HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/02/2008 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL BY RANDY WHITMAN OF TH ITEM NUMBER: 34
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: December2, 2008
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Steve Olt
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Appeal by Randy Whitman of the July 17,2008 Determination of the Planning
and Zoning Board to Deny the Whitman Storage Facility—Request for a Modification of Standard
Set Forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter, and after consideration, either:
1. Uphold, overturn or modify the Board's decision; or
2. Remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues raised on appeal.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 17, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the
Whitman Storage Facility — Request for a Modification of Standard. The Board considered
testimony from the applicant, the public and Staff. The request was denied. Randy Whitman, the
applicant for the request, has appealed the Board's decision. The allegations are that the Planning
and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the City Code,
particularly those relating to roads,sidewalks,fencing,setbacks,sight distance,nonconforming uses
and structures.
BACKGROUND
This is a commercial project known as the Whitman Storage Facility - Request for a Modification
of Standard. The subject property is located at 209 East Skyway Drive,approximately 500 feet east
of South College Avenue. The property is zoned C, Commercial and RL, Low Density Residential.
The Request is for a Modification of the Standard set forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) that requires fences or walls to be no more than four feet high
between the front building line and front property line. The request is to allow the existing six-foot
high chain link security fence to remain in place until such time as the ultimate street improvements
to East Skyway Drive are to be made.
December 2, 2008 -2- Item No. 34
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
At the July 17, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, the Board made the
following findings of fact and conclusions as stated on page 5 of the Staff Report:
A. The Requested Modification of the Standard to Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1) of the Land Use
Code for the Whitman Storage Facility - Request for a Modification of Standard is subject
to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2)review.
B. Granting the requested modification would be detrimental to the public good.
C. The Project Development Plan as submitted,showing the location and height of the existing
fence, will not promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for
which a modification is requested, as set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)(1) of the LUC.
Based on the requirements set forth in Section 3.8.11 of the LUC, the 6 foot high
chain link fence should be located no closer to the north property line than the front
fagade of the existing "Repair Shop" structure. By City definition the fence is not
being used for screening purposes;therefore,if cut down to 4 feet in height the fence
in its present location would be in compliance with the LUC.
The location of the fence, being just 11 feet off of the back of curb for East Skyway
Drive, will not allow for a standard 5 foot wide detached sidewalk with an 8 foot
wide landscaped parkway within a Collector street ROW.The Applicant is proposing
to construct a permanent 6 foot wide attached sidewalk.
D. The Request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the LUC, based on
the Project Development Plan as submitted,is being justified by stating that the design life
of the improvements will not be reduced nor will additional maintenance costs be incurred
due to the granting of the modification.Section 2.8.2(H)(3)of the LUC states(in part)"That
by reason of extraordinary and exceptional conditions,the strict application of the standard
sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such
difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act of the Applicant." The fence posts are
anchored in concrete. However, the nature of the construction of the fence, in its present
location,was caused by the voluntary act of the property owner(Applicant).Therefore,staff
has determined that the Requested Modification of the Standard is not supported by the
criteria set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the LUC.
E. This request is only for a modification of the specific standard in Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1)
of the LUC. The applicant has submitted a PDP proposal for review by the City that is
currently being reviewed by City staff and outside reviewing agencies. A determination of
the PDP will ultimately be made by the Planning and Zoning Board separate from this
request for a modification of standard.
The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staff and voted
6 — 1 to deny the Request for a Modification of the Standard set forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1)
December 2, 2008 -3- Item No. 34
relating to the location of the 6 foot high chain link fence along the frontage of the property at 209
East Skyway Drive.
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On August 19, 2008, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office from Randy
Whitman, 209 E. Skyway Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525.
The Appellant alleges that:
1. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of
the City Code. In particular, those relating to roads, sidewalks, fencing, setbacks, sight
distance, nonconforming uses and structures.
The Appellant specifically alleges:
• "The City is claiming that they have no plan to widen Skyway Drive. Since they are
not going to widen the road, there is no need for a detached sidewalk."
• "The City Engineer stated that she would likely approve a permanent 6 foot wide
attached sidewalk if the fence were allowed to remain in its present location."
• "The surrounding neighborhood directly across from my property all has attached
sidewalks."
• "A decision has not been made yet relating to the sidewalk,which when made could
materially impact the placement of the fence."
• "The City would allow a 4 foot fence but not a 6 foot fence. For security purposes,
what good is a 4 foot fence and what difference does 2 feet make in the scheme of
things?"
• "If we move the fence back 7 feet, it is okay to be 6 feet. I do not understand the
thinking process related to this fact and the issue mentioned prior."
• "The cost related to us to move the fence a few feet back and install a detached
sidewalk is considerable.This cost seems to be asking a little much when it does not
seem to be a necessary factor."
QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board not properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the
City Code?
STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Section 3.8.11 Fences and Walls
December 2, 2008 -4- Item No. 34
Section 3.8.1l(C)(1), a subsection of Section 3.8.11, states:
• "Fences or walls shall be nor more than four(4)feet high between the front building
line and front property line."
The existing six (6)foot high chain link fence along the north side of the Whitman property
at 209 East Skyway Drive is located approximately 33 feet north of the closest building face
on-site and is essentially right on the property line.
Responses to the Appellant's specific points of contention are:
Appellant's Statement: The City is claiming that they have no plan to widen Skyway
Drive. Since they are not going to widen the road,there is no
need for a detached sidewalk.
Staff s response: The City does not have plans to widen Skyway Drive;
however,the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards do
require detached sidewalks in all locations as part of
development or redevelopment proposals.The requirement is
primarily for pedestrian safety reasons, although streetscape
and snow removal issues are also considered.
Appellant's Statement: The City Engineer stated that she would likely approve a
permanent 6 foot wide attached sidewalk if the fence were
allowed to remain in its present location.
Staff s Response: This point is moot because the Planning and Zoning Board
denied the Appellant's request for the fence to remain in its
present location.
Appellant's Statement: The surrounding neighborhood directly across from my
property all has attached sidewalks.
Staff s Response: There are attached sidewalks in the surrounding
neighborhood that were approved and constructed under
previous codes and standards. This does not exempt the
Appellant, as part of his development proposal, from
complying with current standards.
Appellant's Statement: A decision has not been made yet relating to the sidewalk,
which when made could materially impact the placement of
the fence.
Staff s Response: The current standard for sidewalk location and alignment is
to be detached a distance of 6 feet from the back of curb
along East Skyway Drive. The placement of the fence was
determined by the Planning and Zoning Board with their
denial to allow the 6 foot high fence to remain in its present
December 2, 2008 -5- Item No. 34
location. Therefore, the fence and sidewalk locations must
comply with the standards set forth in the Land Use Code.
Appellant's Statement: The City would allow a 4 foot fence but not a 6 foot fence.
For security purposes, what good is a 4 foot fence and what
difference does 2 feet make in the scheme of things?
Staff s Response: A 4 foot high fence would be allowed in the present location
of the 6 foot high fence. To comply with Section
3.8.11(C)(1), if the Appellant needs the 6 foot high fence for
security purposes it must be moved back to align with the
north building face of the existing repair shop.
Appellant's Statement: If we move the fence back 7 feet, it is okay to be 6 feet. I do
not understand the thinking process related to this fact and the
issue mentioned prior.
Staff s Response: This is an incorrect statement. For the fence to be able to
remain 6 feet in height it would have to be moved back
approximately 33 feet to align with the north building face of
the existing repair shop.
Appellant's Statement: The cost related to us to move the fence a few feet back and
install a detached sidewalk is considerable. This cost seems
to be asking a little much when it does not seem to be a
necessary factor.
Staff s Response: Staff recognizes costs associated with development and the
need to meet the City's development standards. Compliance
with the requirements are consistently applied and there was
no misunderstanding by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Staff,therefore,finds that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply
the intent of Section 3.8.11 Fences and Walls in the Land Use Code.
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
1. Section 3.8.11 Fences and Walls
Fences and wall shall meet the following standards:
(A) If used along collector or arterial streets, such features shall be made visually
interesting and shall avoid creating a"tunnel"effect.Compliance with this standard may be
accomplished by integrating architectural elements such as brick or stone columns,
incorporating articulation or openings into the design.
Section 3.8.11(C) Fences and walls shall be:
December 2, 2008 -6- Item No. 34
(1) no more than four (4) feet high between the front building line and front property
line.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map.
2. Notice of Appeal Hearing.
3. Amended Notice of Appeal.
4. Agenda Materials Provided to the Planning and Zoning Board.
5. Handouts Reviewed by the Board at the Hearing.
6. Verbatim Transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, July 17, 2008.
ATTACHMENT 1
LA
W SATURN DRY w _': E�SATURN . DR _ ` � ' i i� y ` �1 Ob6i
__• <i it R�' i �r i4 �. . y r _ v sw r� _.� rz� Ap *I
( Ir
:� 4■ "r ME
a �.
tt 1 � 1
,w it r ly1
GA
. � 0 . �► ' "
P / i . I 't w e .'idU 1 1 . ,E ♦ f INN Y
ew
to IrVISM
'AL
_ Ire eRM
ii �, pi Vier 41M gill ]rl 1}
~ e .IV y
i
f 1 4 O . . eft
�MF3��
W SKY.WA DR Y• �� k�� _ _ . , .. a� � ` `� �1i , , I
E 'SKYWAY DR
ul
Q w
w F
J Z
J W
O — Y
N
li
N 11 - 08A Whitman Storage Facility
A Modification of Standard Aerial Vicinity
1 inch equals 300 feet
ATTACHMENT
City Clerk's
Notice of Appeal Hearing
Cityof City Clerk's Office
Fot Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522
970.221X515
970.221.6295295-fax
fcgov com/cifyclerk
NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins,Colorado,on Tuesday, December 2,2008,at 6:00 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in City Hall
at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board made on July 17, 2008, regarding the Whitman Storage Facility
Modification of Standard (#11-08A). Also attached is a letter from the appellant requesting
postponement of the appeal to December 2, 2008. You may have received previous notice on this
item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board.
If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's
Office (970-221-6515) or the Planning Department (970-221-6750).
Any written materials that any party-in-interest may wish the City Council to consider in deciding
the appeal shall be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November
26, 2008 [Section 2-54 (b) of the City Code]. Agenda materials provided to the City Council,
including City staff's response to the Notice of Appeal, and any additional issues identified by any
party-in-interest, will be available to the public on Wednesday,November 26,after 3:00 p.m. in the
City Clerk's Office and on the City's website at: http:(lfcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 970-221-6515(TDD 970-224-6001)for assistance.
J0Lvl )P� • c�!
Wanda M. Krajicek
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
November 14, 2008
cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
ATTACHMENT
Amended
Notice of Appeal
RECEIVED
AUG 19 2008
August 18, 2008 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
RE: Amended Notice of Appeal regarding July 17, 2008 Planning& Zoning Board decision
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
300 W. Laporte
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Clerk:
On July 17, 2008 the Fort Collins Planning& Zoning Board denied a request made by me to
allow me to keep my 6 foot high chain link fence in its present location.
On July 31, 2008 I filed a notice of appeal with the City Clerk concerning the decision. On
August 4, 2008 the Deputy City Attorney provided written recommendations that I file an
amended notice of appeal. This document constitutes the amended notice of appeal.
I disagree with this decision and wish to appeal it to the City Council due to the following
reason. The Planning & Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of
the City Code, particularly those relating to roads, sidewalks, fencing, setbacks, sight distance,
nonconforming uses and structures.
Specifically:
• The City is claiming that they have no plan to widen Skyway Drive. Since they are not
going to widen the road, there is no need for a detached sidewalk.
• The City Engineer, Helen Migchelbrink, stated that she would likely approve a permanent 6
foot wide attached sidewalk if the fence were allowed to remain in its present location.
• The surrounding neighborhood directly across from my property all has attached
sidewalks.
• A decision has not been made yet relating to the sidewalk,which when made could materially
impact the placement of the fence.
• The City will allow a 4 foot fence but not a 6 foot fence. For security purposes,what good is a
4 foot fence and what difference does 2 feet make in the scheme of things?
• IF we move the fence back 7 feet, it is okay to be 6 foot. I do not understand the thinking
process related to this fact and the issue mentioned prior.
• The cost related to us to move the fence a few feet back and install a detached sidewalk is
considerable. This cost seems to be asking a little much when it does not seem to be a
necessary factor.
In the economic world we live in today, it would seem to me that a City would want to work
with its residents in order for survival to be reachable. In my outlook of things, the issues that
the City of Fort Collins is asking of me are irrational and are not being looked at from an open
mind. If a person drives around the City of Fort Collins there are many inconsistencies with
what I am being told to do. For example, if you drive past the City of Fort Collins
Transportation on Trilby, they have a 6 foot fence with barbed wire which is exactly like mine.
Why are they allowed to have it and yet I am not? There is NO sidewalk half way down Trilby
where there is residential now.
Si ly,
4
Randytiman
209 E. Skyway Drive
Fort Collins,CO 80525
970-227-0755
RECEIVED
AUG 2 12008
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
August 20, 2008
RE: Request for a postponement of meeting regarding Amended Notice of Appeal
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
300 W. Laporte
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Clerk:
I request that the September 9, 2008 meeting regarding my Appeal concerning the decision made
by the Fort Collins Planning&Zoning Board on July 17, 2008 be postponed. There is a
possibility that the issues in question may be solved at an October 16, 2008 Planning&Zoning
Board meeting that is scheduled at this time. If the matter is resolved at that time, I agree to drop
the Appeal.
I ask that the postponement be "no earlier than 30 days or no later than 60 days" from the
scheduled October 16, 2008 meeting, as long as that meeting takes place. The next available time
that the appeal would be heard, if it is not resolved on October 16, 2008, would be December 2,
2008. I willingly waive my right to a hearing on the filed appeal within the time established in
the code.
