HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/02/2008 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL BY RANDY WHITMAN OF TH (2) ITEM NUMBER: 35
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: December2, 2008
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Steve Olt
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Appeal by Randy Whitman of the October 16, 2008 Determination of the
Planning and Zoning Board to Deny the Whitman Storage Facility—Addition of Permitted Use.
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 October 16, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the
Whitman Storage Facility — Addition of Permitted Use. The request was to add Recreational
Vehicle, Boat and Truck Storage in the C, Commercial portion of the property. 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 Appellant's allegations are that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and
apply relevant portions of the City Land Use Code and Charter.
BACKGROUND
This is a request to add Recreational Vehicle, Boat and Truck Storage as an Addition of Permitted
Use in the Commercial zone district, specifically for a portion of the property at 209 East Skyway
Drive. The property is partially developed. The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins
as part of Phase 1 of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in November, 2006 and zoned UE,Urban
Estate. The property was rezoned to C, commercial (west 2/3) and RL, Low Density Residential
(east 1/3) in January, 2008 by City Council. The parcel to be used for the aforementioned
recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage is a portion of Lot 3 in the south '/z of the Whitman
Storage Facility subdivision plat. It is approximately one acre in size and zoned C, Commercial.
Section 1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses of the Land Use Code provides criteria for Required
Findings, Certification of New Use, and Conditions that may be imposed on approval of such use.
December 2, 2008 -2- Item No. 35
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
At the October 16, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, the Board considered
the testimony of the applicant,affected property owners and staff and voted 4—2 to deny the request
for an Addition of Permitted Use on a portion of the property at 209 East Skyway Drive.
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On November 5, 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 Land Use Code and Charter, including, without limitation, the following:
• "Article 1, Division 1.3.4
1. Failure to give due weight to Timothy Wilder's statements that the two
adjacent south lots are going to be rezoned CL in the foreseeable future as
part of the City's new plan for the area. The decision exalts form over
substance and is in derogation of the intent and spirit of the code.
2. Failure to properly interpret"site specific" as a basis for a decision."
• "Article 2, Division 2.8
1. Both appellant and staff spent many hours coming to an agreement of higher
standards by both parties that sufficiently protect the City and its residents.
2. The progression of growth along the South College Corridor is coming and
the need for ultimate resolution has come. The appellant has complied with
innumerable requirements of the City, and the proposed use was disclosed
and discussed when appellant received his rezoning last year from City
Council on a 7-0 vote.
3. The appellant needs the income in order to continue to stay in business.
4. If the proposed outdoor-stored vehicles were for sale, they would be
permitted as a use by right. The denial was irrational."
• "Charter Section IV.7
1. Board member Gino Campana has a financial interest and personal interest
in the hearing's outcome, he was very vocal in urging the outcome that was
favorable to his said interests, and he voted accordingly to the detriment of
the appellant. He ought to have refrained from attempting to influence the
result and from voting."
• "Article 3, Division 3.5.3(C)(1)
1. The Board at Mr. Campana's instigation, introduced new findings,
specifications and requirements that had never been an issue prior to coming
into the October 16,2008 meeting.This caught everyone off guard including
the staff who stated that it was not an issue."
December 2, 2008 -3- Item No. 35
QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board not properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the
City Land Use Code and Charter?
STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Article 1. Division 1.3.4
Appellant's Statement: Failure to give due weight to Timothy Wilder's statements that the
two adjacent south lots are going to be rezoned CL in the foreseeable
future as part of the City's new plan for the area. The decision exalts
form over substance and is in derogation of the intent and spirit of the
code.
Staff s Response: Staff s comment to the Planning and Zoning Board, after conferring
with Timothy Wilder, the Advance Planning Department's project
manager for the South College Corridor Plan, was that Mr. Wilder
had stated that two properties south of and adjacent to Mr.Whitman's
property, currently zoned UE, Urban Estate, were probably going to
be recommended to be zoned CL,Limited Commercial on the South
College Corridor Framework Plan, when adopted. However, the
Planning and Zoning Board correctly used the existing adopted data
to make its decision.
Appellant's Statement: Failure to properly interpret "site specific" as a basis for a decision.
Staffs Response: The reference to "site specific" was made by City staff during its
presentation to the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff said that the
proposed Addition of Permitted Use would be specific to this
particular site,being the property at 209 East Skyway Drive zoned C,
Commercial, and would not be added to the C District City-wide.
Staff believes that the Board understood the distinction.
Article 2. Division 2.8
Appellant's Statement: Both appellant and staff spent many hours coming to an agreement
of higher standards by both parties that sufficiently protect the City
and its residents.
Staff s Response: The Appellant and City staff did spend a significant amount of time
working together to come to agreement on an appropriate Addition
of Permitted Use to be proposed on a portion of his property. The
Planning and Zoning Board, after receiving additional information
during the public hearing, did not find that the standards were met.
Appellant's Statement: The progression of growth along the South College Corridor is
coming and the need for ultimate resolution has come.The appellant
has complied with innumerable requirements of the City, and the
December 2, 2008 -4- Item No. 35
proposed use was disclosed and discussed when appellant received
his rezoning last year from City Council on a 7-0 vote.
Staff s Response: Based on the action taken by City Council in January, 2008 to place
the west portion of Mr. Whitman's property in the C, Commercial
zone district,the proposed use(Recreational Vehicle,Boat and Truck
Storage)was just a point of discussion but did not factor into the final
decision by Council and is not germane to this finding. Recreational
Vehicle, Boat and Truck Storage is not permitted in the C zone, so
Council's action in January,2008 to rezone to C did not authorize the
use at the time of the rezoning. The "Addition of a Permitted Use"
process Land Use Code amendment had not been adopted at the time
of the Whitman property rezoning.
Appellant's Statement: The appellant needs the income in order to continue to stay in
business.
Staff s Response: The Planning and Zoning Board does not consider an applicant's
income when making a land use decision.
Appellant's Statement: If the proposed outdoor-stored vehicles were for sale,they would be
permitted as a use by right. The denial was irrational.
Staffs Response: During City staff presentation to the Planning and Zoning Board it
was stated that Vehicle and boat sales and leasing with outdoor
storage is a permitted use in the C, Commercial District.
Charter Section IV.7
Appellant's Statement: Board member Gino Campana has a financial interest and personal
interest in the hearing's outcome, he was very vocal in urging the
outcome that was favorable to his said interests, and he voted
accordingly to the detriment of the appellant. He ought to have
refrained from attempting to influence the result and from voting.
Staff s Response: The City Code specifies,in Section 2-48(b),the grounds upon which
a decision may be appealed to the City Council. While there are
other provisions in the Code that deal with alleged conflicts of
interest, and other avenues of recourse available to Mr. Campana to
address the concern he has expressed, an alleged conflict of interest
is not one of the grounds upon which an appeal can be based.
Article 3, Division 3.5.3(C)(1)
Appellant's Statement: The Board at Mr. Campana's instigation, introduced new findings,
specifications and requirements that had never been an issue prior to
coming into the October 16,2008 meeting. This caught everyone off
guard including the staff who stated that it was not an issue.
December 2, 2008 -5- Item No. 35
Staffs Response: Related to the Whitman Storage Facility—Addition of Permitted Use
request, it is unclear about the new findings, specifications and
requirements that Mr. Whitman is referring to based on the
information in the minutes of the October 16, 2008 Planning and
Zoning Board hearing.
Staff,therefore,finds that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply
relevant portions of the City Land Use Code and Charter.
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
1. Section 1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses
2. Article 3 General Development Standards
3. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
4. Article 4, Division 4.21 Commercial District
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, October 16, 2008.
1'1'SKYyy,,1YDQ E SKYWAY DR
'SITE
8
Lena #11-08
y
weraa alb of tho
Whitman Storage Facility PDP �
ProjaetDwalopnantPIon and Addition of a Permitted Use '
vonron o1 a»nraP.ry 1011lO6 N �
under considsmOon AdMon of bd"U A y
1 Inch equals,5D feat .+
ATTACHMENT
City Clerk's
Notice of Appeal Hearing
City of City clews omee
Fort Collins Fort LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522
970.221.6515
970.221.6295295-fax
kgov com/cityclerk
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 October 16, 2008, regarding the Whitman Storage Facility
Addition of a Permitted Use (#11-08B). 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 staffs 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://fcgov.cont/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.
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
E�;E
NOV 4003
November 5, 2008 CI T Y CLERK'S OFFICE
RE: Amended Notice of Appeal regarding October 16, 2008 Planning & Zoning Board decision
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
300 W. Laporte
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Clerk:
On October 16, 2008 the Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board denied a request made by me to
add a permitted use, outdoor storage of RV's, boats, trailers, etc., to my current zoning.
1 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 Land Use Code and Charter including without limitation the following:
• Article 1, Division 1.3.4
1. Failure to give due weight to Timothy Wilder's statements that the two adjacent
south lots are going to be rezoned CL in the foreseeable future as part of the
City's new plan for the area. The decision exalts form over substance and is in
derogation of the intent and spirit of the code.
2. Failure to properly interpret '-site specific" as a basis for decision.
• Article 2, Division 2.8
1. Both appellant and staff spent many hours coming to an agreement of higher
standards by both parties that sufficiently protect the City and its residents.
2. The progression of growth along the South College Corridor is coming and the
need for ultimate resolution has come. The appellant has complied with
innumerable requirements of the City, and the proposed use was disclosed and
discussed when appellant received his rezoning last year from the City Council on
a 7-0 vote.
3. The appellant needs the income in order to continue to stay in business.
4. If the proposed outdoor-stored vehicles were for sale, they would be permitted as
a use by right. The denial was irrational.
• Charter Section IV.7
1. Board member Gino Campano had a financial interest and personal interest in the
hearing's outcome, he was very vocal in urging the outcome that was favorable to
his said interests, and he voted accordingly to the detriment of the appellant. He
ought to have refrained from attempting to influence the result and from voting.
• Article '), Division 3.5.3 (C)(1)
1. The Board at Mr. Campano's instigation, introduced new findings, specifications
and requirements that had never been an issue prior coming into the October 16,
2008 meeting. This caught everyone off guard including the staff who stated that
it was not an issue.
Sincere.V,
Randy lNhmnan
209 E. Skyway Drive
Fort Collins,CO 80525
970-227-0755
ATTACHMENT 4
Agenda Materials Provided to
the Planning and Zoning
Board
U U
z w
}
O
m
wSKAYDR E SKYWAY DR
'�SITE`
a
W
J
O
U
U
Legend #11 -08
Overall Site of the Whitman Storage Facility PDP
Project Development Plan and Addition of a Permitted Use
Portion of the property 10/1/08 N
under consideration for the
Addition of Permitted Use
1 inch equals 150 feet
City of Planning & Zoning Board
STAFF REPORT
Fort Collins Item#:
Meeting Date Po Ib og
Staff: e Olt-
PROJECT: Whitman Storage Facility —Addition of Permitted Use, #11-08B
APPLICANT: Randy Whitman
209 East Skyway Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Randy Whitman
209 East Skyway Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to add Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage as an Addition of
Permitted Use in the Commercial zone district specifically for a portion of the property at
209 East Skyway Drive. The property is partially developed. The parcel to be used for the
aforementioned vehicle storage is a portion of Lot 3 in the southerly Y2 of the Whitman
Storage Facility subdivision plat. It is approximately 1 acre in size and zoned C,
Commercial.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The site currently contains an existing single-family residence, an existing office/retail
sales building, and two existing repair shop buildings. The proposed use, Recreational
Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage, is not permitted in the C District. The proposed use has
been reviewed by the criteria of Section 3.5.1, which addresses compatibility with the
surrounding area. A neighborhood meeting was held on September 22, 2008. The only
attendee (other than the applicant and the City's project planner) was the owner of the
Discovery Montessori School (located directly east of the subject property) where the
meeting was held. She had no questions or expressed concerns.
COMMENTS
1. Backaround:
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
Whitman Storage Facility—Addition of Permitted Use, #11-08A
October 16, 2008 P &Z Meeting
Page 2
The property was subdivided and platted in Larimer County as Lot 1 of the Lynn Acres
Subdivision in April, 1971.
The property was zoned FA, Farming in Larimer County prior to annexation into the City of
Fort Collins.
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. Zoning History (most recent to past):
The overall Whitman property is currently located in the C, Commercial (west 2/3) and RL,
Low Density Residential (east 1/3) Districts, having been rezoned in January, 2008. The
proposed addition of permitted use is in the C District portion of the property.
The property was zoned UE, Urban Estate when annexed as part of Phase 1 of the
Southwest Enclave Annexation in November, 2006.
The property was zoned FA, Farming in Larimer County prior to annexation into the City of
Fort Collins.
The previous zoning designations would not have allowed the proposed additional
permitted use.
3. Addition of Permitted Uses:
This new process was recommended for approval by the Planning & Zoning Board in May
of 2008 and granted final approval by City Council on July 1, 2008. The process is
equivalent to a Type 2 review in that a neighborhood meeting is required and consideration
is by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The new Addition of a Permitted Use is basically an extension of Section 1.3.4 of the Land
Use Code which, prior to July 1, 2008, allowed the Director to add a use to a zone but only
so long as:
• Such use is not specifically listed as a 'Permitted Use" in Article 4;
• Such use is not specifically listed by name as a prohibited use.
