Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 17 proposed commercial use. One (1) additional Lanceleaf Cottonwood tree and five (5) additional Mountain Snowberry shrubs must be located on Lot 2 in the proximity of the gate to be removed. 3. The outdoor display area for the small engine repair and retail business must be limited to the area between the north face of the existing metal building and the landscaping inside the 6' high chain link fence along Skyway Drive, and between the entry drive from East Skyway Drive and the west property line. This area must be defined on the Final Development Plan. 4. Moot point with denial of request for addition of permitted use. Until such time as the new 7200 square foot enclosed storage building is constructed, the portion of Lot 3 on which the structure is to be located must be fenced off from the approved outdoor storage area in order to ensure that outside storage of RV's, boats, and trucks does not occur in this area. This area must be clearly defined on the Final Development Plan. Board questions: Chair Schmidt asked why there was a condition of approval for the display area. Barnes said there have been a variety of items displayed there. The issue is that the proposed PDP does not define where the display will take place so it could occur anywhere. Zoning staff would like to have a document that specifically defines where that outdoor display area would be located and what's allowed. It makes it easier to enforce. In staffs opinion —that it's more appropriate to display in front of the more commercial looking building. In front of the residence on the east side of the drive, there is landscape treatment and yard art with antique equipment —it's not appropriate for a display of lawn mowers and golf carts, etc. Applicant presentation: Randy Whitman, 209 Skyway commented that this is his business and all he's trying to do is stay in business. Board questions: Chair Schmidt asked if the PDP is approved with the agreements as to the fence and condition of a final compliance plan due in thirty days how would that work if it's due before an appeal is scheduled. Whitman said the condition for dropping his appeal of the request for the modification of standard on the 4-foot fence is the "whole" plan was approved. Olt asked for clarification. If this PDP is approved less the outdoor storage with the fence as it's been proposed on the PDP, would that not then make the previous appeal unnecessary because the current PDP deals with the height and location of the fence. Whitman said his intent is to appeal. He doesn't think he should give up anything if all was not approved as submitted. Member Lingle asked Olt about the analysis on Page 5, Building Standards and Architectural Character. His understanding is that unadorned metal buildings are only allowed in industrial zones. Section 3.5.1.E says new developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that's complimentary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitely established or is not consistent with the purposes of this LUC, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects of redevelopment in the area... compatibility can be enhanced... Olt said his personal opinion would be it's hard to say it's not compatible with the buildings on site just to the northwest. There really isn't anything else in close proximity to compare it to say it's incompatible with both the building and the use that is ongoing and proposed on site. Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 18 Member Lingle said he would consider the plan as not consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code. Lingle said he's been on the Board 5 or 6 years now and we've never even reviewed, let alone approved, a metal building with nothing on it. Barnes said Section 3.5.1 E under building materials says building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood or if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions for architectural detailing, color and texture shall be utilized. We have the metal buildings in the neighborhood. Lingle said what we're saying by approving this is it is consistent with the purpose of the Land Use Code. Olt said yes, based on that section that was just read. Member Campana asked regarding the architecture of the new building. Is there no base treatment, top treatment articulation, or anything thing along those lines required. Olt said no they are not required. Chair Schmidt asked if this would not be considered new development because there's already existing buildings on the property. Lingle said it would definitely be considered new and therefore it's not consistent with the purposes of the LUC: the architecture and new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality... that's been the whole intent for architectural standards from the time this code was adopted. Member Campana said he thought that enclosed mini -storage would typically have a uniform look on the inside where you'd have a ribbed building but the perimeter buildings (exposed to the public) would be enhanced with articulation, base treatment, top treatment, and pitch on the roof —things of that nature. Would you consider that as a perimeter building with the right of way being granted but the street (Aran) not there? Olt said that would be open to interpretation but its set back from an existing building from the existing street. Member Rollins asked if Aran was on the Master Street Plan. Olt said yes. Campana asked for a review of the existing steel buildings. Olt showed pictures of the existing small engine repair shop and the proposed small engine repair and enclosed mini -storage. Campana asked if they wouldn't have to bring that up to the Land Use Code (LUC) unless you're doing a major alternation. Barnes said that's correct. Campana said the new building may or may not have to meet the LUC standards depending on how you interpret it with regard to being on a street. Olt said certainly the proposed new building is the same size, scale, shape, height, and materials as the existing building directly to the north. Member Stockover wondered if the first condition listed on the October 14 memo from Olt —30 days to submit the required Final Compliance Plan may be too short being there may be some changes in that Plan. He wondered how people felt about extending it. Olt said he believed it would be sufficient even with the elimination of the outdoor vehicle storage —it's a matter of taking a note off the site plan. The plans as submitted are basically close to a final plan level and we felt like that there was sufficient time to resubmit. Stockover thought with the landscaping changes it should be 60 days. Olt said the Board certainly has that prerogative. Chair