Sincerebi,
y Whitman
2 E. Skyway Drive
Fort CoHins, CO 80525
970-227-0755
ATTACHMENT 4
Agenda Materials Provided to
the Planning and Zoning
Board
i
CD C
N
E SKYWAY DR
ji
SITE ¢
UJI
dc
CD
w
J
J
U
U
LYNN DR
#11 -08 Whitman Storage PDP
5/21/08 1 inch equals 300 feet /�\
City of Planning&Zoning Board �JSA4
Fort Collins Item#AFF REP A T
Meeting Date '/ 0
�\ Staff-
PROJECT:
0
PROJECT: Whitman Storage Facility - Request for a Modification of Standard -
#11-08
APPLICANT: Randy Whitman
209 East Skyway Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
OWNER: Randy Whitman
aaro-, 2:p9 East Skyway Drive
Fo 'colliq =Colgr646 80525
%�
PROJECT DES�)CRIPTtON :Ar
This is a commercial project known as the Whitman Storage Facility - Request for a
Modification of Standard. The subject property is located at 209 East Skyway Drive,
approximately 500 feet east of South College Avenue. The property is zoned C,
Commercial and RL, Low Density Residential. The request is for a modification of the
standard set forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC)
that requires fences or walls to be no more than four (4) feet high between the front
building line and front property line. The request is to allow the existing six (6) foot high
chain link security fence that is located along the south side of East Skyway Drive to
remain in place until such time as the ultimate street improvements to East Skyway Drive
are to be made. This is a request for a modification of the aforementioned standard only. A
formal submittal of a development plan for review has been made and will be presented to
the.,Planning & Zoning Board at a future public hearing.
REGOMMENpATIO, Ic Denial
.,
EXECUTIVE„S4MMA RY:
The Applicant has submitted an application with a request for a modification of the
standard as set forth 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.
This application for a modification of the standard requests that the Planning & Zoning
Board determine if the modification request meets the intent of the LUC and the criteria set
forth in Section 2.8.2 of the LUC. This request is only for a modification of the specific
Modification —Whitman Storage Facility— Filing #11-08
July 17, 2008 Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing
Page 2
standard in Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1) of the LUC. The Applicant has submitted a Project
Development Plan (PDP) request for review by the City, which will be presented to the
Board at a future public hearing.
COMMENTS
1. BACKGROUND
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RL in the City of Fort Collins; existing residential
E: UE in the City of Fort Collins; existing residential
S: UE in the City of Fort Collins; undeveloped
W: C in the City of Fort Collins; existing commercial
The property was subdivided and platted in Larimer County as Lot 1 of the Lynn Acres
Subdivision in April, 1971.
The property was annexed as part of Phase 1 of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in
November, 2006. It was zoned UE, Urban Estate when annexed.
The property was rezoned to C, Commercial (west 2/3) and RL, Low Density Residential
(east 1/3) on January 15, 2008 at City Council second reading.
2. MODIFICATION REQUEST— PERTINENT CODE SECTIONS
This request is for a modification of a standard in the following section of the LUC:
Section 3.8.11 — Fences and Walls, Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1), regarding fence or wall
locations, states:
• Fences or walls shall be nor more than four (4) feet high between the front
building line and front property line.
The Applicant has submitted a PDP request for the Whitman Storage Facility that contains
4 additional buildings, in 3 phases, on the south side of the commercially zoned portion of
the property. Additionally, the Applicant has submitted a request for a Modification of
Standard to Section 3.8.11(C)(1) that would allow the existing 6 foot high chain link fence
to remain in its present location, which 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 back of curb for Skyway Drive.
Modification —Whitman Storage Facility — Filing #11-08
July 17, 2008 Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing
Page 3
As specified in Section 2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures, (H) (Standards), the
Planning and Zoning Board may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for
which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan
which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested, or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard
would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code,
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide
concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the
fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important
community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the
City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of
the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render
the project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to,
physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or
topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a
solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be
modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided
that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the
applicant, or
(4) 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 Applicant has proposed that the modification of the standard would (generally) not be
detrimental to the public good and suggests that it meets the requirement of Section
2.8.2(H)(4) of the LUC.
3. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
In accordance with 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 East Skyway
Drive. The Design Standard identified in Section 3.8.11, Fences and Walls, does not allow
either chain link materials or a fence height in excess of four (4) feet. This request is made
Modification —Whitman Storage Facility— Filing #11-08
July 17, 2008 Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing
Page 4
to allow the existing six (6) foot high chain link security fence that is located along East
Skyway Drive to remain in place until such time as the ultimate street improvements to
East Skyway Drive are to be made.
The modification request is based upon the following information:
* The modification is desired in order to allow for the existing fence to remain in place.
The existing barbed wire located at the top of the fence is to be removed.
* The ultimate alignment for East Skyway Drive has not been determined and no time
frame has been established to construct the ultimate improvements.
* Sidewalk is to be installed along the southern side of East Skyway Drive adjacent to
the site in conjunction with the proposed development.
* The health, safety and welfare of the general public will not be jeopardized by the
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.
The Applicant's request is attached to this Staff Report.
4. STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF MODIFICATION REQUEST
Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1) of the LUC sets forth the requirement that fences or walls shall be
not more than four (4) feet high between the front building line and front property line. The
existing six (6) foot high chain link fence along the north side of the Whitman property at
209 East Skyway Drive is located approximately 33 feet north of the closest building face
on-site and is essentially right on the property line, as an additional 3 feet of right-of-way
(ROW) for East Skyway Drive is being dedicated with the Whitman Storage Facility, PDP.
As a matter of fact, with the additional ROW dedication there is approximately 240 feet of
fence that would be within the ROW. The fence was originally constructed when the
property was in Larimer County, and the existing commercial uses apparently were not
permitted in the FA, Farming District in the County at that time.
In reviewing the proposed modification of standard request for purpose of determining
whether it accomplishes the purposes of this section as required, Staff has determined
that:
* Granting the requested modification would be detrimental to the public
good and would impair the intent and purposes of the LUC.
Modification —Whitman Storage Facility— Filing #11-08
July 17, 2008 Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing
Page 5
The Project Development Plan as submitted, showing the location and height of the
existing fence, will not promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies
with the standard for which a modification is requested, as set forth in Section
2.8.2(H)(1) of the LUC.
Based on the requirements set forth in Section 3.8.11 of the LUC, the 6 foot
high chain link fence should be located no closer to the north property line
than the front fagade of the existing `Repair Shop" structure. By City
definition the fence is not being used for screening purposes; therefore, if cut
down to 4 feet in height the fence in its present location would be in
compliance with the LUC.
The location of the fence, being just 11 feet off of the back of curb for East
Skyway Drive, will not allow for a standard 5 foot wide detached sidewalk
with an 8 foot wide landscaped parkway within a Collector street ROW. The
Applicant is proposing to construct a permanent 6 foot wide attached
sidewalk.
* The request for a modification of standard in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the LUC, based
on the Project Development Plan as submitted, is being justified by stating that the
design life of the improvements will not be reduced nor will additional maintenance
costs be incurred due to the granting of the modification. Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the
LUC states (in part) that by reason of extraordinary and exceptional conditions, the
strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of
such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act
of the Applicant. Apparently the fence posts are anchored in concrete. However, the
nature of the construction of the fence, in its present location, was caused by the act
of the property owner (Applicant). Therefore, staff has determined that the
requested modification of the standard is not supported by the criteria set forth in
Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the LUC.
5. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION:
A. The requested Modification of the Standard in Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1) of the Land Use
Code for the Whitman Storage Facility- Request for a Modification of Standard is
subject to a Planning & zoning Board (Type 2) review.
B. Granting the requested modification would be detrimental to the public good.
C. The Project Development Plan as submitted, showing the location and height of the
existing fence, will not promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
Modification —Whitman Storage Facility— Filing #11-08
July 17, 2008 Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing
Page 6
modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with
the standard for which a modification is requested, as set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)(1) of
the LUC.
Based on the requirements set forth in Section 3.8.11 of the LUC, the 6 foot
high chain link fence should be located no closer to the north property line
than the front fagade of the existing 'Repair Shop" structure. By City
definition the fence is not being used for screening purposes; therefore, if cut
down to 4 feet in height the fence in its present location would be in
compliance with the LUC.
The location of the fence, being just 11 feet off of the back of curb for East
Skyway Drive, will not allow for a standard 5 foot wide detached sidewalk
with an 8 foot wide landscaped parkway within a Collector street ROW. The
Applicant is proposing to construct a permanent 6 foot wide attached
sidewalk.
D. The request for a modification of standard in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the LUC, based on
the Project Development Plan as submitted, is being justified by stating that the design
life of the improvements will not be reduced nor will additional maintenance costs be
incurred due to the granting of the modification. Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the LUC states
(in part) that by reason of extraordinary and exceptional conditions, the strict
application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of
such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act of
the Applicant. Apparently the fence posts are anchored in concrete. However, the
nature of the construction of the fence, in its present location, was caused by the act of
the property owner (Applicant). Therefore, staff has determined that the requested
modification of the standard is not supported by the criteria set forth in Section
2.8.2(H)(3) of the LUC.
E. This request is only for a modification of the specific standard in Subsection
3.8.11(C)(1) of the LUC. The applicant has submitted a PDP proposal for review by the
City that is currently being reviewed by City staff and outside reviewing agencies. A
determination will ultimately be made by the Planning & Zoning Board separate from
this request for a modification of standard.
6. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the Modification of Standard in Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1) of the
Land Use Code for the Whitman Storage Facility - Request for a Modification of Standard -
#11-08.
WHITMAN STORAGE FACILITY
209 East Skyway Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Zoning: The East 120 feet of the site is presently zoned Low Density Residential(RL).The
balance of the site is presently zoned Commercial(C).
Site Uses: Two structures are located on the site. A metal structure that contains
approximately 6,050 square feet is situated at the northwest corner of the site. The
structure is used for storage and warehousing. A residence is located at the center
of the Skyway Drive frontage of the site.The driveway accessing Skyway Drive is
situated between the existing metal building and the residence. The residential
structure contains approximately: 2,585 square feet of residential space, an
office/sales room of 570 square feet and a garage/repair shop with 1,830 square
feet. The uses related to the existing garagetshop, office/sales and
storage/warehouse are largely the repair and maintenance of small engines that
power lawn and garden equipment and golf carts.The business also sells new and
refurbished lawn and garden equipment and golf carts. A small area adjacent to
Skyway Drive that is situated between the northwest corner of the site and sites
driveway is used for the display of new and used equipment that is for sale. An
area located in the southwest quadrant of the site provides open storage for
recreational vehicles and boats. The open storage is a nonconforming use.A six
(6)foot high chain link security fence is located along the west and north property
boundaries. A twenty(20) foot wide rolling gate is situated at the driveway
entrance located on Skyway Drive. A storm water detention pond is located at the
southeast comer of the site.The eastern third of the site is largely vacant and
undeveloped. The area around the existing residence and along the Skyway Drive
frontage at the residence consists of lawn,trees and shrubs,berms and rock
landscaping. The balance of the site is gravel surfaced or recycled asphalt.
Utilities: The existing utility service providers to the site consists of
Electricity-Poudre Valley R E. A.
Natural Gas-Xcel Energy
Telephone- Qwest Communications
Cable Television- Cornetist
Water- Fort Collins- Loveland Water District
Sewer- South Fort Collins Sanitation District
Fire Protection-Poudre Fire Authority
Trash- Private Hauler
Page 2
WHITMAN STORAGE FACILITY
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (continued)
Transportation: The existing transportation facilities are:
Access to the site is provided from Skyway Drive. Skyway Drive is
designated as Collector Street-2 Lanes on the City of Fort Collins Master
Street Plan. Skyway Drive intersects with South College Avenue(State
Highway 287)approximately 450 feet west of the site. Skyway Drive
intersects with Fossil Creek Parkway, a designated Collector Street-2
Lanes, approximately 2,350 feet east of the site. Fossil Creek Parkway
intersects with South Lemay Avenue, a designated Arterial Street-4 Lanes,
approximately 2,350 feet east of its intersection with Skyway Drive.No
sidewalk is present along Skyway Drive adjacent to the site or in the
immediate vicinity to the east and west along Skyway Drive.No designated
bicycle lanes are present on Skyway Drive. Bus stops are located on South
College Avenue near its intersection with Skyway Drive.
Stormwater: The existing surface run off pattern is generally from west to east. The
frontage along Skyway Drive drains onto Skyway Drive with the balance
of the site directed toward to its southeast corner. A pipe that conveys
stormwater from the west side of South College Avenue discharges onto
the site near the southwest corner of the site. An open drainage swale
conveys the discharge from the pipe and the surface run off from the
properties to the west along the southern boundary of the site to the
detention pond located at the southeast corner of the site. The outfall from
the site is to a wetlands located on the property immediately to the east of
the site. The wetlands meanders to the south and east and discharges into
Stone Creek, a tributary of Fossil Creek.
Environment: No known or designated wetlands are present on the site. Since there is no
known wetlands on the site and due to ongoing property maintenance
activities, no endangered species are considered to be present on the site.
Page 3
WHITMAN STORAGE FACILITY
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
PROPOSED CONDITIONS:
Zoning: The site is to remain zoned Low Density Residential(RL) and Commercial( C).
Site Uses: In addition to the existing metal storage structure and the residential structure,
additional storage structures are planned. A 7,200 square foot to be used for
recreational vehicle storage is to be constructed to the south of the existing metal
storage building. Overhead doors will be provided on both the west and east sides
of the structure to allow for vehicular access to each of the storage units to be
located within the building. The existing repair and sales business is to be located
in a portion of the existing metal storage building. The existing repair and sales
facilities in the residential structure are to be retained. A 15,000 square foot
structure to be used for storage of recreational vehicles,boats and trucks is to be
constructed along the southern border of the site. Two additional storage
buildings, each containing 5,600 square feet,are to be constructed in future phases
of development of the site. The area adjacent to Skyway Drive that is situated
between the northwest corner of the site and sites driveway that is currently used
for the display of new and used equipment is to continue to be used as a display
area. The six(6) foot high chain link security fence located along the north
property boundary is to remain in place until such time that Skyway Drive is
improved to Collector Street status. The existing barbed wire topping the fence is
to be removed. The area along the Skyway Drive is to be landscaped. Paving is to
be provided along the access drive from Skylark Drive to the southern limit of the
existing storage building and residential structure. An emergency access and fire
lane is to be constructed to provide a looped roadway around the site.