Whitman Storage Facility—Addition of Permitted Use, #11-08A
October 16, 2008 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
Now, under the expanded process, the Planning and Zoning may add a use to a zone
under the following criteria:
• Such use may be specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article 4;
• But, such use, if approved, would be allowed only for the one (or more)
specific, contiguous parcel(s) as requested by the applicant and not on a
zone district-wide basis.
4. Description of the Proposed Uses and Previous Uses:
A. The proposed use is Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage on a portion of
Lot 3 in the southerly % of the Whitman Storage Facility subdivision plat. It is
approximately 1 acre in size and zoned C, Commercial. This use is defined in the
City's Land Use Code as:
Recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage shall mean the renting of space
in an unroofed area for the purpose of storing any recreational vehicle, boat
or truck. For the purposes of this definition, a recreational vehicle shall be a
transportation structure that is primarily designed as a temporary living
accommodation for recreational, camping and travel use including, but not
limited to, travel trailers, truck campers, camping trailers and self-propelled
motor homes.
This use is "outdoor', open storage and must be adequately screened from view by
surrounding properties, as set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(6) of the Land Use Code.
B. The portion of the property to be used for Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck
Storage is currently undeveloped; however, the property owner has been storing
vehicles in this area for a period of time dating back to when the property was still in
Larimer County. Now annexed into the City of Fort Collins, the storage of vehicles in
this area is out of compliance with the City's current Land Use Code. The Director
has granted an extension, to October 16, 2008, to give the property owner time to
gain approval to bring the property into compliance with current City Code and
requirements.
5. Context of the Surroundina Area:
The Applicant has provided the following description of the surrounding area:
The area surrounding the site is partially developed. The site abuts East Skyway
Drive along its northern border. East Skyway Drive is classified as a collector street
Whitman Storage Facility—Addition of Permitted Use, #11-08A
October 16, 2008 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
on the City's Transportation Master Plan. East Skyway Drive provides a link
between South College Avenue and LeMay Avenue.
The area to the north of East Skyway Drive is a single family residential
development known as Huntington Hills. The subdivision is zoned Low Density
Residential (RL). The eastern portion of the Whitman site has been zoned Low
Density Residential (RL) to transition to the established residential neighborhood to
the north and east. No additional uses are being requested within the Low Density
Residential (RL) zone.
The area to the west of the site is known as the Kel-Mar Strip. The Kel-Mar Strip is
zoned Commercial (C) and consists of many commercial establishments with uses
similar to the existing and proposed uses in the Whitman Storage Facility. A rental
center is located immediately west of the site on the south side of East Skyway
Drive. The rental trucks, vans and trailers are parked on the site without being
screened from the public street.
To the south of the rental center are retail and wholesale businesses that utilize
both interior and exterior storage of finished goods and materials. The properties to
the west of the site do have chain link security fences along the entire length of the
property line. The property to the north of East Skyway Drive is a hot tub and spa
dealership. The dealership involves the retail sales, service and set-up of hot tubs
and spas. The business stores inventory both in the building and outside the
building. Delivery and service vehicles are parked at the facility when not making a
delivery or sales call.
The extension of Aran Street to the south of East Skyway Drive is to occur at some
point in the future as a part of the South College Avenue access improvements. The
Whitman Storage Facility is dedicating street right-of-way and planning for the future
extension of Aran Street. The Whitman Storage Facility will not utilize Aran Street
for access.
The area to the south of the site is vacant land that is platted as Lots 2 and 3 of
Block 1 of Lynn Acres subdivision. The lots are zoned Urban Estate (UE).
To the east of the site is Lot 4 of Block 1 of Lynn Acres subdivision. This lot is used
as a Montessori School and child care center. The site is zoned Urban Estate (LIE).
To the east of the Montessori School is the Huntington Hills West Subdivision. This
is a small low density single-family subdivision.
To the south and east of the Lynn Acres and Huntington Hills West subdivisions is
the City of Fort Collins "Prairie Dog Meadows" Natural Area.
Whitman Storage Facility—Addition of Permitted Use, #11-08A
October 16, 2008 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
Staff is in agreement with the Applicant's contextual analysis.
6. Recreational Vehicle. Boat and Truck Storage and Compatibility with the
Neighborhood Context and Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code:
The proposed permitted use for the storage of recreational vehicles, boats and trucks is
compatible with the existing Commercial (C) zoning to the west and north. The permitted
use is similar in nature to the uses in existence in the Commercial (C) zone to the west.
The proposed permitted use for recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage will be
screened by solid 8' high (minimum) fencing and landscaping to provide a visual barrier
and pleasing appearance to the neighborhood to the south and east.
The area adjacent to the proposed permitted use located in the Low Density Residential
(RL) zone on the site will be used to establish additional landscape plantings to provide
screening and habitat within the Natural Area Buffer located at the southeast corner of the
site. The existing Low Density Residential (RL) zone located on the Whitman property will
provide a transition buffer between the proposed permitted use for storage of recreation
vehicles, boats and trucks and the existing low density residential properties to the south,
east and north.
A. Section 3.5.1(H) - Land Use Transition
The proposed Recreational Vehicle, Boat and Truck Storage use on a portion of the
Whitman Storage Facility property, when properly screened, will provide a logical
transition between the existing uses in the South College Avenue commercial
corridor and existing and proposed residential uses to the north, east, and south of
this site.
B. Section 3.5.1(J) - Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards
During the Project Development Plan process, the Planning & Zoning Board has the
authority to impose further conditions upon the approval of development
applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing
neighborhoods and land uses.
7. Traffic:
Traffic impacts associated with the proposed addition of permitted use, as well as the
overall development plan, will be evaluated with the Transportation Impact Analysis that is
required as part of a Project Development Plan submittal.
Whitman Storage Facility-Addition of Permitted Use, #11-08A
October 16, 2008 P &Z Meeting
Page 6
8. Compliance with a Governing Overall Development Plan or Sub-area Plan:
The proposed project is within the South College Corridor Plan. The Corridor Plan is in the
process of being developed and enacted. At the preliminary stage of corridor plan
development nothing in the "draft" plan would preclude this proposal for Addition of
Permitted Use.
9. Compliance with Article 3 General Development Standards:
The site in its current state does not meet the proper screening requirements set forth in
Article 3 of the Land Use Code. The fencing and landscape screening to be established in
conjunction with the request for the Addition of Permitted Use will be reviewed with the
Whitman Storage Facility- Project Development Plan and will bring the site into compliance
with Section 3.2.1(E)(6) of the Land Use Code.
10. Compliance with Article 4. Division 4.21 Commercial Standards:
As part of the City's standard development review process, the additional development on
the site (property) must comply with criteria and standards set forth in Article 4, Division
4.21 of the Land Use Code.
11. Neighborhood Meeting:
A neighborhood information meeting was held on September 22, 2008. A total of 114
letters were mailed to Affected Property Owners within 800 feet of the property. No notes
were taken at this meeting because the only attendee (other than the applicant and the
City's project planner) was the owner of the Discovery Montessori School (located directly
east of the subject property) where the meeting was held. She had no questions or
expressed concerns.
12. Findings of Fact and Conclusion:
In reviewing the request to add Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage as a
Permitted Use for a portion of the property at 209 East Skyway Drive, Staff makes the
following findings of fact:
A. Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.
B. Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the
other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.
Whitman Storage Facility—Addition of Permitted Use, #11-08A
October 16, 2008 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
C. Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat,
smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic
hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts,
adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services,
adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetic, or other adverse
impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other
permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added.
D. Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone
district to which it is added.
E. Such use is not specifically listed by name as a prohibited use in the zone
district to which it is added, or if such use is prohibited, the proposed use is
specific to the proposed site, is not considered for a text amendment, and is
specifically found by the Planning & Zoning Board to not be detrimental to the
public good and to be in compliance with the requirements and criteria
contained in Section 3.5.1.
F. Such use is not specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article 4 or if such
use is not specifically listed, the proposed use is specific to the proposed
site, is not considered for a text amendment, and is specifically found by the
Planning & Zoning Board to not be detrimental to the public good and to be in
compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1
G. There is no known opposition to the request for the Addition of Permitted
Use.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Recreational Vehicle, Boat and Truck Storage be added as an
allowable use specifically for a portion of Lot 3 in the southerly %s of the Whitman Storage
Facility subdivision plat, being approximately 1 acre in size and zoned C, Commercial -
#11-08B.
1Z6S9Y(CfllaMl RSOG Oa'aw�m'aLL mre"K VbL 3 ail aD4m1aJ �mQ^�..Wd
aaF`¢6•[g'r Mpg
�%auVmupA M1Mm.mV.]Oua MO vn[i. � �np �I
aul�'Eu47wIW3 3uu LnroW fR O
.u•,.i.mmm Im.i Q�11�LIJti7�1y11 saapitng �aaatg
_
y3
luw IL
allcl
61y S S a ,
21
o
a Pd 7 i o o _ $ {y'
[ b � _ y js G 3y 3 r � • > 1 a
Ph
G-Id
L� U W a coi 19 If43ds -.A
I/I H O @{ •slam II ,crui
o N P. I
E- o �II�
N
W } I I �- y�ySam mwl�o
333
1�-I N<j W Iy^ A �{ I � g 4'•.'<�:r[r.'r i u�� ^_ y(�
O nh E :i \ � e`3 Vs T
W W Ga 1�U w�
Q' Z 3 N A 0is
--
V 1
I�hljI Y„aas
I•"Ip
Y e
\ \
aoZo
jZ2 E.
4-4
o U { { .� 3 $ L .mrvi a``SN y3
---��-- I I
M I 11
1 3 3 a 1 s I I 8 { gg ,n.oem
Ntlatl (133 8
N a tl0 331Aa351n �)
TS g � min
I 5i
S I
1 I x I I
,......., - a opmoloo'SugOO ON I (!!!!!!
awO w eoa
" � 4!1!oDj 960101 uow}It}M
h J
'AA' ^" ® uold edoospuol
1 1
S „
W �
R
11 ! !
a �6 Q $> pp 1! fill 1 1!
! E # � � it 4 pp° Fl!1... I.. !.. 1 I.
a O R !,..... ! !.
IyU Va0 Il aE- 7 d
Nl a -
1"�1r OWE I Of
At
O
U a 0� 10,
r O N I I t ------j----- ----— ----------� --.----
F+-1
w
N Q Z I 2� �,
ill 2~'I K
W i l _O
Zvi II O t -
� �" pOZ i II W 1 11 •i5 � s z ` a 1 x I
J g
ZO I
�I 9 i-.._._-._:....I L■ � ��� me ;
,E-.q�
I i
CV
I
a�.
i ��r - �
a
It— -- --- I i - ---=-=------__- --_----_---_----
1 3 3 W V ___1S_____21_________
N V MY !I 1 (1332J N V V 3 (1 d)
O V 021 301 /. TJ RS
fi a L
Y � f
�a
N
I I I i
I 1 Y I I Y
®w.1.w�M.sII.Yw nwwe.wqM+.wwrwee.a�^wrw-.m�mww.s.+'-^.".m
I 1 fill I
' llrt !: 111ii tt�.rN �'tfe11'11'
1 .„ , tot api.
1(1 Im �(�'1 y'
Q k ,� 11;t nj,.r ,11t ,r/d•, r •,1 I;a
yy�1j 'i 'tiii 11�+ i t
Wei,a• li i! Y�i rtt} �i, 1+(,, r i}'r rla t ; a+1 t t + t c
•! 'a 1 h , ;�ti + '," ip1+ lit t' ' i++} Is�11„ ' 1 )
Q i 9 ; I i 1i;1 ti;i ,fbii iu M11 i IO!
O a r
(n
3 '�
tF,I 1131 111��iu1
fill
fill
y1
�� ', }_ ��} ,ara+wnc,-�r4x,uo � / i1 Ftt 1jti 1t• tt
I ,
J 4I I I 3 !a ' 1i� o.. ini S all I (�
i i A T
WF t, p °yi
I i 1 F }r R li
i B p
_ —----------
n ' q }
hill A
3- I Ilit� I ��ir a r' �� !F ^F q, o1
pat
a ,I;
o
tt ff
i o'!i
°' '"Ia-... ""'°' Imo.,,• ., ARM
.4.4,EI�iMPi„�W4
/.
���2 �
/. +OD�«_G=mom
__.__
. , .
� | .
� | ,
� !
/ e \
I § E `
® _
� 3@!d §
a &a± It
;
§ ®=§ ! .