Schmidt said what we're really looking at what's new on the PDP is the whole fenced area in the front and the new building for the RV storage —the rest are existing buildings (the repair shop and storage.) Olt said the large building is to legalize (and permit the uses that are currently occurring in there now.) They are apart of the zoning violations that need to be rectified. Olt said the Board would Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 19 be approving the uses. Whitman said that currently in the big building —there is small engine repair and an engine washing station as well as RV storage. Schmidt asked if all the current uses are allowed uses once we approve this PDP. Olt said yes. Member Campana said with regard to LUC Section 3.5.3 C (variation of massing) and D (character and image), do those apply to the new building on the Aran street side. Olt said no. Campana asked why not. Olt read, "in new buildings to the extent reasonably feasible in development projects involving changes to existing buildings, walls, facades or awnings the following standards shall apply. Building design shall contribute to the uniqueness of the zone district and/or the Fort Collins community with predominate materials, elements, features, color, range and activity areas tailored specifically to the site and its context. In the case of a multiple building development, each individual building shall include predominate characteristics shared by all buildings in the development." Campana referred to C.1 (horizontal mass). Olt read horizontal mass shall not exceed a height ratio of 1:3 without substantial variation. Member Campana said he's familiar with that particular section of the Code from a mini storage project he did. He had to articulate a building, change heights, bring walls out, and add fagade and base treatments on an enclosed mini storage project adjacent to a road. He said when you add articulation on the wall it affects the articulation of the roof. On the street side only could you add a base treatment. Olt said both the east and west side of the proposed building have doors-6 overhead doors on both the east and west sides (to the street and to the interior of the site.) Member Campana said the minimum wall articulation above the base shall be a maximum of 30 feet in width... usually established with architectural features, columns, ribs, and pilasters. Historically that's what we've done. Campana agreed the challenge is on the side that has all the doors. Campana said the way they have accomplished that in the past is just step your bay width back 3 feet so that's where the building is. You might go to 27 (versus 30 foot) bays for 30 feet than pop back out for 30 foot and you articulate it that way. When you step your fagade in and out with the same roof pitch, that would add an articulation in your roof so you don't have a large mass. It does add cost but that's what's been done in the past. Member Lingle says it clearly does not meet any of that section's criteria. Campana agreed. Member Stockover said he still thinks we need to look at the area and I think with anything it can be interpreted to mean a couple of different things. Stockover felt the Board was pushing the boundaries. Lingle asked if he then wanted to waive those requirements as a condition of approval. Stockover said yes for this project specifically and for the area in which it's in. Lingle said the LUC doesn't talk about areas —it has specific criteria and doesn't say, "unless it's on this lot." Lingle said they'd have to make a specific finding that we are not going to enforce this particular criteria as a condition. Campana asked if that would be a variance. Lingle said he didn't know what it would be — as far as he knew, it's never been done before. Member Stockover said he thought we're digging our heels in too far. Lingle said their obligation is to apply the LUC. Chair Schmidt asked if we're just saying he needs to articulate the west side of the new building that would face Aran Street. Campana said yes --=just some articulation and some base treatment needs to be added— than Whitman would be in compliance. Member Stockover asked to hear staffs thoughts on that. Olt said that one thing he was looking at — minimum wall articulation, building bays shall be a maximum of 30 feet in width, bays shall be visibly established by architectural features such as columns, ribs, pilasters, piers, fenestration pattern. He's questioning and asks that someone to tell him why we are not looking at columns —we're looking at Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 20 different materials. We have vertical elements between the doors. We have different materials between the actual columns (or the building fagade) and the doors themselves. Cannot that be construed as satisfying the purpose of the Code? Certainly there is no element there that is more than 30 feet wide. Not one of those doors or not one of the columns between the doors is more than 30 feet wide. Lingle said he couldn't believe they we're having this conversation. He could tell Olt that every contractor and developer in town would love to hear that interpretation of that particular code section. Olt recommended moving forward with a motion and condition. Campana wanted to point out on C-1. The horizontal mass shall not exceed the height of 1:3 without substantial variation of massing that includes a change in height and projecting or recessed elements. Olt said that is something we can condition. Chair Schmidt said if we do place a condition on the PDP for this, how does that progress forward — would that just be reviewed by staff when the final comes in to confirm the changes have been made. Olt said that's correct —that is typically how its' done. Olt asked that the Board to be as specific as possible and then staff could make sure that the language on that condition of approval is satisfied. Chair Schmidt asked Barnes if the deadlines we're running up against is that why the 30 days is as long as is recommended for the submittal of the final plan. Barnes said you can go longer than that it's just that the code allows a considerable amount of time-3 years to submit a final and we don't want it to go on that long. If it's approved, then he has 60 days from the date of the approval to bring it into compliance (which is 60 days from the approval of the final plan.) We need to make sure that this doesn't go on for another couple of years so it needs to be a pretty fast turnaround. Barnes said that if the PDP is denied than he has 30 days to remedy the violations and bring them entirely into compliance. If there's an appeal filed ... that stays that 30 days. Chair Schmidt says if we're asking for additional conditions such as adding