Utilities: The utility service providers to the site consist of:
Electricity-To be City of Fort Collins Light and Power
Natural Gas-Xcel Energy
Telephone -Qwest Communications
Cable Television- Comcast
Water-Fort Collins-Loveland Water District
Sewer- South Fort Collins Sanitation District
Fire Protection-Poudre Fire Authority
Trash- Private Hauler
Page 4
WMTMAN STORAGE FACILITY
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
PROPOSED CONDITIONS: (continued)
Transportation: The proposed transportation facilities are:
Access to the site is to remain at its current location from Skyway Drive.
Skyway Drive is designated as a Collector Street-2 Lanes on the City of
Fort Collins Master Street Plan. An additional three (3)feet of street right-
of-way is to be dedicated for Skyway Drive. A six(6)foot wide sidewalk
that is adjacent to the existing curb is to be constructed along Skyway
Drive.Nine (9) feet along the western border of the site is to be dedicated
for street right-of-way for Aran Street. An emergency access and fire lane
is to be constructed to provide a looped roadway around the site.
Stormwater. The existing surface run off pattern is to be retained. An open drainage
swale is to be improved along the southern boundary of the site to convey
the discharge from the pipe and the surface run off that originates on the
properties to the west of the site. The existing storm water detention pond
is to be improved and enlarged in order to accommodate the proposed
development on the site. Storm water quality measures will be incorporated
with the improvements made to the detention pond. The controlled outlet
from the detention pond will remain to discharge into the wetlands on the
adjacent property.
Environment: No change with respect to wetlands or endangered species is anticipated:
City Plan Principles and Policies achieved:
Mixed Use -The proposed development is a mixed use.
Pedestrian Access-The proposed sidewalk improvements will promote pedestrian use.
Bicycle Access-The installation of bicycle rack will promote bicycle rider incentive.
South College Access Control Plan- Dedication of right-of-way for Aran Street provides for
construction of Aran Street improvements.
Redevelopment/Infll- The site is considered to be an infill site.
Impact -The site will utilize existing infrastructure with little or no impact.
Page 5
WB FMAN STORAGE FACILITY
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
PROPOSED CONDITIONS: (continued)
Buffering: The proposed plan provides buffering and landscaping along the Skyway Drive
frontage. The open area within the low density residential zoning on the site along
with the proposed detention pond provides buffering to the existing Montessori
School to the east. Sufficient separation and the structures themselves provide
screening for the uses to the west.
Ownership: The ownership and maintenance is to be the responsibility of the individual lot
owners. The ownership of all lots is intended to remain under the current
ownership at this time.
Employees: The number of employees is to be two (2). The owners,two (2)additional
persons, are to provide management.
Rationale: The ownership, operation and management of the existing business along with long
term plans initiated by the owners prior to the property's annexation to the City of
Fort Collins provide the expertise and rationale.
Variances: Two variances or modifications are being requested in conjunction with the
application. A modification to the applicable standard is requested to allow the
existing six(6) foot chain link security fence to remain in place until such time as
the street improvements to Skyway Drive are to be performed. A variance to the
Lanier County Urban Area Street Standards is also being requested to allow for
the installation of a six(6)foot wide sidewalk at adjacent to the existing curb and
gutter along the Skyway Drive frontage.
Conflicts: There are no known conflicts between land uses proposed and the undeveloped
adjacent properties. Stormwater is to be conveyed to the downstream wetlands at
the same place and in the same manner as currently exists.
Neighborhood Meeting:No meeting has occurred.
Project Name: The project name is"Whitman Storage Facility". The Conceptual Review referred
to the project as Randy Whitman,209 East Skyway Drive.
Response Letter: Refer to attached response letter addressing staff comments.
Street Names: No new street are proposed with this submittaL
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Lynn Acres
Page 6
WHITMAN STORAGE FACILITY
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
PROPOSED CONDITIONS: (continued)
Owners: Randy Whitman,Rhmme Whitman&Ruth Whitman
209 East Skyway Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Corporate or LLC Owners: None
Development Schedule: Phase I to be completed within One(1) Year of approval.
Phase II to be completed within three(3) Years of approval
Phase III to be completed within five (5) Years of approval.
Engineering, Inc. April 30,2008
Project No. GRD-587 -08
Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
Re: Whitman Storage Facility,Fort Collins,Colorado
Dear Mr. Olt,
In accordance with 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 East Skyway Drive. The Design Standard identified in
Section 3.8.11,Fences and Walls,does not allow either chain link materials or a fence height in excess of four(4)
feet. This request is made to allow the existing six(6)foot high chain link security fence that is located along East
Skyway Drive to remain in place until such time as the ultimate street improvements to East Skyway Drive are to
be made.
The modification request is based upon the following information:
* The modification is desired in order to allow for the existing fence to remain in place. The
existing barbed wire located at the top of the fence is to be removed.
* The ultimate alignment for East Skyway Drive has not been determined and no time frame has
been established to construct the ultimate improvements.
* Sidewalk is to be installed along the southern side of East Skyway Drive adjacent to the site in
conjunction with the proposed development.
* The health, safety and welfare of the general public will not be jeopardized by the granting of the
variance.
* The design life of the improvements will not be reduced nor will additional maintenance costs be
incurred due to the granting of the variance.
I sincerely hope that this addresses any questions you may have with regard to this request.
If you should have any questions,please feel free to contact this office.
Respectful fitted,
MESS R E ng,hic.
t
1
Dennis R. Messner, President
AL
Civil Engineering Consultants
150 E. 29th Street, Suite 270 Loveland, Colorado 80538 (970) 663-2221
--- _J \zZ:EEA`sting
S K Y W A Y D R I V E Future 20' Rolling cote w Vertical Curb & Gutter7t
— — Knox Box to be Provided _
for Emergency Ac ess Existin
Existing Vertical g y g 68' Row
Proposed 6' Wide Sidewalk Proposed 3' Right-of-WL47
tion Curb & Gutter
Existing Gate
�opose 6' Wide Side Ik
0' M 89'S4T-_� W
oq —
Prop_ sed Displa.Y�re� r; i I e
AUtilit Easement
/ Existing Asphalt Existing R69k;' Existi 6 Chai I'
swami �. lVaf JcaP g,i a , ' Existing • Link ecurity Fe ce ��'`�G�' �,3•�. ( r �G)C
Link Securi�Fence " _ _" _ .
Existing
. . . . . . . . • . .
- - " • Existing Tre
20' �� Existing • ` . .R .�q . `9reQ.
;. J pair
I Sho L �W DENSITY
M Proposed ed r._ .I 830pS fic �„` . i
Storage Ar ` ' I eta + . . *' RESIDENTIAL (R j
I 12 ` —
W Existing Storage L "
u - Existing 20'I 3
BuildingExisting -c�- " i N
ropoeed Buie Roc " • I South Fort Coll'ns
i ` { Residenceo
o I 6,050 SF roposd " " " ` Sanitation Dist ict
AsPha t : . ` 2,585 SF .o . Mo
m . r RoW Easeme t
1 Existing l�'dverxi�nt • " '� ` i to be Vacate o
D I Concrete Pad »- • ` ± ` . " `�" "
N °�' o I a . . Exi"sting " LByri .Acea .� 20 Drainage &
{ z
. o T = rn ,: , ` " ` Cw , Utility Easement
Q) Q I Ex sting Fenced I
�..� _ _Storag a e Are u COtv1•�ERCIaL� {_ �
' ` , i ` Proposed 20' Wide *(1 ). A "Hommerhe
Proposed 9' Drainage emergency g Existing Recycled Asphalt gency vehicles
& Utrlty Easement ' Q I Garage I G rdeg xistir�y� Emergency Access Road
- - - - u- - - - n _ Patlq/ * 2). e em
T T ergenc
Indicates Zoning*(�) ------------------------------- - Skyway Driveto be
9
t iao' Boundary & Lot Line
31 '--� 30' PHASE III 1
Future Enclosed Storage /tuctur M
22 : 30' I 50' 5,600 SF g of 20 Utility Easement r�
C tt
4 �I _L—
a I I �
a iao' _____J Proposed 20' Utility & M
I 4 ------------- 40' /- -
mergency Access Easeme t
20 i b Proposed Recycled Asphalt ;
u o
PHASE I I *(2) 3o I LOT 3 LOT
o rn Proposed Enclosed I 4
Q RV Storage Structure I. ---------------------_._______ I xist�ng 3' Barbed Wire Fence
LYNN ACRES
7 200 SF / II
' Cn _ HAS I i I
ATTACHMENT 5
Exhibits, Writings, Drawings,
Maps Charts , Graphs, Photos
or Handouts Reviewed by the
Board at the Hearing
Whftan Skxage Fia
ModWcation ®f Standard
#11-08A Whitman Storage Facility 1
Modification of Standard
Ta
VVSATURNDR w _': E1SATURN . DR _
__• q it
446 wow svoF ,. itEQk4�j
111 r ly1
V.- I �
. � 0 . �► ' "
t� � 4 � 1"� y I :� r ` '•-• •� _ ice`N
at
Cf)
• IrL l
AL Ik
' All I
� c
Tvow
� � >
i
f 1 4 O
W SKY.WAY• DR �� k � _ _ . , .. a� � ` `� �1i , '� , � ,� ' Q
E -SKYWAY DR -
.;. aaaaaaI
:" , .,, �,�►, a
ul
Q w
w F
J Z
J W
O - Y
N
Ik
y i1r
1
N 11 - 08A Whitman Storage Facility
A Modification of Standard Aerial Vicinity
1 inch equals 300 feet
\6��j6tpr3V
S Y A y V E Fat+4re 20' Rnllirr9 tots w wsr3iaat CUxb Gutter — Knox l3ox t4 be Proyided _
d '� F Existing Verl:cQl [vr Emergency A, as' Ex+#k+ny 8' Ra54
��p•osed � � wlda Sidewalk Proms � YghlTof=Way �bdycOk+Qn CYirtr � Gutter
L� Exislin9 Gate
os '
D e Sid Lk
T� �rapo# us fay - f r 41 U r4a r
Existing Aph r Mng r
- - 7- yis i
~ ExiSking f , Lin4k ; Ced+' It' 3 .�.a . a lf• 1
Link S rii Fe+%Ge _ ' &4 + L �
l � ,yr1 . I - �Exisk,ng Pre 1 f
i�' ~ F r Y.atj_ sq . } - ktr]c� = �n ' D` . ' "J4 •yam L'rt�C� .
s� ' _ oil
JProposed ed- Fr �'i B.30 S five k ' • ' t'`w . LA ITY
T r 56arcg ` + � [ I 1 = . * R IDENTIAL (fiL}I
'Y
°
j xistingbd tumge L Y j •• ' + fxia�ing • � Existing 2v 1
: 1 g *16d jBiC&• Rcex = i South Fort C4I ns T
SED50 SF rape# - 0. Rasidona + Git L
r Y 2.58$ SF _ . - i , Sanitation �
' Existir�q se
Mara t -` ' + •' � • � r ' ' i Row � 4t to
a ko be 'V rFr• O
} Y4riCF1Gt4 Pfltl , ' ` = • T _ . . . ' . + . ` ' '
2
4 a F Y � _ • • . E'hGnQ k 610 0 l Fd ardinage de
1 $ r s r Q` � 1 ' ` . _ • _ - . _ _ Utll;ly EOagmtnk
1 Ix + �x sk ng FernCco E • .rp�.� � G-r� Y-,t _ . ! Y
pro 'd Qra+rtiOgG �• - �+ti ' . � L =� " Propdsod 20' Wide *V ). A "Flummorhe
i[as in "- 1` Recycled Aspholt emerger► v reb,cles
de Uth y Easement T l 41 Exi$tiN rsklrl Emergency At
b+ 0 R 04+'de PfGti 9 Y {OSs Rood
�- �• - - - - I - { I ttioat *(2)- The emdFgert
*0 - -- •-_ _-- �_ _ �_ __y --- --- - - - Flou ] Toning Skyway krivo to be
1 �' 7 n.dvey dC Lot LJn�
PHASE IIII
II Fulcra Enrlosad S#0roge tuCtur 1 gyp'
2 W 50' : of Wiliky Eoiement
0 51 5F �
_I Or __ -- l Proposed 20' Ul;lity de
2# u I j rnerQiency A0wr4as Eosema #
o Propfieed Raroycled Asphott
IMP _ PMASE I +{ ao LOT 3
IM ropos.ed EnOosed LOTA RE RV $#D1p a Structure __ `-- �_ _ __ �_ _ LYNN �
Y $ #u 4 I -�# ,- - -_ _� - ----.._ • ng S Barbed wire fbrlr.a
K . 'S
ter,
jA
F
_ _ • 'tom_
OF I
T +- - - - -
t �
,. :
1 - +
1
r
OAF ,
s not Lq a
1
r
_ _ �
�} ' '
r
' � r
r'�
� � {
. . _ � � _
��-
J _
y ' R
. }
� � - .!
Y�
J imin
'r
4
r.
5 '
Y �•
_ 4
r
• 4 •• '
+ '
k ,
, + L + -
ti . 11 - -
— 'c
.
y � 9p _
•
{
-, _
ro
I .
a ��
1
7 ` r
I lip
�Cot,
'{ 5 I
m
i = em s ! rtl
r •'
; !
+
t ' , . rr , .
EL b OEM
. ti � � 5 r 1 55�. a !• -
!+� L 37
y
MOW
t
i •
■
• i
ti� :j .■
JL
IN e
Ill IIISol
Y
qNsiN
W. 03
1
L
l _
r
' r . . - •.+
Av _Ilk
• t �� � •fs 1
'.