/ §0 ;
\ /)\ \
If
0 < �
\/\
�
� [ 0
2)
e 30
/ mom/ ' k
� (
� ®
; |
| LLI
\
�
�,
ORDINANCE NO. 073,2008
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the Council of the
City of Fort Collins adopted the Fort Collins Land Use Code(the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject
to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors,
but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document
capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and
citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, the staff of the City and the Planning and Zoning Board have
reviewed the Land Use Code and identified and explored various issues related to the
Land Use Code and have made recommendations to the Council regarding such issues;
and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the Land Use Code amendments
which have been proposed are in the best interest of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. That Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses
(A) Required Findings. In conjunction with a particular development proposal
and upon application by the applicant or on the Director's own initiative,the
Director (or the Planning and Zoning Board as specifically authorized in
subparagraphs (5) and (6) below) may add to the uses specified in a
particular zone district any other similar use which conforms to all of the
following conditions:
(1) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added;
(2) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and
the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added;
(3) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust,
heat, smoke,odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more
traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental
impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities
or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or
aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development,than the amount
normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone
district to which it is added;
(4) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone
district to which it is added;
(5) Such use is not specifically listed by name as a prohibited use in the
zone district to which it is added, or if such use is prohibited, the
proposed use is specific to the proposed site, is not considered for a
text amendment under paragraph (B) below, and is specifically found
by the Planning and Zoning Board to not be detrimental to the public
good and to be in compliance with the requirements and criteria
contained in Section 3.5.1;
(6) Such use is not specifically listed as a 'Permitted Use" in Article 4 or
if such use is not specifically listed, the proposed use is specific to the
proposed site, is not considered for a text amendment under paragraph
(B) below, and is specifically found by the Planning and Zoning
Board to not be detrimental to the public good and to be in
compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section
3.5.1. (See Section 2.9 for the procedures for text amendments.)
(C) Conditions. When any use has been added to the list of permitted uses in
any zone district in accordance with this Section, the Director (or the
Planning and Zoning Board, if applicable)may impose such conditions and
requirements on such use as are necessary or desirable to accomplish the
purposes and intent of this Land Use Code, to ensure consistency with City
Plan and its adopted components and associated sub-area plans, to prevent
or minimize adverse effects and impacts upon the public and
neighborhoods, and to ensure compatibility of uses.
Section 2. That Section 2.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of new subparagraphs (H)and (1) which read as follows:
2.1.2 Overview of Development Review Procedures
This article establishes the development review procedures for different
types of development applications and building permits within the city.
(H) Is it possible to receive preliminary feedback from the City
Council regarding complex development proposals? When an
2
application for approval of a development plan also entails the approval of
an annexation petition or an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
or some other kind of legislative action by the City Council,the applicant
for such approval may request that the City Council conduct a hearing for
the purpose of receiving preliminary comments from the City Council
regarding the applicant's overall proposal in order to assist the developer
in determining whether to file a development application or annexation
petition. However, if the only legislative action involved in the proposal is
a possible financial partnership with the City or the provision of some
financial incentive to the applicant from the City, the City Manager must
agree that the proposed partnership or financial incentive warrants Council
consideration in order for a hearing before the Council to be scheduled.
All pre-application hearings scheduled by the City Manager under this
provision will be held in accordance with the provisions contained in
Steps 6, 7(B) and 7(C) of the Common Development Review Procedures,
except that the signs required to be posted under Step 6(B) shall be posted
subsequent to the scheduling of the hearing and not less than fourteen (14)
days prior to the date of the hearing. At the time of requesting the hearing,
the applicant must advance the City's estimated costs of providing notice
of the hearing. Any amounts paid that exceed actual costs will be refunded
to the applicant. At the conclusion of the hearing, members of the City
Council may, but shall not be required to, comment on the proposal. Any
comment, suggestion, or recommendation made by any Councilmember
with regard to the proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any City
decision maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the
proposal. Only one such hearing may be requested.
(1) Is it permissible to talk with decision makers "off the record"
about a development plan prior to the decision makers'formal review of
the application? No. Development plans must be reviewed and approved
in accordance with the provisions of this Land Use Code and the City s
decision whether to approve or deny an application must be based on the
criteria established herein and on the information provided at the hearings
held on the application. In order to afford all persons who may be affected
by the review and approval of a development plan an opportunity to
respond to the information upon which decisions regarding the plan will
be made, and in order to preserve the impartiality of the decision makers,
decision makers who intend to participate in the decisions should avoid
communications with the applicant or other members of the public about
the plan prior to the hearings in which they intend to participate.
Section 3. That Section 2.11.1(B)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(B) Applicability. This Division shall apply to appeals from an administrative
decision regarding the interpretation and/or application of the land use
3
regulations which preceded this Land Use Code, and to appeals from the
following administrative decisions made under this Land Use Code,
provided such administrative decision is not for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial either of a project development plan or a final plan
pursuant to Divisions 2.4 or 2.5 or of an administrative
amendment/abandonment of any such plan or of any plan approved under
prior law,processed pursuant to Section 2.2.10 (Step 10):
(1) Addition of a Permitted Use by Director (but not by Planning and
Zoning Board)under Section 1.3.4;
Section 4. That Section 3.2.1(K)of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(K) Utilities and Trark. Landscape, utility and traffic plans shall be
coordinated. The following list sets forth minimum dimension
requirements for the most common tree/utility and traffic control device
separations. Exceptions to these requirements may occur where utilities or
traffic control devices are not located in their standard designated locations,
as approved by the Director. Tree/utility and traffic control device
separations shall not be used as a means of avoiding the planting of required
street trees.
(1) Forty (40) feet between shade trees and streetlights. Fifteen (15) feet
between ornamental trees and streetlights. (See Figure 2.)
Figure 2
Tree/Streetlight Separations
SHAD£TREES OMgA*WAL TREES
�' rs•
snrenwn sannstN
4
(2) Twenty (20) feet between shade and/or ornamental trees and traffic
control signs and devices.
(3) Ten(10) feet between trees and water or sewer mains.
(4) Six(6)feet between trees and water or sewer service lines.
(5) Four(4)feet between trees and gas lines
(6) Street trees on local streets planted within the eight-foot-wide utility
easement may conflict with utilities. Additional conduit may be
required to protect underground electric lines.
Section 5. That Section 3.3.2(F) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
F) Off-Site Public Access Improvements.
(2) Costs and Reimbursements. When the developer of any property
constructs an off-site street, street intersection, sidewalk, alley, path or other related
improvements to serve the development site or constructs such improvements along the
perimeter of the development site, the entire cost of such construction(including right-of-
way acquisition) shall be the responsibility of such developer. If, within twelve (12)
months of the completion and acceptance by the city of such improvements, the
developer installing such improvements (the "Installing Developer") has entered into a
reimbursement agreement with the city in the manner prescribed by this Section, then, at
the time that other property adjacent to the improvements (the "Adjacent Property") is
developed or redeveloped and access to such improvements is accomplished or other
benefit from such improvements is conferred, the city may collect from the developer of
the Adjacent Property a proportionate charge, based upon the cost incurred by the
Installing Developer, plus an inflation factor, and based upon the benefit conferred upon
the Adjacent Property. For the purpose of this provision,benefit to the Adjacent Property
may include, among other things, the construction of improvements that will allow the
Adjacent Property to be developed in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.6.4,
where in the absence of the improvements, such development would not be allowed to
proceed. Said charge, if imposed by the City, shall be paid prior to the issuance of any
building permits for the Adjacent Property; provided, however, that the city shall not
attempt to make such collection unless the reimbursement agreement has been timely and
properly prepared, executed and delivered to the city. If such charge is collected, the city
shall reimburse the Installing Developer to the extent of such collection after deducting a
service charge of three (3) percent to cover administrative costs. All costs for the
construction (including right-of-way acquisition) of such improvements must be fully
paid by the Installing Developer before such person shall be entitled to reimbursement
under any agreement established hereunder. The amount of the reimbursement assessed
by the city for each Adjacent Property as it develops shall be based on(1) the fair market
value (as determined by the city) of any right-of-way acquired by the Installing
5
Developer that was needed for, and is directly attributable to, the improvements, and (2)
the original cost of design and construction of the improvements plus an adjustment for
inflation based on the construction cost index for Denver, Colorado, as published
monthly by "Engineering News Record." (If said index shows deflation, the adjustment
shall be made accordingly, but not below the original cost as submitted by the Installing
Developer and approved by the City Engineer.) The original cost of the right-of-way
and design and construction shall mean the cost of right-of-way acquisition, financing,
engineering, construction and any other costs actually incurred which are directly
attributable to the improvements, including any costs incurred for the formation or
administration of a special improvement district. The city's obligation to reimburse the
Installing Developer shall be contingent upon the city's actual collection of the charge
from the developer of the Adjacent Property. In order to obtain approval of a
reimbursement agreement from the city, the Installing Developer shall provide the City
Engineer with copies of the following, after acceptance of the improvements:
(a) real estate closing documents and/or appraisals or other documents
showing to the satisfaction of the city the fair market value of the right-of-
way for the improvements;
(b) an invoice from the Installing Developer's engineer for any fee assessed on
the project;
(c) the contractor's application for final payment approved by the Installing
Developer's engineer;
(d) a letter from the Installing Developer and/or contractor certifying that final
payment has been received by the contractor;
(e) a letter from the Installing Developer and/or engineer certifying that final
payment of engineering fees has been made;
(f) a map prepared by a licensed engineer or surveyor which shows:
1. the location of the improvements constructed;
2. the name of the owner of each Adjacent Property which is
benefited by the improvements;
3. the proportionate benefit conferred upon each Adjacent Property,
together with the assessment due based on the original costs;
4. the acreage and parcel number of each Adjacent;
S. a reference to the book, page and reception number from the
records of the county Clerk and Recorder where the information
for each property was obtained; and
6
6. any other information deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
Any right to reimbursement pursuant to this provision shall not exceed a period of ten
(10) years from the acceptance by the city of the street improvements. The City Council
may approve extensions of the reimbursement agreement for additional ten (10) -year
periods. No such reimbursement shall be made unless the person entitled to
reimbursement has fully satisfied his or her obligations under any other reimbursement
agreements with the city.
Section 6. That Section 3.5.1(A)of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and
operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible
when considered within the context of the surrounding area. They should
be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained
in this Division 3.5 and the zone district standards contained in Article 4.
All criteria and regulations contained in this Section that pertain to
"developments", "the development plan", "buildings", and other similar
terms shall be read to include the application of said criteria and regulations
to any determination made by the Planning and Zoning Board under Section
1.3.4(A)(5) and (6) for the purpose of evaluating the authorization of an
additional use.
Section 7. That Section 3.8.4(A)of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.8.4 Child Care Center Regulations
(A) A minimum of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of outdoor
play area shall be provided for fifteen(15) children or fewer, with seventy-
five (75) additional square feet being required for each additional child,
except that the size of the total play area need only accommodate at least
fifty (50) percent of the capacity of the center, and that such outdoor play
area shall not be required for drop-in child care centers. For the purposes of
this subsection, the capacity of the center is calculated based upon indoor
floor space reserved for school purposes of forty (40) square feet per child.
Any such play area within or abutting any residential district shall be
enclosed by a decorative solid wood fence,masonry wall or chain link fence
with vegetation screening, densely planted. The height of such fence shall
be a minimum of six (6) feet and shall comply with Section 3.8.11. Where
access to preschool nurseries is provided by other than local streets, an off-
7
street vehicular bay or driveway shall be provided for the purpose of
loading and unloading children.
Section 8. That Section 3.8.17(C)of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(C) Exemptions From Building Height Regulations. The following structures
and features shall be exempt from the height requirements of this Land Use
Code:
(1) chimneys, smokestacks or flues that cover no more than five (5)
percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof;
(2) cooling towers, ventilators and other similar equipment that cover no
more than five(5)percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof;
(3) elevator bulkheads and stairway enclosures that cover no more than
five(5)percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof;
(4) fire towers;
(5) utility poles and support structures;
(6) belfries, spires and steeples;
(7) monuments and ornamental towers;
(8) solar energy systems.
Section 9. That Section 4.6(B)(2)(c)of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph 6 which reads in its entirety as follows:
6. Restaurant,limited mixed-use.
Section 10. That Section 4.6(B)(3)(c)of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(c) Commercial and Retail Uses:
1. Personal and business service shops.
2. Offices, financial services, clinics and small animal
veterinary clinics.
Section 11. That Section 4.8(B)(1)(a)2 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
8
2. Two-family dwellings where there is only one (1) principal
building on the lot, provided that no structural additions or
exterior alterations are made to an existing building or the
dwellings are constructed on a vacant lot or a parcel which
did not contain a structure on October 25, 1991.
Section 12. That Section 4.8(B)(2Xa)2 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
2. Two-family dwellings when there is more than one (1)
principal building on the lot, provided that no structural
additional or exterior alterations are made to an existing
building or the dwellings are constructed on a vacant lot or
a parcel which did not contain a structure on October 25,
1991, and provided that such two-family dwelling is
located within a street-fronting principal building.
Section 13. That Section 4.9(B)(1Xa)2 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
2. Two-family dwellings when there is only one (1) principal
building on the lot.
Section 14. That Section 4.9(B)(1)(a)5 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
5. Mixed-use dwellings which are not combined with a use
permitted subject to administrative review or Planning and
Zoning Board review, provided that no structural additions
or exterior alterations are made to the existing building, or
the dwellings are constructed on a vacant lot or a parcel
which did not contain a structure on October 25, 1991.