articulation, the Board may want to consider more than 30 days before the final plan should be submitted. Member Wetzler asked what happens if the applicant abandons the building even if this is approved with conditions but he doesn't have the money to complete. What happens to the PDP? Olt said because of the developed nature of the site and the infrastructure that's in place, his interpretation is the property is vested perpetually and the PDP would not expire. The definition of substantial completion on a final plan is infrastructure in place —streetlights, utilities, and storm drainage facilities completed. If Whitman were to complete the detention pond on the southeast comer of the site; it would satisfy the substantial completion requirement. The Aran Street right of way will be dedicated but the street won't be built. If he never builds that building because the PDP is vested, there would be no penalty. Member Wetzler said he'd like to keep this individual in business. He's got an existing investment in the current buildings and he didn't think it was right for the Board to put him out of business. Whitman has a right to make a living. What's existing there, as far as he's concerned, is approve the added use of the existing building —it's not going to impact negatively any thing on Aran or anyone's property because it's an enclosed activity. Member Stockover said he's not clear when he'd be required to do the sidewalk and the additional landscaping. Would that be at the time he builds the proposed building? Olt said it would have to be brought into compliance immediately whether he does or does not build the additional building. Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 21 Olt said the fence location is in violation. If they approve what he's proposing (detached sidewalk, parkway and landscaping,) they are requirements that need to be done immediately to bring the site into compliance. Chair Schmidt said if the Board approves the PDP with whatever conditions they believe appropriate; and Whitman decides he won't add the building because it'll be too costly; could he just wait it out — with regard to City Council's decision on the appeal on the front fence height. Then, because we've approved the POP (including uses for the buildings that exist,) and Council does decide in his favor on appeal; then he'd have to remedy that right away. Is it still his choice whether he'd build the other building or not? Olt said yes. The other building would be no different than if you're a part of a subdivided residential development. There could be a lot without a house sitting out there forever. As long as this property is vested (Engineering and Planning determine it's vested,) he can wait for as long as he likes. Chair Schmidt asked if the sidewalk became an issue because a PDP was coming forward. Barnes said Whitman is doing the PDP to allow for the small engine repair —that change of use triggered the site improvements. Public Input None Motions: Modification of Standard Member Lingle moved to approve the Modification of Standard for Section 3.8.11(C)(1) for the Whitman Storage Facility Project based on the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that the plan as submitted would not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The proposal enhances an existing condition relating to the location, character, and function of a fence on the front of the property along East Skyway Drive. The 6' high chain link fence was installed legally, in its present location, in Larimer County several years ago. The fence is used for security of outside display of merchandise associated with the small engine repair and sales business operation. Currently there is no sidewalk along the small engine repair and sales business operation. Currently there is no sidewalk along this portion of Skyway Drive nor are there any street trees as required in the City of Fort Collins. This proposal will upgrade the property frontage by moving the 6' high fence back approximately 2% constructing a 5' wide detached concrete sidewalk, and providing a 6' wide parkway with street trees and turf grass. If the fence were lowered to 4' it would not have to be moved, which would make the provision of a detached sidewalk and street trees in a preferred location very difficult. Member Rollins seconded the motion. The motion was passed 6:0. Project Development Plan Member Stockover moved to approve the Whitman Storage Facility PDP, # 11-08. in support of his motion he adopts the findings of fact/conclusions as contained on pages 9 and 10 of the Planning & Zoning Board October 16, 2008 Page 22 staff report. He would like to attach two conditions on the Memorandum from Steve Olt dated October 14, 2008: Item 1, the applicant must submit required Final Compliance Plans to the City for review within 60 days of approval of the Whitman Storage Facility Project Development Plan - #11-08 and Item 3, the outdoor display area for the small engine repair and retail business must be limited to the area between the north face of the existing metal building and the landscaping inside the 6' high chain link fence along Skyway Drive, and between the entry drive from East Skyway Drive and the west property line. This area must be defined on the Final Development Plan. Also strike Item 5 (Open storage of recreational vehicles, boats and trucks as that was not an approved addition of permitted use) on Page 1 of the Staff Report and any other reference to that use in the staff report. Stockover invited any friendly amendment —a condition with regard to articulation. Lingle thought it would just be a reference to Section 3.5.3 because there's more than just a reference to bay . articulation. Going further it's base and top treatments for all facades (not just street facing facades.) Campana said he knows that but historically it hasn't been required. Lingle said then we need to say it that way. Campana made a friendly amendment to add requirements as outlined in Section 3.5.3 LUC on the west elevation of the proposed building. Campana asked if there should be any mention that the 8 foot fence is not required on the PDP. Olt said that is something he's not personally clear. It's shown on the Plan so if the plan is approved the 8 foot fence and landscaping associated with that would be approved with the Plan. Campana made an additional friendly amendment... the 8 foot fence is not required. The landscaping be changed on the Final Development Plan to be compliance with Section 3.2.1.C.1.C. Stockover agreed to the amendments. Member Wetzler seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. Other Business: None Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. pteve It, intenm Current Planning Director Brigi " Schmidt, Chair