- _ ' 1 • ' +
* Lin
��+ _
• y ,: { -
r
•5y
{ }
h
* F
F �• -
. r-
• • _
a
EPOP
Is
o
All
No
Mai
r + f
+ fy
IN
Is
;.Ni INII
+ ' - - _ 4 . • • . 1No
ooMI L 4. �'L• {III
� • mo
•i
w
k L �
.
' L
Jr A
'* r
orb IF
r �
y �
ellIF !
LL
I Am
_ F • -
jr A
ra
Im
jLL ia_ j f•
I -
. .
} ' rm m4
I
kk _ _ _
4 �
1
r
R
w ` r
iI
Elp
' , 9 Or
IN
N '
- 6 I
ME
IN EEIIINNEN
1LN.
IN
ME
.
1116
R,•
El .1 . _ . . .
ENE. ' :.. 1.I. _ a
5+ ! t
. Tr �IN
E. Ii`��d ` ifd IrMINI + Al
-ME. Ei• '� •1
NIP
T� ME f
} . I;i'' L ' r + ay ' '
L ME F
ON4+ 4
Alk
NIL
WIN
trfT !
-I� Ir r3•r. �-�;- .
NNI —
Iy
rtr 4L ` - - k
N. _
�' N.
N. ., No , ' i5 •.5 Y
S
4 5
J ' T .
w-all
i
ti 4
ir
id
ti•
'L d
y t y -
. _ L, '} �.
r
.M .r
r
_ I • r .
IF
WIN IF
Fir
IN
�. _. s•
INN
IN
N f
• •i - 4 :
IN
IN
IN IN INNINNIN FIN,
IN IN IN IN IN
IN
IN IN
I IN
INN IN
IN IN
l F
L I
-�' I IN
IN
I • f IN
. I' i�
IN NI'
IN IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IF
IN
R
iIN
IN
IN
mN
"ININ IN IN
IN
'• N
r , . ■
i
r .
'A
L
ATTACHMENT 6
Verbatim Transcript of
Hearing
TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIOTAPED MEETING
OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
July 17, 2008, 6: 00 p.m.
Board: Chair Brigitte Schmidt
Vice-Chair William Stockover
Gino Campana
David Lingle
Ruth Rollins
Andy Smith
James Wetzler
Staff: Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director
Assistant City Attorney Greg Tempel
Chief City Planner Ken Waido
City Planner Steve Olt
Civil Engineer Randy Maizland
Administrative Assistant :
Angelina Sanchez-Sprague
Discussion Items :
Whitman Storage Facility
Request for a Modification of Standard - #11-08
Willow Lane and North College Avenue Rezone - #16-08
2
1 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Thank you . I ' d like to welcome
2 everyone to the July 17th, 2008, meeting of the Planning &
3 Zoning Board. And can we have roll call, please?
4 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
5 MEMBER SMITH: Here.
6 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Wetzler?
7 MEMBER WETZLER: Here.
8 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover?
9 MEMBER STOCKOVER: Here .
10 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt?
11 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Here .
12 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Lingle?
13 MEMBER LINGLE: Here .
14 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Rollins?
15 MEMBER ROLLINS : Here.
16 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
17 MEMBER CAMPANA: Here .
18 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Next we ' ll have the agenda review,
19 Cameron.
20 DIRECTOR GLOSS : Yes, good evening, Madam Chair,
21 members of the board. We have a relatively short agenda
22 this evening. We have one item on the consent agenda, and
23 that is the minutes from our last hearing which was held on
24 June 19th. On the discussion agenda, the first item is a
25 decision of the Planning & Zoning Board. We ' re the final
3
1 authority. That ' s for a stand-alone modification of
2 standards for the Whitman Storage Facility which is on East
3 Skyway Drive . It is not accompanied by a specific
4 development plan.
5 Go on to our last item before the board. We ' ll be
6 making a recommendation to the City Council on the Wiilox
7 Lane and North College rezone . This is a rezoning of the
8 northeast corner of College and Willox. That ' s presently
9 zoned Community Commercial North College, and the proposal
10 is to go to Commercial North College, C-N.
11 That concludes my agenda report .
12 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Thank you very much. Our next item
13 is citizen participation. And this is an opportunity for
14 citizens to come and talk to the board about anything that
15 is not on the agenda this evening. So if any of you would
16 like to come and bring anything to our attention, this is
17 the time to do that .
18 Seeing no one, we ' ll go ahead and move to the
19 consent agenda . That just contains one item, the minutes
20 from June 19th. Is there any discussion on that or -- I
21 presume there is no one in the public that would like to
22 pull that from the consent agenda . That ' s usually, if we
23 have other items, they sometimes can get pulled and we can
24 discuss them. Otherwise the board will vote on the consent
25 agenda without any additional discussion. Is there anyone
4
1 on the board who wants to discuss that? We have a motion?
2 MEMBER STOCKOVER: I move we approve the minutes
3 from the June 19th Planning & Zoning Board meeting.
4 MEMBER CAMPANA: Second it .
5 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Okay. We ' re ready for roll call .
6 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
7 MEMBER SMITH: Yes .
8 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Wetzler?
9 MEMBER WETZLER: Yes .
10 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE : Stockover?
11 MEMBER STOCKOVER: Yes .
12 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Lingle?
13 MEMBER LINGLE: I abstain.
14 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Rollins?
15 MEMBER ROLLINS : Yes .
16 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
17 MEMBER CAMPANA: Yes .
18 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt?
19 CHAIR SCHMIDT: I ' ll also abstain, since I wasn' t
20 at the meeting .
21 I think the minutes are approved. So we ' ll move
22 along to the discussion agenda . Our first item on the
23 discussion agenda is the Whitman Storage Facility
24 modification of standard. And we ' ll start -- our usual
25 procedure is that we have staff make a presentation, the
5
1 applicant will make a presentation, the board will ask
2 questions of either of those, and that allows the public the
3 chance to listen to the questions and discussions, and then
4 we allow for public comment . And at that time we ' ll ask
5 anyone from the public who is interested in commenting on
6 that project to come forward.
7 So, Steve, you want to go ahead and proceed with
8 the presentation?
9 STEVE OLT: Yes, thank you. As stated, we ' re
10 looking at the Whitman Storage Facility modification of the
11 standard this evening. This is a commercial project known
12 as the Whitman Storage Facility request for modification of
13 standard. The subject property is located at 209 East
14 Skyway Drive, approximately 500 feet east of South College
15 Avenue .
16 To put this into context on the aerial photo map on
17 the screen, this is the site . This is Skyway Drive, going
18 east/west from College Avenue, which is running north/south
19 in this location. We have the College Avenue commercial
20 strip here . There is undeveloped land to the south. There
21 is an existing, at this time existing school, Montessori
22 school directly to the east of the property, single-family
23 residential in this location, and Huntington Hills
24 single-family residential is to the north.
25 The property is currently zoned C, Commercial, and
6
1 RL, Low Density Residential . The westerly two-thirds of the
2 site is C, Commercial . The easterly one-third of the site
3 is RL, Low Density Residential . The request is for a
4 modification of standard set forth in Section 3 . 8 . 11 (C) (1)
5 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code that requires
6 fences or walls to be no more than four feet high between
7 the front building line, which would be the closest building
8 facade or line to the property line, and the front property
9 line . This request is to allow the existing six-foot-high
10 chain-link fence that is located along the south side of
11 Skyway Drive to remain in place until such time as the
12 ultimate street improvements to Skyway Drive are made.
13 The request, as Mr. Gloss said earlier, the request
14 is for the modification of standard only this evening. The
15 formal submittal for a development plan for the Whitman
16 Storage Facility has been submitted. It is in development
17 review. However, that will be heard by the Planning &
18 Zoning Board at a later date. Tonight you ' re only
19 discussing, deliberating on the modification of this one
20 standard.
21 The applicant has submitted the application for
22 request to the modification. The section that we ' re citing
23 the requirement in says that fences or walls should be no
24 more than four feet high between the front building line and
25 the front property line . The application for modification
7
1 of standard requests that the Planning & Zoning Board
2 determine if the modification request meets the intent of
3 the Land Use Code and the criteria set forth in Section
4 2 . 8 .2 of the Land Use Code. Section 2 . 8 . 2 deals with the
5 modification of standard review, modification review
6 procedures, and stating that the Planning & Zoning Board may
7 grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the
8 granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the
9 public good and that -- there are four different sections,
10 and I ' ll kind of paraphrase them initially.
11 The plan as submitted will promote the general
12 purpose of the standard for which the modification is
13 requested equally well or better than would a plan which
14 complies with the standard for which the modification is
15 requested. The granting of the modification from the strict
16 application of any standard would, without impairing the
17 intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, substantially
18 alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of
19 city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit
20 to the city.
21 Third criteria is, by reason of exceptional
22 physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
23 situations unique to such property, including but not
24 limited to physical conditions, topography or physical
25 conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a
8
1 solar system, would result in unusual and exceptional
2 practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon
3 the owner of such property, provided that the difficulties
4 or hardships are not caused by the act or omission of the
5 applicant, or the property owner .
6 And then fourthly, the plan as submitted would not
7 diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are
8 authorized by the Division to be modified except in a
9 nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the
10 perspective of the entire development plan, and would
11 continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code as
12 contained in Section 1 . 2 . 2 of the Land Use Code.
13 The next section of the staff report gives you the
14 applicant ' s request and the reasons for granting -- their
15 suggested reasons for granting the modification. And what
16 they' re saying, the modification request is based upon the
17 following information. The modification is desired in order
18 to allow for the existing fence to remain in place, that the
19 existing barbed wire located at the top of the fence is to
20 be removed. That would be removed regardless of whether the
21 fence stays in its present location or not . The ultimate
22 alignment for East Skyway Drive has not been determined, and
23 no time frame has been established to construct the ultimate
24 improvements . The sidewalk is to be installed along the
25 southerly side of East Skyway Drive adjacent to the site, in
9
1 conjunction with the proposed development . The health,
2 safety and welfare of the general public will not be
3 jeopardized by the granting of the modification. And the
4 design life of the improvements will not be reduced, nor
5 will additional maintenance costs be incurred due to the
6 granting of the modification.
7 Staff evaluated the modification request and our
8 analysis is as follows : Subsection 3 . 8 . 11 (C) (1) of the Land
9 Use Code dealing with the location of the fence sets forth
10 the requirement that the fences or walls shall be no more
11 than four feet high between the front building line and the
12 property line.
13 This would probably be the appropriate time to go
14 to the site plan. And in this case, just to put this all in
15 context, Skyway Drive is along the north side of the
16 property. This would be, where the cursor is going now,
17 that would be the curb line for Skyway Drive . The existing
18 fence, it ' s a little hard to see the red line, but the
19 existing fence is the red line along the north property
20 line, and it turns along the east and west property line to
21 go south. The buildings, the existing buildings on-site are
22 the existing residents in this location. There is an
23 attached office retail component and then an existing repair
24 shop. This is all basically one building. They' re all
25 attached. And then you have a large existing storage
10
1 building. As you can see, this would be the closest
2 building line or building face to the property line, which
3 is right here about where the fence is . That ' s a distance
4 of about 33 feet between the building line and the fence .
5 So what the section of the code says, that the
6 fence shall be no more than four feet high in front of this
7 building line, which that pink line designates, that
8 technically, by code, that ' s where the six-foot-high
9 chain-link fence should be. If it were dropped down to four
10 feet in height, it could stay in this location. But to
11 remain at six feet high in its present form, it, by code,
12 should be moved down to at least this location.
13 A portion of the fence, I 've noted in the staff
14 report, the applicant, with his Project Development Plan, as
15 soon as I can find my cursor, the applicant -- and this is
16 the Project Development Plan. Again, we ' re using this as a
17 reference for the fence discussion tonight . But this is
18 actually a portion of the development plan we are in the
19 process of reviewing and you will ultimately see. And with
20 this, as you can see, the applicant is dedicating an
21 additional three feet of street right-of-way that ' s
22 indicated here . And with that, that would put a portion of
23 the fence in the right-of-way. And technically, that ' s
24 normally not permitted either.
25 The fence was originally constructed by the
11
1 applicant property owner when the property was still in
2 Larimer County. And at that time the existing commercial
3 uses apparently were not permitted in the FA-1 farming
4 district in the county at that time.
5 In reviewing the proposed modification standard
6 request, staff has determined that the granting of the
7 modification would be detrimental to public good and would
8 impair the intent and purpose of the code and that
9 obviously, not satisfying the intent of that section of the
10 code, we had to make the statement that it would obviously
11 impair the intent and purpose of the code . The project
12 development plan as submitted, showing the location and
13 height of the fence, would not promote the general purpose
14 of the standard for which the modification is requested
15 equally well or better than with a plan which complies with
16 the standard. And this is as set forth in Section
17 2 . 8 . 2 (H) (1 ) of the Land Use Code, that being one of the
18 criteria .
19 Secondly, the request for modification of standard
20 is being justified by the applicant stating that the design
21 life and improvements would not be reduced, nor would
22 additional maintenance costs be incurred due to the granting
23 of the modification. That, in our minds, essentially
24 alludes to the Section 2 . 8 .2 (H) (3) dealing with the hardship
25 case . In this case the fence was installed several years
12
1 ago when the property was still in Larimer County.
2 Apparently the fence posts are secured at the base by
3 concrete, so they are pretty significantly secured in the
4 ground. However, as staff evaluated this, staff determined
5 that the request for modification is not supported by the
6 criteria, in that the nature of the construction of the
7 fence in its present location was caused by the act of the
8 property owner applicant . So the hardship understood still
9 was not something that was imposed on the property owner
10 applicant that was constructed at such time that it was
11 still in the county and for whatever reason was constructed
12 in that location based on the uses .
13 Findings of fact . The granting of the modification
14 of the standard is subject to a Planning & Zoning Board
15 review. The granting of the modification would be
16 detrimental to the public good. The project development
17 plan as submitted would not promote the general purpose of
18 the Land Use Code equally well or better than a plan that
19 would comply and that the modification of standard request
20 is not supported by criteria set forth in Section
21 2 . 8 . 2 (H) (3) which deals with the hardship. Therefore, staff
22 is recommending denial of this .