Section 15. That Section 4.9(B)(2)(a)2 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
9
2. Two-family dwellings when there is more than one (1)
principal building on the lot, provided that such two-family
dwelling is located within a street-fronting principal
building.
Section 16. That Section 4.9(B)(2)(a)5 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
5. Mixed-use dwellings which are not combined with a use
permitted subject to basic development review or Planning
and Zoning Board review and which propose structural
additions or exterior alterations to the existing building, or
the dwellings are to be constructed on a lot or parcel which
contained a structure on October 25, 1991.
Section 17. That Section 4.9(3)(3)(a)of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows:
3. Mixed-use dwellings which are combined with any other
use subject to Planning and Zoning Board review.
Section 18. That Section 4.10(D)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(2) Dimemional Standards.
(a) Maximum building height shall be five(5) stories.
(b) For all setback standards, building walls over thirty-five (35)
feet in height shall be set back an additional one (1) foot beyond
the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof
of wall or building that exceeds thirty-five (35) feet in height.
Terracing or stepping back the mass of large buildings is
encouraged.
Section 19. That Section 4.13(B)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(3) The following land uses are permitted in the P-O-L District,subject to
review by the Planning and Zoning Board:
10
(a) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:
1. Golf courses.
2. Wildlife rescue and education centers.
3. Community facilities.
Section 20. That Section 4.22(B)(2)(d)5 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(d) Industrial Uses:
5. Wholesale distribution.
Section 21. That the table contained in Section 4.24(B)(2)D of the Land Use
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
m. n sT1*I
Workshops and custom small industry uses BDR BDR
Transportation terminals(truck container storage) BDR Not Permitted
Warehouses BDR Type 1
Wholesale distribution BDR Not Permitted
Light industrial uses Not Permitted Type 2
Research laboratories Not Permitted Type 1
Outdoor storage facilities consisting only of the storage of Type I Not Permitted
vehicles which are towed to the premises and temporarily
stored until such vehicles are claimed by the vehicle owners or
moved to an auction orjunk yard or other similar disposal site,
provided that such facilities are located at least thirty-five(35)
feet from the flow line of all abutting arterial streets.
Section 22. That Section 4.27(B)(2)(d)4 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(d) Industrial Uses:
4. Wholesale distribution.
Section 23, That Section 4.28(B)(2)(d)l of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(d) Industrial Uses:
1. Wholesale distribution.
Section 24. That the "Prohibited Uses" paragraph contained in every zone
district listed in the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(C) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted
uses in this Section or(2) determined to be permitted by the Director or the
Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to Section 1.3.4 of this Land Use Code
shall be prohibited.
Section 25. That the definition of"Director" contained in Section 5.1.2 of the
Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Director shall mean the Director of the Planning, Development and
Transportation Service Unit.
Section 26. That the definition of "Long-term care facility" contained in
Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Long-term care facility shall mean any of the following:
(4) Independent living facility shall mean a single-family, two-family and/or
multi-family dwelling which is located within a development that contains one(1)
or more of the facilities described in (1) through(3) above, wherein the residents
of such dwellings have access to the common amenities and services available to
residents of the facilities described in (1) through (3) above and wherein
independent living facilities occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the
total gross floor area of a long-term care development.
Section 27. That the definition of "Warehouse and distribution" contained in
Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Wholesale distribution shall mean a use primarily engaged in the sale and
distribution of manufactured products, supplies or equipment,including accessory
offices or showrooms, and including incidental retail sales, but excluding bulk
storage of materials that are inflammable or explosive or that create hazardous or
commonly recognized offensive conditions, and where the products, supplies or
equipment that are distributed from the facility are not used or consumed on the
premises. Activities customarily include receiving goods in bulk or large lots and
assembling, sorting or breaking down such goods into smaller lots for
redistribution or sale to others for resale.
12
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd
day of June, A.D. 2008, and to be presented for final passage on the 1 st day of July,A.D.
2008.
Y
ATTEST:
city C- I
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1 st day of y, .D. 2008.
112
bray
ATTEST:
Oil
City Clerk
13
ADDMON OF A PERMITTED USE
for
Whitman Storage Facility,209 East Skyway Drive,Fort Collins,Colorado 80525
The following describes a plan to develop and redevelop the Whitman Storage Facility located at
the south side of East Skyway Drive approximately three-hundred fifty feet east of South College
Avenue.
This request for the addition of a permitted use is for the open storage of recreational vehicles,
boats and trucks. The request is made in order to bring a use that occurred at this site prior to
annexation of the property into the City of Fort Collins into compliance with the existing zoning.
ZONING DISTRICT
Two zoning districts have been established on the property.The eastern one-hundred twenty feet
of the site is zoned Low Density Residential(RL)and the balance of the site to the west of the
Low Density residential(RL) zoning is zoned Commercial(C). The site was annexed into the City
of Fort Collins as part of Phase One of the Southwest Annexation. At the time of annexation,the
property was zoned Urban Estate (UE). Since the initial annexation and zoning,the site has been
rezoned to Commercial(C)and Low Density Residential(RL). The City staff initiated the
rezoning based upon the following findings:
1. The extent of the proposed amendment is compatible with existing uses
surrounding the subject property. The existing zoning to the west is commercial.
The existing zoning to the north is Low Density Residential. The existing legal use
includes home occupation with small engine repair business. The nature of this
type of business is more in line with a commercial operation and has been in
existence for many years.
2. The extent of the proposed amendment will result in a logical and orderly
development pattern by supporting the existing business and other commercial use
on a portion of the property adjacent to the existing commercial uses, and provide
a low density residential transition between commercial and existing residential
neighborhood to the north.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE AND PREVIOUS USE
The following describes the current uses on the site:
Two structures are located on the site. A metal structure is situated at the northwest comer of the
site. The structure is used for small engine and golf cart repair,enclosed recreational vehicle,boat
and truck storage and warehousing. A residential structure is located near the center of the
Skyway Drive frontage of the site. The driveway that provides access to Skyway Drive is situated
between the existing metal building and the residential structure. The residential structure contains
a single family residence, an office/sales room, and a garage/repair shop. The uses related to the
existing garage/shop, 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 the driveway is used for the display
of new and used lawn and garden equipment that is for sale. An area located in the southwest
quadrant of the site provides open storage for recreational vehicles,boats and trucks.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,the area zoned Low Density residential
(RL), is largely vacant and undeveloped. The area to the north and east of the existing residence
and along the Skyway Drive frontage at the residence consists of lawn, trees and shrubs, berms,
rock ground cover and antique farm equipment as landscaping. The portion of the site around the
storage/warehouse structure and the open storage area to the south is gravel surfaced or recycled
asphalt.
The following describes the proposed uses on the site:
A structure is proposed to be constructed in addition to the existing storage/warehouse structure
and the residential structure. The new structure to be used for recreational vehicle, boat and truck
storage and is proposed to be constructed to the south of the existing storage/warehouse building.
Overhead doors will be provided on both the west and east sides of the structure to allow for
vehicular access to the storage units to be located within the budding. The existing small engine
repair and sales business is to remain in the existing storage/warehouse building. The existing
repair and sales facilities in the residential structure are to be retained. An enclosure is to be
constructed to be used for storage of recreational vehicles,boats and trucks along the southern
portion of the site within the Commercial(C)zone. The area adjacent to Skyway Drive that is
situated between the northwest comer of the site and the 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 be relocated at
thirteen(13)feet back of the existing curb and gutter. The existing barbed wire topping the fence
is to be removed. The open area along East Skyway Drive is to be a tree lawn and a five foot
wide sidewalk is to be installed at a six foot offset from the existing curb and gutter. Paving is to
be provided along the access drive from East Skyway Drive to the southern limit of the existing
storage building and residential structure. An emergency access and fire lane is to be dedicated to
provide a turn-around for emergency access vehicles on the site.
CONTEXT
The area surrounding the site is partially developed. The site abuts East Skyway Drive along its
northern border. East Skyway Drive is classified as a collector street on the City's Transportation
Master Plan. East Skyway Drive provides a link between South College Avenue and LeMay
Avenue.
The area to the north of East Skyway Drive is a single family residential development known as
Huntington Hills. The subdivision is zoned Low Density Residential(RL). The eastern portion of
the Whitman site has been zoned Low Density Residential(RL)to transition to the established
residential neighborhood to the north and east.No additional uses are being requested within the
Low Density Residential(RL) zone.
The area to the west of the site is known as the Kel-Mar Strip. The Kel-Mar Strip is zoned
Commercial(C)and consists of many commercial establishments with uses similar to the existing
and proposed uses in the Whitman Storage Facility. A rental center is located immediately west of
the site on the south side of East Skyway Drive. The rental trucks, vans and trailers are parked on
the site without being screened from the public street. To the south of the rental center are retail
and wholesale businesses that utilize both interior and exterior storage of finished goods and
materials. The properties to the west of the site do have chain link security fences along the entire
length of the property line. The property to the north of East Skyway Drive is a hot tub and spa
dealership. The dealership involves the retail sales, service and set-up of hot tubs and spas. The
business stores inventory both in the building and outside the building. Delivery and service
vehicles are parked at the facility when not making a delivery or sales call.
The extension of Aran Street to the south of East Skyway Drive is to occur at some point in the
future as a part of the South College Avenue access improvements. The Whitman Storage Facility
is dedicating street right-of-way and planning for the future extension of Aran Street. The
Whitman Storage Facility will not utilize Aran Street for access.
The area to the south of the site is vacant land that is platted as Lots 2 and 3 of Block I of Lynn
Acres subdivision. The lots are zoned Urban Estate(UE).
To the east of the site is Lot 4 of Block 1 of Lynn Acres subdivision. This lot is used as a
Montessori School and child care center. The site is zoned Urban Estate (UE).
To the east of the Montessori School is the Huntington Hills West Subdivision. This is a small
low density single family subdivision.
To the south and east of the Lynn Acres and Huntington Hills West subdivisions is the City of
Fort Collins "Prairie Dog Meadows"Natural Area.
Is the Proposed Use Compatible with the Neighborhood Context and with Section 3 51 of
the Land Use Code?
The proposed permitted use for the storage of recreational vehicles, boats and trucks is
compatible with the existing Commercial(C) zoning to the west and north. The permitted use is
similar in nature to the uses in existence in the Commercial(C) zone to the west. The proposed
permitted use for recreational vehicle,boat and truck storage will be screened by solid fencing and
landscaping to provide a visual barrier and pleasing appearance to the neighborhood to the south
and east. The area adjacent to the proposed permitted use located in the Low Density Residential
(RL)zone on the site will be used to establish additional landscape plantings to provide screening
and habitat within the Natural Area Buffer located at the southeast corner of the site. The existing
Low Density Residential(RL) zone located on the site will provide a transition buffer between the
proposed permitted use for storage of recreation vehicles,boats and trucks and the existing low
density residential properties to the south, east and north
Compliance with Governing Overall Development Plan or Sub-Area Plan
The proposed project is within the South College Corridor Plan. The Corridor Plan is in the
process of being developed and enacted.
Compliance with Article Three of the Land Use Code
The site in its current state does not meet the proper screening requirements of Article Three. The
proposed fencing and landscape screening to be established in conjunction with the request for
permitted use will bring the site into compliance.
Compliance with Article Four of the Land Use Code
Except for the permitted use requested, there are no land uses or development standards that are
out of compliance.
Conditions of Approval
There are to be no conditions of approval.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 18, 00:
0 .
Council Liaison: Diggs Brown Staff Liaison: Steve Olt
Chair: Brigitte Schmidt Phone: (H)224-9418
Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover
Unexcused absence: Wetzler
Staff Present: Olt, Eckman, Sommer, Shepard, Wilder, and Sanchez-Sprague
Agenda Review. Interim Director Olt reviewed the Consent and Discussion agenda. He noted that in
addition to the items on consent and discussion agenda they would like to show a DVD on the
services provided by Planning, Development &Transportation called Making it Happen during the
Other Business portion of the meeting.
Citizen participation:
Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience if they'd like to speak on any topic not on the agenda.
Brian Schumm, 7203 Woodrow Drive said because he'll be out of town for the October 181" Planning
& Zoning Hearing, he'd like to share his thoughts relative to the Whitman Storage Facility Project
Development Plan (PDP.) He has been having conversations with both Zoning Supervisor Peter
Barnes and Interim Current Planning Director Steve Olt and will continue to follow up with them on
areas of interest. He also plans to continue to work with Steve Olt to find the best way to provide
feedback on his areas of concern.
Schumm stated that unfortunately the western 2/3rds of this property was rezoned commercial. That
commercial piece is what is being brought forth with the PDP. The eastern 1/3 was zoned RL. One
of the areas of interest is the 1/3 RL,piece. When he was first told what that would be, staff showed
lot configurations thal convinced him that yqu could do residential development on that piece. Moving
the detention pond onto that perhaps is not a problem�ecaus now we're finding out the wetlands
buffer(aka "nature feature buffer")with the sewer that will remain on that parcel may render it useless
for residential development. If the detention pond ends up on that piece, he thinks it should be
considered as part of the PDP. Schumm asked that it be made a permanent buffer and landscaped
with the landscape plan the rest of the property will be.