23 I think it would probably be appropriate here to go
24 through quickly the site shot so everyone can see the
25 context of this before we get into the applicant ' s
13
1 presentation. This particular shot is looking from west to
2 east on just near what would be the northwest -- where ' s my
3 cursor -- northwest corner of the site would be in this
4 location. I 'm looking due east down Skyway Drive. The
5 building to the far right, right on the edge of the slide is
6 the large storage building . This is the building that,
7 again, is defined as the existing repair shop in this
8 location, and just on the other side is the residence. We
9 have single-family residential to the north. This is
10 Huntington Hills subdivision.
11 Looking again directly at the site, the large
12 storage building, the retail building. This is the primary
13 entrance into the site . As you can see, here is the curb,
14 there is no sidewalk in place at this time . Back of curb to
15 the existing fence . The six feet is from this post to the
16 ground. There is, again, barbed wire on top that will be
17 removed regardless . We have approximately 11 feet from back
18 of curb to the fence with the Project Development Plan. The
19 applicant will have to build a sidewalk, and that is still
20 yet to be determined whether it will be an attached sidewalk
21 to the curb or detached as the code calls for today. This
22 is looking pretty much due east right down the front of the
23 property again, the 11-foot separation fence to back of
24 curb.
25 As I compare this site, the property to the
14
1 neighborhood to the north, we have significant vegetation
2 here . There is a six-foot-high solid cedar fence. There ' s
3 a side yard fence in this location for this home. There are
4 wood fences down here further too. So you actually do have
5 a significant fence right along the street . I don' t know
6 what that setback is from that curb to that fence . But
7 again, that ' s a side yard fence, not a front yard fence .
8 This is looking right at the northwest corner of the
9 property. This is the large storage building. I 'm looking
10 due south down the chain-link fence . And in this location
11 there is a dedicated right-of-way for future Erin Street
12 (phonetic) . When that will be constructed remains to be
13 seen . That ' s actually shown on the South College Avenue
14 corridor plan as a recirculation road, or what ' s now being
15 called a backage road, rather than frontage roads, in this
16 location. So someday there will be a street in this
17 location. But we don' t know when that ' s going to occur .
18 This is standing, looking directly east across the
19 site. Again, looking at approximately 33 feet from the
20 building line on this retail building to the fence, and then
21 this building is set back approximately 12 feet from this
22 line . So we 've got about a 12-foot separation here to here .
23 Standing in the cul-de-sac in Huntington Hills directly
24 north of the property. I 'm looking at the retail building.
25 The attached office is here, and then just off the slide is
15
1 the residence . This is the primary entrance into the site,
2 actually, the only entrance into the site. Right over here,
3 that ' s looking at it from directly across the street .
4 This would be the northeast corner of the site.
5 There is the residence for the Whitmans, the attached office
6 and retail . Basically, this is developable residential
7 property. This is a portion of the property that is zoned
8 RL, Low Density Residential, could be zoned, or could be
9 developed as such in the future. Looking due west of Skyway
10 Drive up the frontage of the property, the fence in
11 question. Just across the street looking at the house, the
12 office and retail building. And I 'm down at the north end
13 of the cul-de-sac directly across the street. This is the
14 residence, the office, the retail shop that is on -- at the
15 end of the cul-de-sac there ' s probably three to four homes
16 on either side looking back at the property, just to give
17 you the impression of the fence in its context .
18 I believe that -- oh, no. Just to give you
19 context, I 'm standing at the northwest corner of the Whitman
20 property looking across Skyway Drive, and this right now is
21 what exists as Erin Street to the north. Ultimately this
22 will be improved and Erin Street then will continue down
23 along that fence line I showed you just a few moments ago
24 along the west side of the Whitman property as well .
25 With that I 'd like to end the presentation and
16
1 answer any questions the board may have.
2 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Does anyone on the board have
3 questions of Steve? Jim?
4 MEMBER WETZLER: Steve, as I understand it, the
5 code right now calls for a detached sidewalk in that area.
6 STEVE OLT: The code would, yes, typically require,
7 short of a variance, a detached sidewalk. Yeah, and that is
8 the standard code .
9 MEMBER WETZLER: And that would fall actually
10 inside where this fence is existing right now?
11 STEVE OLT: Well, actually, if you were to detach
12 the site, it would fall where the fence is, not necessarily
13 fully inside, because typically the parkway along -- the
14 landscaped parkway between the curb and the edge of sidewalk
15 is six feet wide. It could be as narrow as four and a half
16 feet . So that would put that somewhere halfway through
17 here, and you get then a detached sidewalk of six feet in
18 width. It would impact that fence but not be completely
19 inside the fence, no.
20 MEMBER WETZLER: But right now you couldn' t put
21 that there with the fence existing as positioned?
22 STEVE OLT: That ' s correct. A detached sidewalk
23 really couldn' t be put in place without affecting the fence.
24 Even if you only had a four-and-a-half-foot-wide parkway and
25 a six-foot-wide detached walk, that ' s ten and a half feet .
17
1 We have 11 feet for back of curb to the fence, and you have
2 to have a two-foot clear zone between an edge of sidewalk
3 and any fence to prevent -- well, for safety' s sake. So
4 yeah, technically a detached sidewalk in any form would
5 preclude the fence in its present location.
6 MEMBER WETZLER: So if this were approved, then
7 that would pretty much stay in place. It ' s a permanent
8 change, correct?
9 STEVE OLT: It could be, depending on the action
10 the board takes . I believe that ' s the request, for the
11 fence to remain in its -- actually, the request does say
12 that until improvements are to be made to Skyway Drive. The
13 city has, through this development process, determined that
14 there will be no widening improvements to the street . We ' re
15 really looking at Skyway Drive in its ultimate form here
16 from flow line here on the south side to flow line on the
17 north side . So the only improvements that Mr. Whitman is
18 required to make would be a sidewalk in some form. So we ' re
19 not looking at the widening of the street in the future . So
20 whatever happens, the fence staying in its present location
21 and attached sidewalk occurring, or possibly requiring the
22 fence to be moved whether the sidewalk is attached or
23 detached, could be permanent conditions, yes .
24 MEMBER WETZLER: So who would -- if that were
25 eventually an attached sidewalk, in other words, curb and
18
1 gutter, who would be responsible for the cost of the
2 fireplug, the posts, the power pole, phone box, which would
3 evidently fall right where the attached sidewalk --
9 STEVE OLT: The electric utility will be
5 undergrounding all the overhead lines within this area as
6 part of the Southwest Enclave. They do have a schedule .
7 The power poles that you see out there will be underground,
8 and then the guy wires that are associated as well you see
9 in the photographs, those will come down, obviously. You
10 asked some other improvements . Here with the fire hydrant,
11 if it ' s a detached walk, for example, the detached walk
12 would be completely behind the fire hydrant . We do have
13 other situations where we have to be creative in kind of
14 snaking a sidewalk through an area. With hydrants,
15 sometimes they have to be moved slightly as well .
16 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Any other questions of Steve?
17 DIRECTOR GLOSS : Steve, you stated that when the
18 property was developed in Larimer County, that the
19 commercial uses were not permitted in the FA farming
20 district at the time. But would that, would the
21 six-foot-high fence itself be permitted in the county
22 regardless of the zoning, even FA farming, would a six-foot
23 chain-link fence be permitted?
29 STEVE OLT: I 'm not sure I have a direct answer to
25 that question. I don't know the Larimer County' s Land Use
19
1 Code well enough to know if that would have been permitted
2 because, again, the uses were not permitted. Initially they
3 were illegal uses when we brought the property into the
4 city. But how that fence was built in that location, I
5 don' t know. Cameron, do you possibly have any background
6 information on that? And maybe even the applicant can help
7 us with that during his presentation.
8 DIRECTOR GLOSS : I 've got a follow-up to that.
9 From staff' s perspective, the definition of -- or the
10 examples that are listed for modification review procedures
11 for No. 3 for, essentially, hardship are mostly physical in
12 nature. But it does say, or other extraordinary exceptional
13 situations unique to such property. And I guess I 'm
14 wondering, from your perspective, if something, say the
15 fence, was properly permitted in the county at the time and
16 now that it ' s been annexed into the city, if that creates
17 any kind of a hardship.
18 MALE SPEAKER: Typically we 've looked at that
19 criterion as a physical hardship, similar to what the ZBA
20 uses for a variance, something like a setback, for example.
21 And economic hardship typically does not come into play.
22 DIRECTOR GLOSS: Thank you.
23 CHAIR SCHMIDT: I guess my question, right along
24 those lines, is, somewhere in the staff report it said that
25 if that fence were four feet, then it could remain where it
20
1 is now. And so what would we do about the sidewalk issue
2 if, let ' s say he decides to take down that six-foot
3 chain-link and leave the poles, since they' re cemented in,
4 and have someone come put up chain-link that ' s only four
5 feet high. Then I 'm presuming he would meet the standard
6 and it could stay there .
7 STEVE OLT: That ' s correct . Just so you have a
8 little information on several meetings we've had, as
9 recently there were, with Mr. Whitman we had several people
10 from Engineering, including the city engineer, present and
11 talked about the sidewalk situation. And at that meeting
12 basically it was stated that really regardless of where the
13 fence would be, remain in its present location or to be
14 moved, that she most probably would, if a formal variance
15 request is submitted, and she is the authority on whether
16 sidewalk could be attached or detached, made a statement
17 that the probability was high that she would approve an
18 attached sidewalk for a permanent location. Now, that
19 hasn' t been done yet, but that was a commitment made.
20 CHAIR SCHMIDT: And the attached sidewalk would be
21 six feet across, so then you'd have --
22 STEVE OLT: Six feet wide .
23 CHAIR SCHMIDT: -- about three and a half before
24 you got to the fence, right?
25 STEVE OLT: If you've got a six-foot-wide, you have
21
1 almost five feet .
2 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Almost five feet, okay. Gino.
3 MEMBER CAMPANA: A couple things . I thought I
4 understood this completely. Now I 'm a little confused.
5 They weren' t given a violation for not meeting standards
6 right now. They' re bringing this up on their own, asking
7 for this modification?
8 STEVE OLT: I 'm not sure I heard that question
9 correctly.
10 MEMBER CAMPANA: They haven' t submitted their plan
11 yet?
12 STEVE OLT: They have submitted a plan, yes .
13 MEMBER CAMPANA: They submitted a plan, but we ' re
14 not hearing that plan.
15 STEVE OLT: That ' s correct .
16 MEMBER CAMPANA: This would normally be
17 modification during --
18 STEVE OLT: It could have been as part of the plan.
19 You' re looking at a freestanding modification. But the plan
20 is in for review, yes .
21 MEMBER CAMPANA: Okay. And so had they not come
22 forward for a modification today, they wouldn' t be required
23 to move the fence?
24 STEVE OLT: No, they would -- during the project
25 development plan review we have stated that the fence in its
22
1 present location is not permitted by code. And they had
2 actually submitted a modification request as part of that,
3 so it was embedded in the PDP. But to give Mr . Whitman a
4 better idea before he moves forward for any sort of a
5 decision on his formal development plan, he decided to move
6 that modification request outside of it and bring it to you
7 as a freestanding modification so he knows, before we go
8 forward with the PDP decision, he knows whether he has to
9 move the fence or not .
10 MEMBER CAMPANA: Okay. I thought one of the
11 options was to approve the fence -- or leave the fence in
12 its current location until the improvements took place .
13 STEVE OLT: Well, that ' s a statement they made .
14 Again, there are to be no improvements other than a sidewalk
15 to Skyway Drive .
16 MEMBER CAMPANA: But that would trigger it, that
17 could be an option. Once improvements took place, which
18 they would more than likely have to do if they develop the
19 property --
20 STEVE OLT: To the street, no. Just add a
21 sidewalk.
22 MEMBER CAMPANA: So they' re saying improvements to
23 the street, not improvements to the site .
24 STEVE OLT: Right.
25 MEMBER CAMPANA: Okay. Then how far back off the
23
1 back curb is the fire hydrant right now?
2 STEVE OLT: I would estimate that to be, and I can
3 probably go to a picture that gives me a little -- if we ' re
4 looking at 11 feet from the base of the fence over to the
5 curb line, this is a third of that, approximately three to
6 four feet .
7 MEMBER CAMPANA: So more than likely it ' s going to
8 be in the attached sidewalk if there was an attached
9 sidewalk.
10 STEVE OLT: I would say that ' s a given.
11 MEMBER CAMPANA: Okay. Thanks .
12 STEVE OLT: Which just means the fire hydrant might
13 have to be moved.
14 MEMBER CAMPANA: Right . But more than likely, part
15 of their development plan would be to put the sidewalk in as
16 part of the improvements to the site.
17 STEVE OLT: The sidewalk in some form has to be
18 done as part of the development plan, that ' s correct .
19 MEMBER CAMPANA: Thanks .
20 MEMBER WETZLER: Steve, that ' s why I asked who
21 would be responsible for paying for moving the fireplug.
22 Would that be the applicant?
23 STEVE OLT: According to Randy Maizland of
24 Engineering, that would be the responsibility of the
25 property owner developer.
24
1 MEMBER WETZLER: So which is cheaper, moving the
2 fence or moving the fireplug and the phone box and so forth?
3 STEVE OLT : If the sidewalk were attached, I don' t
4 think that phone box would have to be moved. That ' s a full
5 nine to ten feet off the back of curb. So if you had a
6 six-foot attached sidewalk, I don' t see the phone box
7 needing to be moved. Again, as Cameron said, the light
8 poles would be eliminated, those meters would be moved onto
9 the property at some expense, minimal expense to the
10 developer for the meters . But the light and power would
11 underground their utility at that time. So the fire hydrant
12 seems to be the only real problematic utility.
13 CHAIR SCHMIDT: David' s got a question.
14 MEMBER LINGLE: Gino mentioned something I wanted
15 to follow up on. Say if there was no PDP, would this fence
16 condition be allowed to remain or would it be cited as a
17 zoning violation, or whatever the case may be, and so that
18 it would have to be dealt with anyway, or would it just be
19 allowed to remain until there was a development proposal
20 that would trigger something?