There are several minor details that concern him. His concern is what is often referred to as outside
storage. This would be vehicles and RVs with fence and landscaping to screen them. The RV Center
raised their doors to 14 feet because a 12 foot door could no longer adequately accommodate today's
RVs. You're going to see the semi on site as well as RVs that are going to be in the 12, 13, 13.5 foot
height range. The staff, in the past, has always said there would not be outside storage. If that
becomes something that would be favorably considered by this board, he asked that you carefully
look at what kind of screening will go up. It needs to be more than an 8 foot fence and trees.
His final comment he said is most important—over the years this property has been defined by zoning
violations and there are many reasons they're there. The County and City Staff have not been able to
Planning &Zoning Board
September 18, 2008
Page 2
deal with them. He didn't believe those zoning violations are going to end with approval for
commercial use. His hope is that when we finalize whatever plan is going to be approved, that very
carefully consider how that plan would be enforced by Zoning Staff. How do you enforce when it's
going to be behind a screened area and you won't have access because of a locked gate. If you
could get in there, how would you know where that building (that houses the RVs)will be located and
how would they know whether a violation exists. If the plan is clear, he knows that Zoning Staff will
diligently enforce the Code and deal with the zoning violations.
He's confident the Board will give this the same careful review as the board gave to their rezoning and
the modification of street standards. He is very pleased we finally got it into the City and it will be
done under City standards which he believes are better than the County's.
Chair Schmidt said that if he wanted to share any other comments to send them to staff via email and
they share that information in agenda packets.
Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman said that if the comments made by Mr. Schumm are to be made a
part of the record at the Whitman hearing, we should make sure that this section of minutes from
tonight's meeting are included in that packet. Mr. Whitman will have a chance to see what was said
tonight.
Chair Schmidt asked members of the Board if they wanted to pull items off the consent agenda.
There were no requests from the Board. Chair Schmidt said they discussed the Vineyard Rezoning, #
19-08 at work session and the Board felt comfortable moving that to the Consent agenda but they'd
like to know if there was anyone in the audience who would like to discuss the Vineyard Rezoning.
There were none.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the August 21, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
2. Vineyard Rezoning, # 19-08
Discussion Items:
3. Modifying the Text Amendment Procedures—Section 2.9.3(B) of the Land Use Code
Member Lingle moved for the approval of Item # 1, August 21, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing minutes and Item #2 the Vineyard Rezoning, # 19-08. Member Stockover seconded
the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Project: Modifying the Text Amendment Procedures—Section 2.9.3(B) of the Land Use
Code
Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council for a change to the
Land Use Code that would modify the procedures for proposing a Text
Amendment as described in Section 2.9.3(B). The change would have the
effect of removing the ability of residents and property owners in the City of Fort
Collins to directly apply for text amendment. Instead, the residents and owners
can apply for changes to the Land Use Code consistent with the procedures for
proposing changes to the City Code.
ATTACHMENT 5
Exhibits, Writings, Drawings,
Maps Charts, Graphs, Photos
or Handouts Reviewed by the
Board at the Hearing
1 1 MOBB
Fad1hy
AddMon ®f
#11-08B Whitman Storage 1
Facility Addition of Permitted Use
Z 1Z!J _ _ _ - -
L
} - -
VISKywAYDR E SKYWAY DR
' SITE
U
a 'r
u
w
� . - . . . . r
O
U
N
Legend # 11 - 08
'J Overall Site ofthe Whitman Storage Facility PDP
Project DeveloprmntPlan and Addition of a Permitted Use
® Portion of the property 10r 1r 08
under consideration for the 11,
Addition of Permitted Use N
1 inch equals 150 feet
GC
HI '��y' I�[i�_ ,ArmN {+ 1�YWTOI7�R�I ' EFORFA TI }IT C Thy J7 'PDP
EVNG PORTION OF THIZ SOLrTHWEST OUWfER OF SEOTION t2,
TCkNSH31 6 NORTHI UNGE 69 WE5T OF THE ATM P.M.1
I I UTY 13q PORI I Ca4UH5, CGVWfY CF LIkRMER , STATE Of CQL9FlAD0
� 1 1
of IL
� F
WF
91
le - - -- _ - �— !
5
5K V AAA 0R I Sr E
. r. wI 1 ro
+ i t 4444 w_ �f�` `4 - ..� R.1RKWAY 6wT7o1
d a r t y Icy I .:.'Idr 0
. ... � ' ti �L I arrM Ya. i� L1 �+ .�„�„a.. .� I �.i XTln{, �-tl• r-
od I crr ii� r �I._
outwd. tlaj '
I �. +ter 1 I I • ' r _ �..If� fr r I • ���.
I R rim
aFRI' I — j TTYL P
1 !Y f n6rTr1}
1ILL AL
' -•-F.. + k IA LrAN ;)5cAT=E N i E=
F ^! —, 1a I iNo ja �i�v%Y[I� A [ate
94
I I �
H1 I r I L�ndmfts Laailrvmmer an= %cirLm �ar
>y*i I I TV LOT .4 �aR.1� a1�Ylrll�*CaY 4Ilti FA4�1
rr L aa¢ r� Ia.fly toot
L h+L. ..dQ. 1pfbLbm 4M& * IE 71Rolbp Lat't MMMJM q%LL" aa1
40u 4 i .1'�ti t [��aauLt r.aaaa ••� •Iur�v dl�IR wF49Fdpmpa I�a
- "I +� � h*+ f • I PL 147 5CF:EDULE
. M k I I Iti
6SRr 1 — Taw A [ . ,. A I. M
5 ~ '1
I 1. f ••i - '
I
LOT
io I
r - - - -
lct �71
r # o _ _—
a� Irr
SITE PLAN FOR
HITMAN STORAGE FACILITY - PD13
Z01D EAST SKYWAY MVE1 FORT COLUNS , COLORADO {
BEING h POFTTHIN [W THE SOLFTHWEST OUAFrrER aF SECTION 12 ,
TOWNSHIP G NOM , RANGE 69 WEST OF Ti1E GTK R.II. L �
CF!'I' 6T FORT DOWNS, COUNTY 'OF WNkiER, STATE OF 1001-aIFAUG
PTEMBER 200S
• W � � � r� � _ � WF
ZY zy '
� Y t3
c R2 R YEN IN, Vr h If 1 Y E •+1��.yya' r��- — S�CHMTIR[ p.OLk
—�� Vwawsw ■uw--
y r� wo N — w~iw+ O rr
Sir
meo
s flu4 Iy� •�.VwiwFwi�lri rater
Lmb Y lr ,+wrY• -` iri •
m. , r Mil
or.. 4y1ri i Iti , t ,.. 0 s
c.7F' L. -' L+b4 R I s i = r r" .L.r .« .««.... Y....
.� Y
I8� I �+ : I 3 � �, LIB} vwaYf 7au+�Z + 4� Yrrr� �re _
a II
QN : , 1 L"DY111IIDIL ,•C`5� •I }/ RI9d.1 uIL, 1 *'T
La �� `� BSIf T • `b� Li
_ pew i i Lw r .. ,r.L„ w 4r �a r.Lur
3 J I PROPERTY DESULPTON:
jar
.l
� wR�r�. F� r� +
7 f r � Fw 4• II. 1rA ..__i.
V • J yA'-� b�4 { ZEN Pllf~ IT
I Ir IM R,IFF 'ail �K /l INIYL Y i
�ifa I 4 •l h 1 �r # ! ww.X b " Erg"
l f Spr +
; � I 1 � � L�„ e1 LTNIMIQ uwa ��[ utiFf
! _ C+Infl.Lrae r 1 Me aLr rm �L
rmmmm 14,m/I 'Aa JAIL
ow
lon fwM M URN
TFNL'f •i• {
L oY „ Tc
1 # ! XMIYI11r I ire II �Y17 i awl
SIR I } ri f M W I Il Fy y+� • IMmLW! I.n nas
W,IIli Fi� ! I �1 ] 11 i1i`s
r�;1 - - - -1= — n v PMIeIfI11P SIMAFApY � ._ AIIRI wrPem
— T I Tar rb . OWN N r 'Y11m f . x N%M 1 mmali
f TS b}y� i 5 LOF i .� r r ZhT7 1 l7 r r• � . r� r .. +i�7i T JI Te6 i ilittl
1,� •� io aw 4L51,11 I L m h0FL7 � �y I& }R } TIC6
LXi r �..r,
W SATURN DR E SATURN DR
T,Q �
r
J P� 0T O mlz� pFRRV OR
a� a RL
�Q U 0 0
w z
z
0 m
W SKYWAY DR CO
E SKYWAY DR
U
W
d'
SITE U w
a
t
z
w
Y
W
Q
W
W
o POL
UE
N Zoning
11 - 08 Whitman Storage Facility 1 inch equals 300 feet
"` �. -
:�?
t4i'
. �
_ �;,
\,,. � •t �, .,�5
'�' t i:.
;F. _ _ . .
��.
_ *�
� �� #^�
rC .G
.t + �
_ • �1 -.
� �_ . _ • •
o
S
. . . .�. 1 .
.: -_sue -- ..y� . K _ _�:�!'� -.a ,.. .�. _ � �_Y
1 . � _ _ _ .ar _ _
�` _ s � A h �
�.
- qqb or
n r4✓ L '
EzTF
dd
ML
= m -
•
'dal
V
lb
�}} R
5 p� ` i� f •! 1 S>�,wvx a ! e a S . 'Nilf: -
� , .+ k a t R s,yfi' u �,I i ♦ � }LI u... { •. ;(�.. � �'> 1 r: `�j v,+v 'Or� - _ ,�
pp
y-. y r1. R. I , ,i UL t t;: I •, * .� i e 4 a b .a ., _t . t"'` -q �,.� �
t4�' r !._ v f r r w •i i- . r ., Y _ "r ' tt{, W
AF.vt �' �l 1. N. r 1 h >y - t ` N t n•7E y+ti_-^9"
t 1 Hdi - ._;_ ,t
ti ��+ 1 , t„ + •... . AM' '1r • ; ri
i ,
1 � r
y� 0.
41 ��1te ' ' t �y �. I r A , .� `�j �. . ,T '! � ' 'f w '•" �y�r � y <
1 ! . `I1 It
Fa,� i
".f ; .�@:'• R < 4 . .r - • ;I'. s
t - f . ., , ,` � Ka. . ~ V �' , 'Y2y"f' r• r` yN �, 11. . ',h tr \ I1 ,R • .1� ,, I ; a , � .
�+ - . ^ �. ' �lF t( + i t rr {k• -r`c. . 2 < n' - �' 1d6 J nr-Tt' .., •:
< LL
1. � _ . - - _ . . - � _ +�� -1, _ � ~ t ..a �;, >� t ♦� i ✓Yt'
/_ � _. . w [ � � ♦k � f fir .
' i
r .
-
.4 SI N
FP
},a ` t �' gihN
1 .
It 0, I r T �.
�g,,yy,e�alL 1 . N JAR
lk
t AI
4 n
fffl1 �'.: o a . r
•,Y 'Y 4 f�+ g fzl+: � ,{ 1� "f r}� 7 �' v.. S`. r� r1�ri V� �• s fir . i .. - e :�
5-.J `. "6l y -1
1 .f .1 fi , ,f..ht ! .r -f,,. i Id"Ill' -
. r ✓ / , gI. IN
ggjj ,I
04 NIL
r '
I7 k Y'
v ice,
} \ •
4 1
got _
l
� -1. r 5 i •II /�i
p I 1
a.
• � � � a �•Jw
RNO .-.,.. . .'
:=. '
j Y I
i ; :.�. tin '4 . ,. li• - -
i.
---------------
r �
t7
t •
ATTACHMENT 6
Verbatim Transcript of
Hearing
1
1 Before the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
2 Heard in the Council Chambers, City Hall West
Fort Collins, Colorado
3
Thursday, October 16, 2008
4
5
6 In the matter of:
Whitman Storage Facility _
7 Addition of Permitted Use, #11-08B
8
9 Board Members present :
10 Brigitte Schmidt, Chair
William Stockover, Vice-Chair
11 Gino Campana
David Lingle
12 Ruth Rollins
Andy Smith
13 James Wetzler
14
City Staff :
15
Paul Eckman, City Attorney' s Office
16 Steve Olt, City Planning
Peter Wray, City Planning
17 Peter Barnes, City Planning
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
1 MS . SCHMIDT: That brings us to our next
2 discussion item, which is the Whitman Storage Facility
3 addition of a permitted use .
4 And for those in the audience, I ' ll just
5 explain our procedure real quickly. Usually, we have
6 staff make a preparation on the proposal . And then the
7 applicant makes a preparation. The Board members will
8 ask questions as they arise.
9 And then after that, we have time for public
10 comment . So the public has an opportunity to hear both
11 presentations and questions from the Board, so you kind
12 of know what some of our issues are, and then we have
13 public comment, and then staff and the applicant have a
14 chance to respond to -- to those questions .
15 So we ' ll start with Steve Olt .
16 MR. OLT: Thank you. The first item for
17 discussion tonight is the Whitman Storage Facility
18 addition of a permitted use . Contextually, we ' re
19 looking at the Whitman property, which is the -- the
20 property in color on this vicinity map. The entire
21 property is approximately 3 . 6 acres in size .
22 To the north is East Skyway Drive . Closely
23 to the west is South College Avenue, South College
24 Avenue commercial corridor. This is the Kelmar strip
25 mall directly west . You' re looking at a right-of-way on
3
1 the parcel map which is actually nothing more than that,
2 a right-of-way for a future errand street . That ' s being
3 considered as part of the South College corridor plan,
4 but it does not exist today. There is right-of-way, and
5 the proposal you ' re looking at tonight is -- is -- would
6 be dedicating additional right-of-way for Aran Street .
7 Pardon me .
8 The -- the portion that we ' re talking about
9 with the -- with this request is -- the permitted
10 additional use is this darker yellow color . It -- it
11 comprises a fourth to a third of the property. It ' s
12 actually just under an acre in size . It ' s on the
13 southerly southwesterly portion of the property, as you
14 can see.
15 This is the site plan we ' ll be talking about
16 later in its entirety, but again, what we ' re looking at
17 is East Skyway Drive is to the north of the property.
18 This is a future Aran Street along the west side .
19 Currently on the property, there is an existing
20 residence -- an existing residence here, with an office
21 and a small engine repair shop attached to it . These
22 are legal uses on-site, home occupation uses, as defined
23 by -- by zoning.
24 There is one other existing building on-site
25 presently, and that ' s up here in the northwest corner of
4
1 the site. It ' s about a 6, 000-square foot building that
2 has small engine repair and some enclosed storage .
3 What is being proposed for this -- this
4 southerly southwesterly portion of the site in this
5 location is recreational vehicle, boat, and truck
6 storage . That is a use that is permitted in the City
7 of Fort Collins, but it ' s currently not permitted in
8 the C commercial zoning district; and just for
9 clarification, the entire Whitman property is in the
10 city of Fort Collins . The westerly two-thirds of the
11 property over to this line and straight up is zoned C
12 commercial . That was done in January of 2008 .
13 So, in essence, the property was recently
14 rezoned from urban estate, when it was annexed into the
15 city, to C commercial on the westerly two-thirds and the
16 easterly one-third of the property was rezoned from
17 urban estate to RL, low-density residential .
18 So in this portion of the property, the
19 applicant is requesting the addition of a permitted
20 use -- this is a process that has just recently been
21 approved by City Council as recently as July of this
22 year, and this is the third time we 've seen this type of
23 request . Addition for an approved permitted use, again,
24 permitted in the city but not in the zoning -- in the
25 zoning district that they are requesting it in.
5
1 So we ' re looking at the recreational vehicle
2 storage -- boat and truck storage, which basically is
3 open storage . It would not be enclosed. It ' s outdoor
4 storage, screened by a -- an 8-foot-tall solid fence and
5 landscaping. The fence would be from the corner of the
6 building that is proposed -- actually, there ' s another
7 component of the Project Development Plan we ' ll be
8 looking at, a new building here . It ' s about a 7, 000
9 square foot building for, again, enclosed storage.
10 We would look at an 8-foot-high enclosed
11 fence from the corner of that building to the southwest
12 property line, across the south property line, up along
13 the -- the property line, the lot line, actually,
14 between the C commercial and the RL low-density portions
15 of the property, up to this line and then across this
16 line to approximately right here . So what they' re
17 requesting is -- is -- again, that outdoor storage of --
18 of vehicles in this location.
19 The process, a new addition of permitted
20 use -- basically, it ' s an extension of Section 1 . 3 . 4 of
21 the Land Use Code, which prior to July 1st of 2008
22 allowed the director to add a use to a zone, but only as
23 long as such use is not specifically listed as a
24 permitted use in Article 4 . Such use is not
25 specifically listed by name as a prohibited use .
6
1 And now under the expanded process, Planning
2 and Zoning Board may add a use to a zone under the
3 following criteria : Such use may be specifically listed
4 as a -- a permitted use in Article 4, but such use, if
5 approved, would -- would be allowed only for the one or
6 more specific and contiguous parcels as requested by the
7 applicant and not under a zone district-wide basis .
8 Therefore, even though the two-thirds of the
9 Whitman property is in the C commercial district, which
10 is an extension of C commercial to the -- to the west,
11 as you see . This is the Whitman property. So this is a
12 C commercial, and the Whitman property, this is the
13 entire -- College corridor is C commercial .
14 This is site-specific only to this property,
15 to this site, if approved. It would not -- it would not
16 be adding that recreation boat -- boat and truck storage
17 to the entire C commercial zoning district .
18 The recreational vehicle boat and truck
19 storage use is defined in the City' s Land Use Code as --
20 it means the renting of a space in an unroofed area for
21 the purpose of storing any recreational vehicle, boat,
22 or truck. For purpose of this definition, recreational
23 vehicle shall be a transportation structure that is
24 primarily designed as a temporary living accommodation
25 for recreational camping and travel use, including but
7
1 not limited to travel trailers, trucks, campers -- truck
2 campers, camping trailers, and self-propelled motor
3 home -- motor homes .
4 This use in the outdoor open -- open storage
5 area must be adequately screened from view by
6 surrounding property as set forth in Section 3 . 2 . 1 (E) ( 6)
7 of the Land Use Code .
8 The context of the surrounding area, which is
9 part of the criteria by which we -- we look at the
10 appropriate -- appropriateness of this proposed use, is
11 context of the surrounding area .
12 In this particular case, the surrounding area
13 is partially developed. We ' re looking at -- I thought I
14 had -- to the south of the property are two lots in
15 Linacre subdivision which are currently zoned urban
16 estate .
17 To the west of the property -- or, pardon me .
18 To the east of the property is zoned, again, urban
19 estate, and we ' ll verify that real quick -- actually
20 zoned RL. Pardon me. That ' s what I wanted to verify.
21 That is zoned RL. That contains a Montessori school .
22 And then to the east of that is the small --
23 single-family residential subdivision. To the north is
24 Huntington hills, single-family residential, and then to
25 the west is the College -- South College Avenue
8
1 corridor . This is the Kelmar strip, directly west of
2 the site .
3 Recreational vehicle, boat, truck storage
4 compatibility with the neighborhood context in Section
5 3 . 5 . 1 of the Land Use Code . In essence, we have
6 specific criteria that it must be evaluated against, and
7 it has been in this particular case . The proposed
8 permitted use for storage of vehicles is compatible with
9 the existing commercial zoning to the west and to the
10 north. It ' s similar in nature to the uses and existence
11 in the C commercial zoning district to the west .
12 The proposed permitted use for recreational
13 vehicles boat and truck storage will be screened by a
14 solid 8-foot-high -- and that ' s a minimum height -- and
15 landscaping to provide visual barrier and a pleasing
16 appearance to the neighborhood to the south and -- and
17 east .
18 Section 3 . 5 . 1 (H) of the land use transition,
19 the proposed recreational vehicle, boat, and truck
20 storage use on the portion of the Whitman Storage
21 Facility property, when screened, will provide a logical
22 transition from the existing uses in the South College
23 corridor, commercial corridor, and existing proposed
24 residential uses to the north and east and south.
25 Operational physical compatibility standards .
9
1 The Planning and Zoning Board has the authority to
2 impose further conditions, if necessary, upon the
3 approval of development application to ensure the new
4 development will be compatible with the existing
5 neighborhoods to the -- and land uses .
6 Traffic impact associated with the proposed
7 addition of the permitted use will be evaluated with the
8 impact traffic analysis as required as part of the
9 Project Development Plan submittal .
10 Compliance with the governing overall
11 Development Plan or subarea plan. The proposed project
12 is within the South College corridor plan. The corridor
13 plan is in the process of being developed and enacted at
14 the preliminary stage of the corridor plan. Nothing in
15 the draft plan would preclude this proposal for
16 additional permitted use.
17 And I wanted to note that I did provide to
18 you tonight a copy of the -- a portion of the newsletter
19 from this summer, which is the latest document of record
20 for the South College corridor plan .
21 And in your packet, that -- it -- I provided
22 you with a South College land use choice worksheet . And
23 on that worksheet, you will see, approximately in the
24 middle of the diagram -- it looks like this, okay? And
25 that should be in your packet, and in the middle of that
10
1 land use choice worksheet, you would see a letter D, a
2 large letter D, in a red circle .
3 That actually is on the properties in
4 question. Of that -- that D is right on these two
5 parcels, just south of the Whitman property. The
6 Whitman property is just to the left or north of these
7 parcels, and it ' s already in the commercial -- partially
8 in the commercial district .
9 As you can see on this map, land use map,
10 it ' s talking about parcels behind the -- the Kelmar
11 strip. Current allowed uses, urban estate, residential,
12 alternative uses, commercial, being a wide variety of
13 uses allowed, retail establishments, office,
14 residential, and institutional . Potential for
15 auto-related uses .
16 And in conferring with Timothy Wilder this
17 afternoon, he did confirm for me that with the South
18 College corridor plan, staff is recommending that those
19 properties that are currently urban estate would be
20 rezoned to CL, limited commercial .
21 Now, obviously, a plan is not adopted yet,
22 and that will officially come before you at some point
23 in time, prior to adoption. But that is essentially
24 what staff is recommending for those parcels . So --
25 and -- and -- in the context of being in compliance with
11
1 the governing Overall Development Plan, subarea plan,
2 it ' s deemed to be just that .
3 The site in its current state does not meet
4 the proper screening requirements set forth within
5 Article 3 of the Land Use Code. Fencing and landscape
6 screening need to be established in conjunction with the
7 requests; will be reviewed with the Whitman Storage
8 Facility Project Development Plan. We will see that on
9 the next item. But there -- and it will have to bring
10 the -- the site into compliance with Section 3 . 2 . 1 of
11 the Land Use Code .
12 As part of the City' s development -- standard
13 development review process, the additional development
14 on the site must comply with the criteria standard set
15 forth in Article 4, Division 4 . 21 of the Land Use Code,
16 being the C commercial district .
17 I did want to note that a neighborhood
18 meeting was held on September 22nd of this year, of
19 2008, for this addition of permitted use, as required.
20 A total of 114 letters were made to affected property
21 owners within a 800 feet of the property.
22 I would like to note that at this meeting,
23 there were three people present, being the applicant,
24 Mr. Whitman, myself as the project planner, and the
25 owner of Montessori school, just east of this property.
12
1 She was there, I 'm sure, partially because of interest,
2 but partially because that ' s where the meeting was held.
3 And there -- there was no concern registered, because
4 there was no concern for this addition of the permitted
5 use on-site.
6 It brings me to the findings of fact in
7 reviewing the request to add recreational vehicle, boat,
8 and truck storage as a permitted use for a portion of
9 the property at 209 East Skyway Drive. Staff is making
10 the finding -- following -- following findings of fact .
11 Such use is appropriate in zoned district of
12 which it is added. Such use conforms to the basic
13 characteristics of the zoned district and the other
14 permitted uses of the zoned district to which it is
15 added.
16 Such use does not create any more offensive
17 noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or
18 other objectionable influences, or any more traffic
19 hazards, traffic generation, or adds adverse
20 environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or
21 quasi-public facilities, utilities, or services, adverse
22 effect on public health, safety, morals, or aesthetic,
23 or other adverse impacts of development than the amount
24 normally resulting from other permitted uses listed in
25 the zoned district to which it is added, or any other
13
1 already permitted uses in the C commercial district .
2 Such use is compatible with other listed
3 permitted uses in the zoned district to which it is
4 added. Such use is not specifically listed by name as a
5 prohibited use in the zoned district to which it is
6 added or is such use prohibited.
7 The proposed use is specific to the proposed
8 site, is not considered for a text amendment, which it ' s
9 not, and is specifically found by the Planning and
10 Zoning Board to not be detrimental to the public good
11 and be in compliance with the requirements and criteria
12 contained in Section 3. 5 . 1 as we have evaluated
13 previously.
14 Such use is not specifically listed as a
15 permitted use in Article 4, and such use is not
16 specifically listed. The proposed use is specific to
17 the proposed site, is not considered for a text
18 amendment, and is specifically found by the Planning and
19 Zoning Board to not be detrimental to the public good
20 and to be in compliance with the requirements and
21 criteria contained in Section 3 . 5 . 1 .
22 The last item, I will have to change . When 1
23 wrote the staff report, I did not have known -- not --
24 not -- not specifically stated in writing or verbally
25 that there -- there was any opposition to this request
14
1 for addition of permitted use. There since has been
2 documentation provided to me and provided to you from a
3 Mr. Brian Schumm, an affected property owner, who is
4 opposing this . So, in essence, there is one known party
5 in opposition to this request .