21 STEVE OLT: Well, actually, there are zoning
22 violations that are being addressed as we speak. When the
23 property was annexed into the city in November of 2006 as
24 part of the South College, Southwest Annexation, their phase
25 one of the Southwest Annexation, so that ' s been almost two
25
1 years that the property came into the city. And at that
2 time they came in with illegal uses on the site. They were
3 still not permitted uses in Larimer County. They have since
4 changed their Land Use Code, but at that time they came in
5 as illegal uses . Therefore they had to be addressed in the
6 city because we cannot annex illegal uses . You either have
7 to cease and desist or correct once it' s in the city. So
8 that ' s what they were in the process of.
9 And technically, when it came into the city in
10 2006, the entire property was zoned UE, Urban Estate. And
11 none of the uses that are on-site or proposed to be on-site,
12 the outdoor storage, indoor/outdoor storage and all, were
13 permitted in the urban estate zoning district . Hence, the
14 rezoning of this property from Urban Estate in January of
15 this year to, again, C, Commercial, on the westerly portion
16 and RL, Low Density Residential, on the easterly portion to
17 allow the uses . But there are still at this time the
18 certain violations that Mr. Whitman has a certain period of
19 time to correct . And that ' s what the PDP is all about,
20 correcting the uses, because we ' re looking at changes of use
21 from what was in the county to what is in the city today.
22 MEMBER LINGLE: Okay, but that -- but the fence
23 itself, would it be a violation just the way it stands with
24 no PDP?
25 STEVE OLT: In my opinion, yes, it would be . The
26
1 fence still is in violation of the Land Use Code, and it ' s
2 now in the city. Mr. Barnes isn' t here to address that
3 tonight . But it certainly would be, and it would seem to me
4 that that would be one of the violations that would have to
5 be corrected, as well as the uses .
6 MEMBER LINGLE: Okay, thank you.
7 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Any other questions? Okay. I have
8 a few, Steve . I just want to ask, at the time the sidewalk
9 is put in with a PDP and everything, will there be -- is
10 there landscaping required on those sidewalks, any kind of
11 improvements?
12 STEVE OLT: Absolutely. If we were to get an
13 attached sidewalk, there would be enough room for trees
14 only. In the right-of-way we don' t want shrubs or
15 understery. We want trees only. So there would be trees in
16 that area, that five-foot area between the sidewalk and the
17 fence . If it were to be detached ultimately, then obviously
18 the trees would go in that parkway between back of curb and
19 sidewalk.
20 CHAIR SCHMIDT: The other question I have is, from
21 the picture there it ' s hard to tell, does the road actually
22 slope down so the fence sits below the road level, or not?
23 STEVE OLT: I don' t think there ' s a lot of great
24 change there . From that picture you see a better feel . I
25 think it' s a fairly flat section between fence and curb. Is
27
1 that what you' re asking?
2 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Yeah.
3 STEVE OLT: Yeah.
4 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Okay, because it looks visually
5 like maybe it goes down so the fence is sitting lower than
6 the road right now. But that ' s not the case?
7 STEVE OLT: I don' t believe that ' s the case. The
8 applicant can help us with that .
9 CHAIR SCHMIDT: If we have no other questions, you
10 want to hear from the applicant at this time? Is
11 Mr. Whitman here? Come on down and give us your
12 presentation.
13 RANDY WHITMAN: How long do we have?
14 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Well, usually an applicant has as
15 long as you need.
16 RANDY WHITMAN: That ' s all we needed to hear .
17 First of all, I live at 209 East Skyway. We can start with,
18 the fence was permitted in the county as a legal fence.
19 Second of all, what Steve was saying is it ' s allowable to
20 have a four-foot fence, chain-link fence and everything, so
21 what ' s another two-foot fence? To me, that extra two-foot
22 fence is a security fence for my commercial, because in our
23 PD planning and stuff we have proposed an outdoor display
24 for our equipment. And in the county we were permitted to
25 have a small engine repair shop there. Yes, the outdoor
28
1 storage is -- wasn' t permitted there, but the county has
2 since then changed their code to allow outside storage now.
3 So ultimately, if I went back into the county, I
4 would be legal, okay. And second, when we start going
5 through this with our fence -- Steve, can you bring up front
6 of our shop, with the fence? Down further where it shows
7 like -- right there . Now what I 've been doing and stuff is
8 landscaping and stuff, and I have all the equipment and
9 everything sitting there. That is going to be continued all
10 the way down. I had to quit because of the IGA. We 've been
11 battling this for ten years of trying to get this resolved.
12 And so I 've had this, all landscaping the way I have it . If
13 I got that down to a four-foot fence, all right, children
14 that are walking by and everything, what is their attempt?
15 To jump the four-foot fence, look at the equipment, get
16 hurt, and who' s going to be responsible? You guys are going
17 to make me cut it down. Would it be the city' s
18 responsibility if they get hurt?
19 I 'm trying to protect our property with a six-foot
20 fence . Right across the street from the north of us is a
21 six-foot wood fence . And I know I heard before and stuff
22 that you guys don' t want to create a tunnel type scenario
23 with this . With a chain-link fence you aren' t going to
24 create that . It ' s very nice, landscaped and everything, and
25 we ' re going to continue that . Yes, we are going to take out
29
1 the barbed wire as part of our plan, if the plan goes
2 through. I could be legal the way it is if I would take off
3 the storage and be in compliance . I wouldn' t have to tear
4 down the fence, I wouldn' t have to do anything. Because I
5 was permitted, when the city took over, with the small
6 engine repair. So all ' s we ' re trying to do is make a
7 living, and that was part of my whole deal, and we' re trying
8 to be in compliance with the city and trying to work with
9 them.
10 As far as Steve said, an engineer is going to
11 support having a detached sidewalk. So if we had the
12 attached sidewalk and the trees along that fence, I think it
13 would look very beautiful on there . And the other case I do
14 have and stuff is, let ' s bring it into the city, okay.
15 Well, what does the city have? Their transportation has
16 barbed-wire fence and a chain-link fence around the whole
17 bus stop and everything. Why was that permitted? Should
18 they not be -- to get into compliance with everything? I do
19 have pictures of that, if you guys want to see that . Can we
20 show that?
21 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Could you explain a little bit more
22 about the facility you' re referring to?
23 RANDY WHITMAN: The transportation, the buses,
24 Poudre R-1 School District, right on Trilby. And it ' s all
25 security fence, all chain-link fence around the whole
30
1 property. It also has barbed-wire fence on it .
2 And the other thing, again, we go into the cost . I
3 mean, I got $10, 000 in this fence already put in. That was
4 allowed in the county. All I 'm trying to do is, everything
5 that was in the Kel-Mar strip, all the commercial, if you
6 look, which we really can' t see going down the south side of
7 the fence, that is all security fence. So I have to look at
8 that when I 'm looking out of my, which I call my front yard,
9 is not this front yard. This is a commercial site and stuff
10 that was supposed to have been in the county and stuff. So
11 this isn' t a front yard that you' re looking at . That is
12 basically my backyard, because in the county and stuff, when
13 we first did this and did the planning and stuff, I was
14 going to have to give up an easement right for the people to
15 get into the vacant lots behind us, directly south of us .
16 That would be a road, so that would be my front yard on it .
17 And if we go back onto College, I got -- I wish you
18 guys would look at some of these pictures, because right
19 across the street on College Avenue there ' s public storage
20 there that has chain-link and security fence around it . So
21 I don' t think we' re very, I mean, out of compliance with
22 this . And if we get the support from the engineers to have
23 the attached sidewalk, everything is working good, so I
24 think you guys should allow us to keep that . What we said
25 before is that it ' s okay to have a four-foot fence there.
31
1 What ' s an extra two foot? The extra two foot is helping me
2 keep my place secure on the whole place.
3 On the other part of that is, when we go ahead and
4 develop this whole area and stuff -- well, get back to your
5 question, it does, the street does slope down. So when
6 you' re way down on the other side of Skyway and looking up
7 and stuff, you hardly, you can' t see it . When you get up
8 into our property, then it ' s very level on it . And as far
9 as the hydrants and all that stuff, I think everything is
10 workable, just kind of like what -- we could probably wrap
11 the sidewalk around it, go back onto it, because there' s
12 enough room to make it loop around the hydrant, or there' s a
13 lot of options to help us work and try to get through this .
14 As uncost-effective of me putting in more money, more money
15 and have all the plans that it cost us tons of -- thousands
16 of dollars . I got $9, 000 in the set of plans and haven' t
17 gotten any further.
18 And I don' t know if you can put these pictures up
19 or not . I don' t know if you guys --
20 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Do you want to just pass them along
21 the desk here and everyone can take a chance to look at them
22 while we ' re answering questions and stuff?
23 GREG TEMPEL: Excuse me. If Mr . Whitman wants
24 those as part of the record, he ' s going to have to leave a
25 copy of them with us .
32
1 RANDY WHITMAN: Well, we have a picture there too.
2 So you can kind of see --
3 STEVE OLT: Is this the area you' re talking about?
4 RANDY WHITMAN: Yes.
5 STEVE OLT: I can show you. I took a couple
6 pictures because Mr. Whitman had made me aware of this . So
7 I do have three pictures just as a comparison. This is
8 right down along Trilby Road at our Transfort facility.
9 This would be the southeast corner of the facility. As you
10 can see, here ' s the sidewalk along the street and then a
11 significant distance to the fence, which is a six-foot-high
12 chain-link fence. It ' s DynaClad, kind of a dark brown.
13 This is looking at it, the corner ends right over here off
14 the right side of the slide . This is looking along the
15 frontage there . There is a significant distance, a little
16 berming and significant landscaping, as you can see . I 'm
17 assuming this is what Mr. Whitman is referring to . I took
18 these just in case.
19 RANDY WHITMAN: Yeah. You don' t have the --
20 STEVE OLT: No, I don' t have that .
21 RANDY WHITMAN: He doesn' t have a picture on the
22 west side further down, that west, north side of the
23 property where the Poudre R-1 School District buses park.
24 That has barbed wire and everything all around it that you
25 can see from the street and everything. The other case is,
33
1 what Steve was saying, if we do move the fence back to the
2 building face line, I can have the six-foot fence . I don' t
3 see any difference what that ' s going to do except for the
4 cost of trying to move that fence and to move all my
5 landscaping that I have, all my berms and all that stuff
6 further to the east and stuff . I have berms and all that
7 stuff that I 'd have to move . I have a wall, portion wall
8 and stuff that I 'd have to move . All that equipment I 'd
9 have to move, re-landscape it, and all that stuff .
10 And again, that ' s all money. And we ' ve already
11 tried to spend enough money. Because, to me, I didn' t want
12 to come into the city. None of this area did want to come
13 into the city. We got it, we got to make it work. All
14 we ' re trying to do is trying to make this work as easy as
15 possible and me to try to stay in business without incurring
16 a lot of expense on this .
17 And again, I hope you guys do approve this,
18 because, look at it, common sense, four-foot fence is
19 allowable . What' s two foot more to me? Well, that protects
20 my property. Engineer is supporting an attached sidewalk.
21 So why don ' t you guys look at that and concentrate on that
22 and focus that it will work. And having the trees in front
23 of that fence will make it look very nice . If you do have
24 any other questions, let me know.
25 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Okay. David.
34
1 MEMBER LINGLE: Mr . Whitman, can you help us
2 with -- I think you' re aware of the criteria we have to
3 evaluate a modification request against . One is that it ' s
4 not detrimental to the public good. But then there ' s four
5 other optional, not optional, but we have to base our
6 decision on one of those four . Can you tell us which one
7 you' re wanting us to concentrate on? Is it the equal to or
8 better than, the physical hardship -- well, the
9 community-wide thing probably wouldn' t apply. The fourth
10 one is nominal, inconsequential change.
11 RANDY WHITMAN: All of it . All of it . It ' s all
12 detrimental to me because of me having to put the expense
13 out, redoing everything if I have to move it .
14 MEMBER LINGLE: Keep in mind that financial
15 hardship is not something that we can evaluate .
16 RANDY WHITMAN: But looking at the whole picture, I
17 didn ' t want to come into the city, okay. None of that area
18 wanted to come into the city. We got annexed into the city.
19 All I 'm trying to do is work as closely as I can with the
20 city, which I think from when we got rezoned to commercial,
21 that I 've been in and trying to get this thing resolved on
22 this whole thing. And there ' s just, these things just keep
23 popping up. I don' t know when it was brought up and stuff
24 that I had to have a six-foot detached sidewalk. Well, in
25 the Land Use Code it only allows five foot. So there ' s a
35
1 lot of other stuff.
2 And the whole criteria of what you' re saying is,
3 the whole thing is, to me, is it ' s allowed in the county, it
4 was fine in the county. It would be okay in the city now if
5 1 didn' t have the storage, it would be fine. It ' s okay in
6 the city now if I dropped it down to four foot . So I don' t
7 know, I mean, the whole thing is -- I don' t know where it
8 begins . To me, it ' s the whole thing, all of the above.
9 MEMBER LINGLE: All of the above, okay.
10 MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Whitman, it says here that you
11 would be willing to come into strict compliance of what --
12 at the time the public improvements were to be made to the
13 sidewalk. Is that true?
14 RANDY WHITMAN: What was that, sir?
15 MALE SPEAKER: When the sidewalk and the public
16 improvements were to be installed on Skyway, the way I read
17 it, you indicated that you would be willing to become fully
18 compliant at that point . Is that true?
19 RANDY WHITMAN: When we got approved for the
20 buildings to be approved for our storage and stuff, then
21 yes, then I would put in the sidewalk and the landscaping.
22 MALE SPEAKER: And the fence would -- you would
23 move the fence too?