6 Staff is recommending that the recreational
7 vehicle, boat, and truck storage be added as an
8 allowable use, specifically for a portion as shown on
9 the site plan, for a portion of Lot 3, because this --
10 we ' re looking at three lots, actually, and I ' ll -- I ' ll
11 clarify that .
12 This area that I 'm outlining right now, the
13 north -- northwesterly portion of the property, is Lot 1
14 on the subdivision plat . The -- the lot on the east
15 side is Lot 2 . And then this portion of the property,
16 which the -- the requested addition of permitted use
17 is -- just a portion of is Lot 3. So therefore, this
18 would be added as an allowable use, specifically for a
19 portion of Lot 3 in the southerly half of the Whitman
20 Storage Facility subdivision plat, being approximately 1
21 acre in size and zoned C commercial .
22 That ends my staff report .
23 MS . SCHMIDT: Thank you. Any questions of
24 Steve right at the moment? Or would we like to hear
25 from the applicant next? Dave -- Dave?
15
1 MR. LINGLE: Steve, just in terms of your
2 first finding of fact and conclusion, that such use is
3 appropriate in the zoned district to which it is added?
4 If -- if that were just true, then it would logically be
5 an allowable use in the C zoned district . So is there
6 something that sets this particular parcel of C zoned
7 land apart from other C district land that would make it
8 appropriate here but not appropriate, zone-wide?
9 MR. OLT: Well, and that ' s something we --
10 we -- we might actually consider, but in this particular
11 case, we ' re looking at a -- the site-specific of this,
12 and we ' re looking at the context it sits in, and we ' re
13 looking at -- this portion of the site originally
14 proposed, they were showing -- actually, three different
15 buildings in this area, enclosed buildings, although
16 they were just partially enclosed.
17 They had -- they had 12-foot-high walls,
18 metal walls, with partial roofs . But they were open to
19 the sky in the middle . The -- the sloped roof came up
20 just partially, and then you had a gap between the two
21 portions of the roof. So, in essence, it wasn ' t totally
22 enclosed.
23 And the -- the visual appearance of those
24 buildings, especially along the south property line,
25 which is -- is the area of most concern, look like a
16
1 12-foot-high wall . Certainly, it had to have the
2 appropriate landscaping associated with it.
3 Contextually, we ' re saying that, in this
4 particular case, the open storage, with an 8 -- minimum
5 8-foot-high -- 8-foot-high solid wall and landscaping
6 really is no different in appearance. Yes, the wall is
7 slightly shorter. Our opinion is it ' s potentially even
8 more attractive than what would be approved in that
9 particular location, and therefore, we ' re -- we' re
10 indicating that it -- it does appear to be compatible
11 with -- certainly, I can show you pictures . I have a
12 number of pictures, if the Board would like to see them,
13 of the surrounding area, the context that we ' re looking
14 at, and the uses that are already existing along the
15 Kelmar strip, along the South College corridor.
16 Secondly, we can compare it to -- and maybe
17 I 'd like to have Peter Barnes, our zoning administrator,
18 elaborate a little bit more in terms of a -- a use that
19 is permitted in the C commercial zoning district,
20 talking about vehicle sales and rentals, with outdoor
21 storage, and how that would, appearance-wise, compare
22 with what is being proposed here in terms of this type
23 of use that is -- is well-screened and deemed
24 appropriate in this location.
25 And I don' t know, Peter, if possibly you'd
17
1 like to, you know, define what the -- what that use
2 would be, which would be permitted on this site . If
3 the -- the applicant were to sell the property, for
4 instance, and this other use would -- would want to
5 occur.
6 MS . SCHMIDT: Peter, if I could -- if I could
7 interrupt for just a minute, I think the context and
8 statements, on both A and B, from some of the Board' s
9 concerns is, if -- if we had other commercial property
10 coming in, how -- how would we, given the statements in
11 A and B, how would we be able to say to someone else who
12 has commercial property that -- that this use is not
13 appropriate for your -- for your zone? If we ' re already
14 saying here that it is appropriate.
15 MR. BARNES: Okay. Well, the property is
16 zoned C commercial . The other properties in that area,
17 the Kelmar strip and Southwest Enclave Annexation,
18 you' re asking if they came in and wanted to do the same
19 type of thing, the RV storage .
20 Well, I think when -- when the Code change
21 was adopted earlier this summer to allow this whole
22 process, the addition of permitted use, one of the
23 things is that we' re looking at it site-specific, rather
24 than district-wide, as Steve explained. And when you' re
25 looking at it as site-specific, you' re looking at this
18
I site in the context, I would think, to what is around
2 there .
3 So you' re going to want to know what the
4 other uses are and how this is compatible or comparable
5 to those uses that are adjacent to or abutting this
6 property, as opposed to, you know, the next applicant
7 that would come in, if we get one, who wants to do a
8 similar thing. They may be in a different location out
9 there where the properties surrounding them don' t have
10 any comparable use, and all of a sudden, we 'd be
11 imposing this outdoor storage use, which isn' t in the
12 context of that particular neighborhood, on that other
13 site .
14 MS . SCHMIDT : Well, I think in the e-mail
15 that Mr. Schumm sent us with some of his concerns, he
16 indicated that that was exactly the case with public
17 storage, or --
18 MR. BARNES : That was the first I ' d heard of
19 that . If they were told that they have to remove their
20 storage, that must have been by the County, before it
21 was annexed, because we certainly haven't done that . So
22 I don' t know the history behind that, if Public
23 Self-Storage wanted to come in and do that, if they
24 weren' t allowed to do it in the County, the current
25 zoning would require that they come in, the same process
19
1 that Mr . Whitman is doing right now, and then you 'd be
2 looking at that site in the context of what ' s around
3 them.
4 Here, we 've got -- just directly to the west,
5 you have the U-Haul facility, which fronts on Skyway and
6 College Avenue. That is used as -- classified as
7 equipment truck and trailer rental . That use is a
8 permitted use in the zone, as a Type 1 review. And
9 the -- and you have a -- a use like U-Haul -- well,
10 Budget is also there, but they' re not abutting the
11 property, as U-Haul is .
12 So in the context of Mr . Whitman' s property,
13 you have very similar uses that are comparable in terms
14 of outdoor storage . In fact, perhaps even more visible
15 to the public because -- with the U-Haul facility, for
16 instance, we don' t require that they would have
17 outdoor -- that they would have all of their trucks and
18 trailers screened from view, whereas in the RV storage
19 facility, the entire enclosure, the entire area devoted
20 to that use has to be screened, whereas then -- do you
21 have a shot of . . . that ' s -- that ' s Mr . Whitman ' s
22 property to the left, and then you can see the U-Haul
23 trailers, and I 'm sure you' ve driven by there, and
29 you 've -- you' ve seen dozens of vehicles out there .
25 That use, 0-Haul could -- or a similar use
20
1 could locate onto Mr. Whitman ' s property and do it as a
2 use by right as a Type 1 review. Mr . Whitman' s RV
3 storage is located behind this particular building, and
4 actually, another building is proposed behind this one,
5 and then behind the area to the house, much less visible
6 than something like the areas that are -- or the uses
7 that are surrounding the property here.
8 MR. OLT: And I think, just to elaborate on
9 what Peter just said, it referenced items A and B in the
10 findings of fact, and I think, especially B, such use --
11 in this case, the recreational vehicle, boat, truck
12 storage -- such use conforms with the basic
13 characteristics of the zoned district and the other
14 permitted uses in the zoned district to which it is
15 added.
16 So in this particular case, the C commercial
17 district, again, with the type of use we ' re looking at
18 here that could be added to this site, you know,
19 obviously, staff has determined that this -- the use as
20 proposed conforms very favorably to the basic
21 characteristics of the type of uses we ' re seeing to the
22 west currently in the C commercial zoning district .
23 MS . ROLLINS : Peter, I have a quick question.
24 Currently, are the -- are there violations on this
25 property right now? Is it in violation?
21
1 MR. BARNES : It is . And it gets complicated.
2 When an area like the Southwest Enclave Annexation
3 occurs, the Code requires that any use that is illegal
4 in the County needs to cease within -- I can' t remember
5 now -- I think it ' s within 60 days from the date of
6 annexation .
7 This has a long history of County violations
8 that occurred on the property for many years, between
9 five and ten years . Larimer County did deal with it .
10 There was even, I think -- I think it was a District
11 Court action involving the enforcement of it as well .
12 The illegal uses, though, when you' re annexed
13 in the City, if you' re placed in a zone, then, that
14 allows uses, you then -- the Code allows you an
15 extension of six months .
16 MS . ROLLINS : Okay.
17 MR. BARNES : Then you can ask for an
18 additional three months, which is what we' re up to
19 tonight, actually. During that nine-month period, any
20 illegal uses are allowed to continue .
21 Now, it got further complicated because when
22 this was annexed, it wasn' t placed in a zone that
23 allowed the enclosed mini-storage, which is what
24 Mr. Whitman first came as a development submittal with.
25 But because of the election that occurred,
22
1 that delayed the annexation until April of ' 07 . That
2 was the effective date of the annexation. When you add
3 everything up, and as confusing and as complicated as it
4 got, Mr . Whitman has been allowed to continue on with
5 those uses that were not allowed through this period of
6 time .
7 MS . ROLLINS : And are there other users along
8 the Kelmar strip that are currently in violation of --
9 MR. BARNES : We ' re -- we' re not aware of any.
10 There ' s an Aqua Spas, which has recently relocated
11 there, and on the corner, the other corner of College
12 and Skyway, when they --
13 SPECTATOR: We ' ll have that momentarily.
14 MR. BARNES : -- when they took over that
15 building, they --
16 MS . ROLLINS : Is that the one with all the
17 CF --
18 MR. BARNES : All the what?
19 MS . ROLLINS : There ' s a property to the south
20 that has -- I don' t know how many semi trailers parked
21 behind it, and they all have CF on them, but that ' s --
22 that has nothing to do with --
23 MR. BARNES : Yeah, I don' t know what those
24 are . There ' s so many --
25 MS. ROLLINS : Is that --
23
1 MR. BARNES : You have the roofing businesses
2 out there that has a lot of outdoor storage. A lot of
3 these uses out there has outdoor storage facilities .
4 MS . ROLLINS : Okay.
5 MR. BARNES : But those were grandfathered in
6 through the County because, as far as we know, they were
7 accessory use outdoor storage and weren' t illegal in the
8 County.
9 MS . ROLLINS : Okay.
10 MR. BARNES : The Aqua Spas, which occupied
11 the building -- yeah, that building there -- on the
12 south side of their building, they started up an outdoor
13 storage area . We cited them for a violation, requiring
14 them to fence it . Because of the height of the fence
15 that ' s required, they have to do some engineering.
16 They have now applied to the -- and that
17 requires a building permit for the fence, so they have
18 now applied for that building permit to build their
19 outdoor screen. That ' s the only other violation out
20 there that I 'm aware of.
21 MS . ROLLINS : And that ' s just their outdoor
22 storage. That ' s not RV, recreation.
23 MR. BARNES : Right .
24 MS. ROLLINS : That ' s an allowable use in C.
25 MR. BARNES: Right.
24
1 MS . ROLLINS : Okay. So they just needed to
2 do some stuff to bring it up to --
3 MR. BARNES : That ' s correct .
4 MS . ROLLINS : -- code . Okay. Thank you.
5 MS . SCHMIDT: Peter, do you know why the RV
6 storage isn' t part of C?
7 MR. BARNES : No, I --
8 MS . SCHMIDT : If -- if other outdoor
9 storage -- you know --
10 MR. BARNES : No, I don' t know. But it is
11 certainly similar to the equipment truck and trailer
12 rental establishments that are out there, as far as
13 impacts go.
14 MS . SCHMIDT : Because I noticed when Steve
15 mentioned the limited commercial, that also really
16 doesn' t permit any outdoor storage in any -- except
17 possibly on some of the Riverside areas .
18 MR. BARNES: It would allow it as an
19 accessory use. And we don' t -- I don' t know, and I was
20 just talking to Pete Wray, the CL was amended about a
21 year ago as part of the northwest area -- northwest
22 subarea plan to accommodate -- as those areas were
23 annexed, there was properties out there that were
24 rezoned CL.
25 Previous to that, the only CL was on
25
1 Riverside. And the CL that was placed upon those
2 properties in the northwest area is more restrictive
3 than the CL on Riverside, so when you look at the Code,
4 you have two columns, the Riverside area and then all
5 other areas . I don' t -- I haven' t talked to Timothy, so
6 I don' t know if he ' s proposing any additional changes to
7 the CL for the South College corridor.
8 MR. BARNES : Because -- again, as Peter just
9 said, you know, there are two columns, Riverside area
10 and all other areas . Now, how the South College
11 corridor plan will -- will ultimately shake out and how
12 they will recommend that CL and what should be permitted
13 along Riverside, outdoor storage facilities consisting
14 only of storage of vehicles which are towed to premises
15 and temporarily stored until such vehicles are claimed
16 by vehicle owners or moved to auction or junkyard would
17 be a permitted -- obviously, this wouldn ' t appear to be
18 dramatically different.