24 RANDY WHITMAN: No, no, the fence is going to stay.
25 From the Engineering, we already agreed that I could have
36
1 the attached sidewalk, that she would support it, and the
2 fence would remain where it is . Even if I -- if you make me
3 cut it down to four foot, the fence would be the right
4 depth. Or if we moved it back 33 feet, which you could
5 still see it very plainly, it would -- you could allow me --
6 it is allowed to have the six-foot fence there . So there
7 isn' t -- I don' t see the purpose of the expense of moving
8 the fence or cutting it down. We have already been
9 supported by having an attached sidewalk from the
10 Engineering. Everything is planned with the landscaping and
11 all that stuff .
12 To me, this was -- I didn' t even want to come here
13 because it was all going to be in the development review
14 anyway, you know. Yes, because it ' s all about money right
15 now. I mean, it ' s very expensive. We have a small engine
16 repair business . Everybody thinks we make thousands and
17 millions of dollars, and it ' s very hard trying to make a
18 living, especially when things keep going up in the town,
19 taxes and all that stuff.
20 MALE SPEAKER: Real quick, maybe this is more for
21 Steve . In the staff report it says the request is made to
22 allow the existing fence to remain in place until such time
23 as the ultimate street improvements to East Skyway Drive are
24 made . I guess I 'm confused.
25 STEVE OLT: That statement is in the applicant ' s
37
1 request . Just so you understand, with the Project
2 Development Plan, all of the standards must be brought into
3 compliance unless, in this particular case, the Planning &
4 Zoning Board were to grant a modification of the standard to
5 allow that fence to remain in its present location. And
6 that ' s, again, regardless of the sidewalk. The sidewalk can
7 be accommodated one way or the other. But again, they' re
8 just a straight standard in the code that says a fence
9 between the front building line and the property line can be
10 no more than four feet in height unless it ' s back to at
11 least the front building line . From the city staff
12 standpoint, obviously, for that fence to remain in its
13 present location, with the Project Development Plan as
14 requested, the Planning & Zoning Board would have to grant a
15 modification to that standard.
16 MALE SPEAKER: Okay. I hate to take this longer
17 than it needs to be . Just to make sure I understand,
18 granting this modification, this fence would stay. I guess
19 I read this to be some -- until the public improvements were
20 made, then at that point it would be located to where it
21 needed to be or shortened to become in strict compliance.
22 But that ' s not the case, hearing Mr. Whitman. It would stay
23 as it is .
24 STEVE OLT: That ' s a true statement . That ' s his
25 request, and that ' s really -- I apologize if the staff
38
1 report doesn' t clearly say that because, in essence, the
2 decision you make will be a permanent decision. Unless you
3 were to qualify the decision, obviously.
4 RANDY WHITMAN: And that ' s what the Engineering
5 supporting to have the six-foot attached sidewalk, and
6 that ' s where we agreed that she was going to support that
7 when the fence stayed and all that stuff to do all that .
8 And I think on the other question you did have on Skyway, on
9 the improvements on Skyway -- okay, because there is no
10 improvements as far as Skyway being widened or anything.
11 It ' s to its limit .
12 MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Whitman, on the east end of that
13 fence, is that not completely open?
14 RANDY WHITMAN: There ' s a barbed-wire fence that ' s
15 running there and stuff, because we had to stop because of
16 getting into the IGA and all that stuff, and we decided to
17 not put any more money because we didn' t know if we were
18 going to stay in this town.
19 MALE SPEAKER: So is that a plan to complete the
20 fence all the way around your property to provide that
21 security?
22 RANDY WHITMAN: On the east side, yes, as a
23 security fence . But as far as what they would recommend, if
24 it ' s the final fence or something like that, I mean, that
25 was my plan was having my own fence, because of it being
39
1 zoned RL on that portion of it, that we would do that . And
2 as far as security and stuff, the kids, we 've had problems
3 and stuff, there ' s cameras and stuff that are in there .
4 Yes, I would try to do that at some point when money is
5 feasible.
6 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Do you have any other questions?
7 Just briefly, how long ago did you put in the chain-link
8 fence?
9 RANDY WHITMAN: That chain-link fence was put in,
10 in ' 96.
11 CHAIR SCHMIDT: ' 96, okay. And you referred to
12 having some type of equipment . Now, is this part of your
13 business type equipment or is this the landscaping, like old
14 tractors or something like --
15 RANDY WHITMAN: No. On the west side of the
16 building and stuff is going to be our display. We sell lawn
17 mowers, tractors, and all that stuff.
18 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Okay. So you' re planning on
19 keeping them outside all the time?
20 RANDY WHITMAN: Correct .
21 CHAIR SCHMIDT: All-righty. Any more questions of
22 the applicant? All-righty. We 'd like to open it up to
23 public comment, then. Any member of the public that would
24 like to come up and address us on this issue and give your
25 viewpoints, anything you'd like to say. Usually have about
40
1 three minutes to do that . If you'd like to come up to the
2 podium and sign in and then give us your name .
3 MALE SPEAKER: And address, please.
4 CHAIR SCHMIDT: And address .
5 BRIAN SCHUMM: My name is Brian Schumm. I followed
6 this project and many others in the neighborhood for quite
7 some time. I was going to initially tell you I couldn' t get
8 my arms around this, and I find this very confusing. 1
9 think the sidewalk is really the key to all of this, and I
10 would ask either Cameron or Steve or both of you, you have
11 my e-mail address, send me the e-mail of who I need to
12 protest the sidewalk issue, because when I built a house one
13 block down at 5948 Colby, Skyway was not even in. The city
14 required I do vertical curb and gutter and detached walk.
15 The developer of Huntington Hills, detached walk, the
16 developer of Huntington Hills West, detached walk. So that
17 has been the whole theme of the city staff for many years,
18 that along Skyway and Fossil Creek Parkway you would have
19 detached walk. And it only gets built when you have a
20 developer do it, and it seems to me that we should be
21 consistent with that standard.
22 I am not clear what that means in relation to the
23 fence. I ' ve heard different things here tonight . I started
24 looking into some issues the beginning of May, and I
25 actually finally, after e-mails and phone messages, got a
41
1 call back just before this meeting . And what I was told by
2 a member of the traffic staff was that either way this fence
3 would have to be moved. So it ' s just, it ' s not really clear
4 to me what the deal is . And I guess to be fair to
5 everybody, including myself, I think that these questions
6 need to be answered and this should be deferred to the PDP
7 when you actually have a recommendation on paper with a
8 signature from the Engineering staff. I think that ' s key to
9 making a decision on this very issue . So I think that ' s the
10 big thing that I learned from the discussion.
11 Couple real quick comments. Mr. Whitman has always
12 been entitled to run his small engine repair business as a
13 home occupation. That has been the problem. He chose not
14 to. That ' s where all the violations came from. He is not
15 in compliance today, but he is on a moratorium that kicked
16 in when he was rezoned and had time to do the PDP. He' s
17 also been given a three-month extension. So I believe 90
18 days from July 15th, one way or the other, he ' s got to come
19 in compliance with the Fort Collins codes .
20 So I don' t know about the fence . I 've heard
21 different things about the fence. But I think the key issue
22 is the sidewalk and whether or not it' s going to force the
23 fence to come down. And we don' t have the answer to that,
24 as far as I can see tonight .
25 He ' s not a small businessman. He runs a small
42
1 business, he is one of the owners of the property. What
2 he ' s talking to you about tonight is development . He is
3 here as a developer. And the developers and builders I 've
4 worked for, the things that I 've done myself, when you are a
5 developer, you are responsible for the utilities, the
6 improvements, sidewalk. You are responsible for meeting the
7 code unless there ' s some extenuating circumstance that makes
8 it extremely difficult to do that. And I just don' t see
9 that in this case . As a developer, he should do the
10 detached walk. And if it causes the fence to be moved, this
11 whole issue is not an issue . So, again, to be fair, I think
12 you ought to just defer this to the PDP, see what you get
13 from hard copy in Engineering.
14 A couple real quick comments . They covered the
15 code issues . It sounds to me like the staff is making a
16 good recommendation. I 'm very glad that the staff did
17 clarify. I built Skyway. Vertical curb to vertical curb it
18 was confirmed today that that does not change. On the west
19 side of Erin, who knows what we ' re going to get . But what
20 you have in front of 209 East Skyway is the way it ' s going
21 to be . And that detached walk should be part of that the
22 way it ' s going to be.
23 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Would you like to wrap up? Do you
24 have a few other -- just very quickly. Your time is up.
25 BRIAN SCHUMM: Four other real quick points . One
43
1 of the problems with this fence is there ' s a gate . There is
2 no parking on Skyway. Big vehicles, in violation of the
3 Larimer County code and now the Fort Collins code, have been
4 stored there . And when that gate is locked and people come
5 to get through that gate, they park in the street . And no
6 matter what you do with the fence itself, that drive should
7 be extended to the gate so that when people come in and they
8 get out to open the gate, they' re off the street . Same in
9 the opposite direction. If you' re stored there and you come
10 out, you should drive through the gate and not be in the
11 street .
12 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Anything else?
13 BRIAN SCHOMM: I 'm not clear on the zoning
14 violations . I had a couple comments on that . I do believe
15 that if he did not submit for a change in use under the
16 commercial zoning, that the fence would be legal and he
17 would not be required to put in the sidewalk.
18 So anyway, at this point either a denial or
19 deferred to review of the full plan I think would be
20 appropriate. Thank you very much.
21 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Mr. Schumm, before you leave the
22 podium, could you give us your address for the record?
23 BRIAN SCHDMM: Yes, very good. I live at 7302
24 Woodrow Drive. I own a property one block north, which I
25 use as a residential rental . I 'm very interested in the
44
1 south corridor plan, I 'm very interested in this, and I 'm
2 very interested in what plan specifically and design are
3 going to be made for Erin Street, because I am going to lose
4 somewhere between 9 to 24 feet . I can ' t get a constant
5 number. Somewhere in between there .
6 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Thank you. Steve, would you like
7 to tackle some of these? I noticed in the one picture that
8 you showed, I think that was probably Boyne Court, it did
9 not have detached sidewalks . But are the sidewalks on the
10 rest of the way down Skyview (sic) all detached or --
11 STEVE OLT: Is this the picture you' re referring
12 to? This is the one across the street . I didn' t know the
13 name of it, but Boyne Court . Yes, that has, obviously,
14 attached sidewalk with rollover curb in a residential
15 neighborhood.
16 CHAIR SCHMIDT: The rest of Skyview, Mr . Schumm
17 seemed to think that it ' s detached further down, or
18 sidewalks -- it ' s hard. I guess we don' t have any pictures
19 of --
20 STEVE OLT: No, we don ' t have any pictures further
21 down . As this wraps around, it looks to be attached. Have
22 Randy Maizland from Engineering come up and help us .
23 RANDY MATZLAND: I was the engineer on review for
24 this project . To the east on Skyway on the south side there
25 is detached sidewalk. And that was done with that
45
1 development .
2 STEVE OLT: Is that with the residential
3 development right here?
4 RANDY MAIZLAND: Yes .
5 STEVE OLT: And that was done in the city.
6 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Okay. Could you also speak to the
7 gate issue and the parking on the street? Is there some
8 problems with that?
9 RANDY MAIZLAND: I think he brought up a good
10 point . With the fence being in its current location it
11 creates somewhat of a traffic hazard. If there are large
12 trucks trying to enter the property and the gate is locked,
13 then they' re obviously going to be overhanging into the
14 street and over the sidewalk while they' re waiting for the
15 gate to be opened. I can' t speak to the code requirement on
16 that . Might have to do a little bit of research.
17 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Okay. We could have the applicant
18 respond to that issue too . All-righty. I think -- can we
19 find out if there is any more public comment? Is there
20 anyone else in the audience who would like to speak? Sir,
21 if you would like to come to the podium.
22 JIM DIGUILLIO: First of all, good evening, folks .
23 My name is Jim DiGuillic, and I live right across the street
24 from this gentleman. And it is not true what this other
25 gentleman said. There is no, I ' ll repeat that, there is no,
46
1 definitely, no traffic tie-up, no trucks sitting in the
2 street, nothing like that, nothing whatsoever. People pull
3 in, people pull out . There is no tie-ups . Around 9: 00 at
4 night that gate is always closed. He has no deliveries,
5 nothing. In the morning the gate is open at 7 :00. NAPA
6 pulls in, other businesspeople pull in. There is no traffic
7 tie-up whatsoever . Because, again, like I says, I live
8 right on Boyne Court right across the street . I see it all,
9 believe me .
10 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Okay, thank you. Please make sure
11 you sign in with your name and address on the register.
12 JIM DIGOILLIO: There ' s no ink pen.
13 CHAIR SCHMIDT: There ' s no pen there? Oh. Okay,
14 is there anyone else in the audience that would like to come
15 up and make any comments? Okay. This is the only time that
16 we ' re taking public comment, so if you think you might want
17 to say anything, this is your time. Okay. You can come to
18 the podium, certainly, please do. And we have another
19 podium over here that you can also sign in.
20 MATT BROWN: My name is Matt Brown, and I live at
21 423 Spaulding Lane, which is on the other end of town. I 'm
22 actually here for the other end of town. But just to keep
23 it to the fence issue, and I ' ve got property in the county
24 that ' s -- one of my fences is the city limit right now. But
25 if the fence, if it was legal in the county, then the city
97
1 annexes the property, if the fence has to be moved to comply
2 with the city, isn' t that the city' s financial
3 responsibility? Or is that not true?
4 CHAIR SCHMIDT: We ' ll get staff to answer that
5 question. Is that your only question?
6 MATT BROWN: Question and comment . If he had a
7 legal fence before, he should be either allowed to keep it
8 now in the city or, if the city has a different idea, then
9 the city should pay to move it . But again, that ' s also a
10 question, yes .
11 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Okay. Thank you very much.
12 Cameron, can you address that question?
13 DIRECTOR GLOSS : Certainly. As he stated, when a
14 property is annexed in the city, we have nonconforming
15 buildings, nonconforming fences, and they are not required
16 to be modified to come into conformance. But we do have a
17 situation here where a development was proposed on the
18 balance of the property. So south of the existing buildings
19 there is a storage facility that ' s being proposed under
20 separate -- under a development application that ' s pending.
21 That is where the city is required to have all the
22 improvements on the site come into compliance with the
23 present standards . So that ' s the trigger point . If the
24 applicant was not pursuing that development plan, the fence
25 would remain as it is .
48
1 MATT BROWN: Which gets back to somebody else ' s
2 question. If the other development plan hadn' t been brought
3 up, would you be talking about a fence? So that, I think
4 you' ve answered somebody else' s question.
5 DIRECTOR GLOSS: Okay.
6 MATT BROWN: So the fence would be allowed as a
7 variance, potentially, if nothing else was going on?
8 DIRECTOR GLOSS: No, it would just be retained as
9 it is .
10 CHAIR SCHMIDT: You have an opportunity to come
11 down and respond to any other questions or comments . And we
12 have closed, since I don' t see anyone else, we have closed
13 public comment .
14 RANDY WHITMAN: I don' t think there is any, as far
15 as the traffic, we don' t, I mean, it ' s pretty much open all
16 the time. There ' s more problem with the -- if Steve could
17 bring up the north view of the property going way north.
18 Yeah. Or I mean west . Sorry, Steve. Yeah, on the street.
19 Anyway, all the commercial and stuff, there ' s the DPX
20 Trucking that ' s right across the street and all that stuff.
21 They have parking and stuff in the middle of the street and
22 stuff too. I 'm just bringing that up. It ' s commercial in
23 there, and they do have traffic, and there is a, in the
24 center of Skyway there is an area for people to park there
25 or whatever. But we don't have that issue .
49
1 I don' t know if there' s any other questions .
2 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Okay, thank you. Any other
3 questions of the applicant? All right . I guess it ' s time
4 to make some comments or a motion. Short discussion from
5 the board?
6 MEMBER CAMPANA: I ' ll start some. I 'm not going to
7 support this modification. I would have an issue with the
8 fence, I understand your hardship, I would have an issue
9 with the fence saying that if you didn't have a new Project
10 Development Plan coming through. But the game changes when
11 you become a developer. There' s a Land Use Code that we
12 have to use, and those are the rules of our game. And
13 that ' s what we stand by on the new projects coming through
14 and the new plans . So it ' s just a little -- I mean, there' s
15 a lot of history with the project . And I feel for you.
16 I ' ve been where you' re at . But you' re going to develop a
17 new project, there' s going to be different uses going on in
18 there, and when you do, we want to bring it up to the
19 existing code. So I won' t be supporting it tonight .
20 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Any other comments? Do we want to
21 have a motion on the table?
22 MEMBER LINGLE: The one comment I would make, I
23 have a hard time supporting the modification request as
24 well, particularly when we look at the review criteria that
25 we have and trying to fit one of those criteria into a
50
1 supported motion. And the only one that I can even come
2 close to on that would be the last one, which would require
3 us to find that two feet out of a six-foot fence is nominal
4 and inconsequential, and I don' t think that it is . That ' s a
5 third. I don' t know what -- I don ' t know that that term is
6 defined in our Land Use Code or not, what inconsequential
7 is, or nominal . But I agree with what Gino said in terms of
8 the thing triggering this being a development application,
9 that the Land Use Code is what we need to go by and review
10 the project development application against . And we have a
11 very strict set of criteria in order to review modification
12 requests, and it is a fairly high standard that has to be
13 met in order to do that . And I don' t see that we can
14 support that tonight .
15 CHAIR SCHMIDT: I guess I have a question about our
16 options . Mr. Schumm has suggested that we look at possibly
17 postponing this and looking at it as part of the whole PDP.
18 Is that something that the applicant requests, or if we deny
19 the modification tonight, can he request another one along
20 with the PDP, or what happens? What are our options with
21 that?
22 STEVE OLT: Well, initially I think that the
23 applicant has requested that this modification of standard
24 request be heard separate from the PDP, so he really knows
25 what he needs to do. So I think unless he ' s willing to give
51
1 you a different position tonight, I think it ' s incumbent on
2 the board to render a decision this evening on this, because
3 it has been at the applicant ' s request .
9 CHAIR SCHMIDT: But that would be an option that
5 the applicant has, and I know we 've had other applicants do
6 that at hearings if they' ve changed their mind and want to
7 have something reconsidered at a later date along with other
8 information or something.
9 STEVE OLT: Yeah, reconsidered, conceivably, she
10 said with the Project Development Plan as it was originally
11 submitted. So you could rediscuss this at that time when
12 you see the entire plan, that ' s true. That ' s an option.
13 CHAIR SCHMIDT: I guess my difficulty with it is
19 we ' re basing the fact that the fence needs to change on this
15 development plan that we' re going to see at a later date.
16 And I guess at this point in time we don' t really know what
17 that is . We call this person a, quote/unquote, developer,
18 but is he just going to add a little bit to the back of his
19 storage or is this really going to be a -- in my mind, if it
20 was going to be a massive change to the project, then
21 possibly quite an overhaul is warranted. But if it ' s going
22 to be a minor change, then that -- so I think I might view
23 it differently depending on what the project proposal was .
29 So that ' s an option that the applicant could consider.
25 My other personal opinion is, given the fact that
52
1 the code says if the fence were four foot, it could stay
2 where it is, and it ' s chain-link, which is not the most
3 attractive thing in the world, but it is a see-through
4 material, to me, two feet is a pretty nominal change. So
5 that is -- I could probably support the modification based
6 on that . And I don't think, again, that it ' s -- I see it as
7 being detrimental to the public good staying as it is . So
8 that ' s kind of where I 'm coming from. But we can hear from
9 the rest of the board on that too.
10 MEMBER LINGLE : One thing, Brigitte, I ' d say, not
11 knowing exactly what the PDP is, it ' s a substantial enough
12 development proposal that it ' s requiring PDP. So that would
13 suggest to me that it ' s not a fairly minor thing.
14 MEMBER STOCKOVER: We 've got a pretty good idea .
15 Phase one is a 7200-foot RV storage; phase two is cut off;
16 phase three is a 5600-foot storage structure. So we have a
17 pretty good idea what it is .
18 STEVE OLT: Would it be appropriate to put this in
19 the present context for you, or is it premature to do that,
20 in terms of why the applicant is required to submit a
21 Project Development Plan?
22 CHAIR SCHMIDT: I think as Butch pointed out, if
23 what is on this diagram is what is being submitted, then I
24 can see that that ' s a pretty substantial change. Now, I
25 would ask, though, see, does that -- if these items are down
53
1 here, I don' t see where -- is there like an access road or
2 is this just a driveway? Does part of this front yard then
3 become a side yard? To come down to these buildings down
4 here, is that all going to be considered a driveway?
5 STEVE OLT: That will be. You' ve got the single
6 point of access into the site right here. This is, the
7 front of the entire property is right along Skyway. This
8 will be a private drive coming into the facility, which will
9 include storage facilities, as well as what currently was
10 permitted in Larimer County when annexed into the city. We
11 had the residence and, according to Peter Barnes of the
12 zoning department, home occupation for the existing small
13 engine repair. That ' s what was legal in Larimer County.
14 That ' s what came in, in a legal form into the city. The
15 other elements are really triggering the Project Development
16 Plan by virtue of a change in use on the site to allow the
17 storage facilities .
18 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Thank you. Any other --
19 MEMBER STOCKOVER: I just have one question. We
20 have an existing storage building right now; is that
21 correct?
22 STEVE OLT: That ' s correct.
23 MEMBER STOCKOVER: How can it be change of use if
24 we already have existing storage?
25 STEVE OLT: It ' s my understanding, again, that ' s
54
1 one of the zoning violations being brought into compliance
2 by virtue of being annexed into the city. Again, any
3 illegal use annexed into the city has to be brought into
4 compliance in some fashion in a certain period of time .
5 MEMBER STOCKOVER: So the existing storage is not
6 in compliance and was not when it was in the --
7 STEVE OLT: According to Mr. Barnes, that ' s
8 correct . What was legal in Larimer County and what was
9 legal as it was annexed into the city in November of 2006
10 again is the residence and the attached office repair shop
11 as a home occupation.
12 CHAIR SCHMIDT: I thought when they got the zoning
13 changed, then it became legal . To commercial, right? You
14 said their zoning change just went into effect in January?
15 MALE SPEAKER: January, that ' s correct.
16 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Wasn' t it then zoned commercial so
17 that it would be legal to use?
18 STEVE OLT: Apparently there are still violations
19 that the applicant has until mid July to bring up to -- into
20 compliance.
21 DIRECTOR GLOSS : I also wanted to point out that
22 enclosed mini storage, which is part of the proposal, is a
23 type two use in the C zone district that ' s being proposed
24 under the PDP. We ' re not going to try to get into too much
25 detail here because you're not looking at the development
55
1 plan. But those are the circumstances .
2 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Any other comments from board
3 members? Ruth.
4 MEMBER ROLLINS : I agree and concur with Dave and
5 Gino. I will not be supporting this request for
6 modification. And I 'd even like to add to Engineering that
7 if there was a building here that we had to move around to
8 make concessions for, that I could understand a little bit
9 more . But detached sidewalks are really important from a
10 pedestrian standpoint, and that ' s something that was put in
11 this code and held to be very valuable . So to not have that
12 done because we need to move a chain-link fence is very
13 disheartening. So I just wanted to add that additional
14 comment . Thanks .
15 MEMBER CAMPANA: I personally feel very strongly
16 about the detached sidewalks . And regardless of what
17 Engineering says, that they would support an attached
18 sidewalk, it is, in my opinion, very detrimental to the
19 public good simply because in the wintertime your snow plows
20 blow snow up on those sidewalks and then they don' t get
21 cleared. And if they do get cleared, the next day they' re
22 not clear. And the relative distance between the street
23 traffic and pedestrians, kids, I think is adequate reason to
24 have detached sidewalks . I won' t support this at all, not
25 on account of a chain-link fence .
56
1 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Any other comments?
2 MEMBER LINGLE: I will move to deny the request for
3 modification of standard No. 11-08 for the Whitman Storage
4 Facility based on the facts and findings in the staff report
5 beginning on page 5 .
6 MEMBER CAMPANA: I ' ll second it .
7 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Can I just ask one question of
8 Engineering? If the fence was a four-foot fence, would it
9 be moved for detached sidewalks? Would it be required to
10 be --
11 RANDY MAIZLAND: Let me clarify that. We' re going
12 to require some right-of-way dedication in this PDP. If the
13 fence is left in its existing location, it would be
14 encroaching into that new right-of-way. That ' s why we
15 couldn' t fit in a detached walk.
16 CHAIR SCHMIDT: So really the fence would have to
17 be moved to clear the right-of-way, wouldn' t it?
18 RANDY MAIZLAND: The fence would absolutely need to
19 be moved to get the detached standard walk. But I think our
20 city engineer was going to support a variance to allow for a
21 six-foot attached walk regardless . So if the fence is cut
22 down to four feet, it ' s still encroaching into the
23 right-of-way and it won ' t allow for a detached walk. So
24 we ' ll still need an attached walk at that point. But the
25 city engineer was going to approve a variance to allow for
57
1 that .
2 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Because you said initially that the
3 four-foot fence would be allowed to stay where it was, but
4 it really wouldn' t be if it ' s encroaching in a right-of-way,
5 unless they get a variance .
6 RANDY MAIZLAND: Well, we did discuss that with the
7 applicant, and we were going to put language in his
8 development agreement that allowed for an encroachment into
9 the right-of-way as part of the development.
10 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Okay. I 'm sorry. Was there a --
11 did you finish your motion, and was there a second? Who
12 made the second? Gino?
13 GREG TEMPEL: Can I provide just a little perhaps
14 advice here? In the motion, before it ' s seconded, or if
15 it ' s already been seconded, maybe the second will agree to
16 it, but could your motion address -- I know you referenced
17 the findings that are in the staff report . Could you also
18 address in your motion whether or not any of the four
19 conditions listed in the staff report, whether you believe
20 those, any of those have been met? I think that would help
21 clarify that a little bit in the event that the staff
22 report -- in the event that there' s some confusion on the
23 staff report .
24 MEMBER LINGLE: Okay. So in making it a motion to
25 deny the request, do I -- I just say that I am not finding
58
1 that any of the four criteria have been met? Is that
2 adequate?
3 GREG TEMPEL: That ' s what I 'm suggesting, if that ' s
4 how you feel, if you believe the evidence establishes that .
5 MEMBER LINGLE: Yeah, I, well --
6 GREG TEMPEL: Or fails to establish --
7 MEMBER LINGLE: Part of it is that the facts and
8 findings say the first part, which is granting the request
9 of modification would be detrimental to the public good. So
10 that part ' s already stated. And then I could add to my
11 motion that, of the review procedure standards listed, we do
12 not find that any of the four review standards have been
13 met .
14 GREG TEMPEL: Very good. That ' s what -- if that ' s
15 how you feel, I would suggest that be a part of the motion
16 as well .
17 MEMBER CAMPANA: I would accept that and second
18 that as an amended motion.
19 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Okay. Any additional discussion?
20 All right . I guess we ' re really for roll call, then.
21 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Wetzler?
22 MEMBER WETZLER: No.
23 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover?
24 MEMBER STOCKOVER: Yes .
25 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Lingle?
59
1 CHAIR SCHMIDT: The motion, let ' s read the motion
2 again, the motion is to deny the modification, based on it
3 being detrimental to the public good and also the fact that
4 it does not meet the four modification requirements . So
5 if --
6 GREG TEMPEL: Any of the four.
7 CHAIR SCHMIDT: Yeah, it doesn' t meet any of the
8 four requirements . Angelina, let' s start that vote over
9 again.
10 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Okay. Wetzler?
11 MEMBER WETZLER: Yes .
12 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover?
13 MEMBER STOCKOVER: Yes .
14 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Lingle?
15 MEMBER LINGLE: Yes .
16 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Rollins?
17 MEMBER ROLLINS : Yes .
18 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
19 MEMBER CAMPANA: Yes .
20 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
21 MEMBER SMITH: Yes .
22 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt?
23 CHAIR SCHMIDT: No.
24 All-righty. The modification is denied for the
25 Whitman Storage Facility.