19 Now, that -- this does not say whether they
20 would allow that type of use in the CL district . If
21 that ' s what the property are ultimately zoned as .
22 MS . SCHMIDT: Because it has vehicle sales,
23 leasing, and rentals outdoor storages not permitted in
24 the other areas besides Riverside . Parking lots and
25 garages are not permitted. Mobile home, recreational
26
1 vehicle, and truck sales and leasing are not permitted.
2 So a lot of those types of things are not
3 permitted, except from Riverside . But as you said,
4 those were, you know, desired for the northwest, were a
5 little bit more restrictive when they first changed
6 that .
7 MR. OLT: Right . So we don ' t -- we don' t
8 know exactly what the plan would shake out, as Tim
9 has -- Steve has indicated.
10 One other use I should point out that is
11 allowed in the C zone is vehicle and boat sales and
12 leasing establishment with outdoor storage . So in the C
13 zone, you can do boat sales, establishments . You just
14 can ' t have boat storage facilities .
15 MS . SCHMIDT: What zone is RV sales allowed
16 in? Is that in a commercial? If you were selling RVs?
17 MR. BARNES: It ' s not listed as a permitted
18 use in the C. I believe that would be the --
19 MS . SCHMIDT : Industrial?
20 MR. BARNES : -- I .
21 MS . SCHMIDT : Okay. The other thing I
22 couldn' t find, Peter, when I was looking in the Code .
23 What is the definition of mini-storage? I didn' t think
24 it was listed under the terms and definitions unless I
25 missed it, but --
27
1 MR. BARNES : It is . It ' s called enclosed
2 mini-storage .
3 MS . SCHMIDT: Oh, enclosed mini-storage.
4 MR. BARNES : Yeah. And that ' s a building
5 containing separate individual private spaces which may
6 be of various sizes and which are rented pursuant to
7 individual leases for various periods of time.
8 Normally, you think of an enclosed
9 mini-storage as a long building with individual overhead
10 doors and each of those has a -- has a separate enclosed
11 compartment . It doesn ' t necessarily have to be that
12 way. You can have one large building with individual
13 private spaces that can be delineated with lines on
19 the -- on the ground, and this is the private space I 'm
15 renting, so you individually rent out all of those
16 spaces .
17 MS . SCHMIDT : Okay. Because, Steve, is that
18 something else that we ' re proposing for this -- I note
19 in the staff report, it said that there was going to be
20 enclosed mini-storage on the site.
21 MR. OLT: For the -- when we get to the
22 Project Development Plan, yes, that --
23 MS . SCHMIDT: Okay.
24 MR. OLT: -- that is one of the uses that is
25 proposed.
28
1 MS . SCHMIDT : Okay. So if I 'm correct, you
2 said there was about an acre there that you said would
3 be 64, 000 square feet of the recreational vehicle
4 storage, right?
5 MR. OLT: It ' s . 9 -- nine-tenths of an acre,
6 which would put it at about -- just about 40, 000 square
7 feet .
8 MS . SCHMIDT: Okay. Any other questions from
9 Steve, or should we hear from the applicant?
10 MR. LINGLE : A question. I guess I could
11 just go ahead and ask, maybe for Paul . How -- part of
12 the staff review of this in terms of compatibility with
13 adjacent properties and adjacent zoning districts is
14 that the south corridor plan, as it ' s proceeding, may
15 recommend that this land be -- the adjacent land be
16 rezoned CL from UE and RL. How are we to deal with that
17 tonight? I mean, is that something that --
18 MR. ECKMAN: So it ' s --
19 MR. LINGLE: -- is not really relevant, or --
20 MR. ECKMAN: It ' s speculation, isn ' t it? I
21 think -- I wouldn' t put too much stock in the
22 speculation.
23 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you.
24 MS . SCHMIDT: I have one other question. I 'm
25 not sure who can answer that, is that looking at the
29
1 maps, the UE parcels, and then there ' s a natural area
2 there . And those UE parcels run, it looks like,
3 north-south.
4 How -- what kind of road network is there to
5 make those usable? Or would someone have to, like,
6 either go go up through the RL to Skyway, or can they
7 cut across to Aran, or . . .
8 MR. OLT: Currently, there ' s nothing
9 available from a road network to access this . There is,
10 I think, at the south side of these two lots, that are
11 in this urban estate zoning district, there is, if I 'm
12 not mistaken -- I don' t have the plat in front of me --
13 there is a -- a platted right-of-way down here . But
14 it -- it ' s -- it does not exist .
15 So there really is no vehicular access to,
16 you know, this area presently, either from Trilby Road,
17 College Avenue, Skyway. That is pretty much, you know,
18 land-locked until a road network were actually
19 constructed.
20 MS . SCHMIDT: Okay. But you think there ' s
21 right-of-way down there onto Aran?
22 MR. OLT: I -- I 'm assuming the right-of-way
23 down here along the south side of these lots in the
24 urban estate zoning district would -- would connect to
25 Aran. I don' t know that for a fact . But it certainly
30
1 does run east-west . It seems logical that it would
2 connect to -- as far west as proposed Aran Street . I
3 don' t know if Pete Wray has any information on that .
4 MR. WRAY: With the Whitman property, there
5 would be dedication of that adjacent portion for the end
6 street, south from Skyway --
7 MS . ROLLINS : Is that microphone on?
8 MR. WRAY: Is that on?
9 MR. OLT: No.
10 MR. WRAY: And then -- and then if those
11 property to the south develop, I think that ' s where they
12 gain access off, south of Skyway down that Aran
13 Street --
14 MS . SCHMIDT : Do you know, are both those
15 properties owned by the same individual?
16 MR. WRAY: Yeah . So it ' s -- with the --
17 MS . SCHMIDT: The two UE, are -- there ' s two
18 separate parcels, right?
19 MR. WRAY : Right . As I understand it, those
20 are under the same ownership.
21 MS . SCHMIDT: Okay. Thank you.
22 Any -- any other questions?
23 Okay. Would Mr. Whitman like to come down
24 and make a presentation?
25 MR. WHITMAN: My name ' s Randy Whitman, 209
31
1 East Skyway.
2 This has been a long issue . We 've been in
3 here before, many, many times . I 'm not going to speak
4 very long. Don' t feel that well tonight . What I do
5 want to say, though, is in -- with the County, with our
6 problems as such, the City had brought that on and
7 stuff, where we had that .
8 I do have a deal from the County, kind of the
9 same situation of the zoning and stuff that -- in --
10 zoning of the 4 . 3 Land Use Code of the County, H. They
11 are allowing outside storage in the C commercial zoning.
12 A whole big article of stuff in that .
13 It did pass after we got annexed and stuff,
14 but if we were still in the Larimer County and stuff, we
15 could go back and accept that as part of our deal . So
16 we would be legal then.
17 So as far as Brian Schumm -- this keeps
18 coming up with Brian Schumm -- he has so many issues, I
19 don ' t know why, and stuff. If we want to have a meeting
20 with him, we should have all the violations that he has
21 on -- on his . He doesn ' t live in the neighborhood
22 anymore. He has a note here that he lives at 5708 . He
23 doesn ' t live there. They got a divorce, and he doesn' t
24 own the property. So I don ' t know why he has issues
25 with me on this .
32
1 But with the County that I just got and
2 stuff, they would allow outside storage, the same as
3 what we ' re trying to do, and I give the staff -- I mean,
4 we ' ve worked so hard with this thing over this year' s
5 and stuff on this, and I do have other things to
6 present, but I mean, that ' s kind of what the issue is
7 right now.
8 I know there ' s going to be a lot more
9 questions from you guys that we ' re going to have to go
10 through here tonight . Again -- and that ' s the thing I
11 kind of wanted to say right now, but that that is -- and
12 we did have the violations in the County, just because
13 of the City and stuff, when we -- years ago, 10 years
14 ago, that I did get a letter from the City stating that
15 I had to go through the County system, and we went
16 through the County system. They were going to approve
17 it, and then at the last moment -- moment, they got a
18 letter from the City again, saying, do not allow him to
19 do anything until he comes into the City.
20 Well, then, we got caught in with the
21 annexation, so that ' s why we got the injunction against
22 us, because we knew that the City was going to take it .
23 It seems like everything that -- that we ' re a bad person
24 in this whole situation, and we' re just trying to follow
25 the system of where it ' s going and what we were told to
33
1 do.
2 So I want you guys to understand that it
3 isn' t what Brian says all the time. And we ' re trying to
4 work through this . The staff is working really well .
5 And we ' re trying to get this resolved. I 'm just a small
6 business . I can' t afford very much more of this, of
7 keep going on and on.
8 So I know there' s going to be more questions,
9 and I do have a lot more to say. Thank you.
10 MS . SCHMIDT: Could I just ask the first
11 question, and there will probably be some more, is
12 why -- at the time since you were already doing the
13 outdoor vehicle storage, and you came to the City for
14 the rezoning, did -- did you consider industrial zoning
15 at that point in time for the parcel, so that would made
16 it a permitted use?
17 MR. WHITMAN: When we were doing this and
18 stuff, and -- I mean -- with Pete Wray and all that
19 stuff, I mean, we were just in a pinch. It wasn't
20 really nothing -- we were doing enclosed storage, what
21 was allowed, you know. I -- there' s so much going on
22 and on and on, and that seemed like the best scenario of
23 doing it .
24 I -- I don' t have no reason why it wasn' t
25 zoned -- or we could have gone industrial . I
34
1 probably -- what was maybe thinking about right now, it
2 probably would have got denied, because everything else
3 is C commercial out there, and have one little parcel
4 industrial, I assume you guys would have probably denied
5 it . So I -- I 'm just -- you know, going that .
6 We 've been, you know, with the County and all
7 that stuff, was allowable use . Now it is allowable for
8 sure and stuff in their Land Use Code, so, you know, if
9 I got -- if some reason, you know, time went backwards
10 and I was in the County, then it probably would have
11 passed, and then now the City would have to accept this
12 as we are. Then if it would have been passed. So I
13 want to kind of keep that, you know --
14 MS . SCHMIDT: Uh-huh.
15 MS . ROLLINS: Why are you no longer doing it
16 as enclosed storage, which is permitted in the C zoning?
17 MR. WHITMAN: What -- I can --
18 MS . ROLLINS : Why are you no longer proposing
19 enclosing this, which would be permitted in the C
20 zoning?
21 MR. WHITMAN: Well -- and again, this goes
22 back to Brian Schumm bringing up some stuff, and I
23 didn' t know if we needed to bring it up now or in the
24 next deal, but I -- I can bring it up both ways, if you
25 want me to.
35
1 It was because -- the way we had it designed
2 and stuff was somewhat of an enclosed, but yet it was
3 open storage, okay. There is a sewer line, which I know
4 that ' s -- I think you' re kind of referring to. Sewer
5 line that runs right across through us .
6 I do have a con -- a signed contract through
7 the City of Loveland/Fort Collins Water District that
8 they were going to move it . And they were going to move
9 it -- I don' t know if I can stand away and kind of
10 describe it -- they were going to move it along the
11 southeast side . They were going to do that . I do have
12 the signed contract .
13 But going through the process, the City and
19 everything, the time element of them and the changes we
15 were doing, they decided not to, so they relined that
16 sewer line. But it was all a go, and that ' s where we
17 could have built on the sewer line and all that stuff.
18 Everything would have been fine.
19 Now the sewer line is there. I can' t do
20 anything about it. And the way we had it proposed and
21 stuff was basically -- we weren' t really changing
22 anything except for what the -- I don' t know -- the
23 fit -- or the City' s approved the new zoning and stuff,
29 and that ' s why it was brought to me at my attention and
25 stuff, and that ' s why staff and I have talked, and
36
1 they' re supporting it and all that .
2 MS . ROLLINS : Thank you.
3 MS . SCHMIDT: Any other questions? Okay.
4 At this time, I 'd like to open it up to
5 public comment . If there ' s anyone who would like to
6 address the issue of allowing a permitted use in the
7 commercial zone. We are going to be talking about the
8 whole rest of the development plan next after we decide
9 on this issue . So there will also be public comment for
10 that . But if there ' s anyone here that wants to talk
11 about that .
12 Okay. Seeing none, we' ll bring it back to
13 the Board for other questions or discussion.
14 MR. CAMPANA: I ' ll take a stab at this . So
15 what other zoning districts is outdoor storage allowed
16 in?
17 MR. OLT: In terms of the type of use being
18 requested, recreational vehicle, boat, and truck
19 storage --
20 MR. CAMPANA: Right .
21 MR. OLT: -- only in the I industrial zoning
22 district .
23 MR. CAMPANA: And so where is the closest I
24 industrial to this parcel?
25 MR. OLT: Nowhere near. I don' t have a map
37
1 that goes that far. But there is -- and getting back to
2 the question about, was I industrial considered for this
3 site at the time of the rezoning earlier this year, no,
4 it wasn' t .
5 Talking with Timothy Wilder, again -- Pete
6 Wray might want to elaborate, but, you know, it
7 certainly, contextually, is not in context with the
8 surrounding area . It wasn' t considered for industrial,
9 basically spot zoning for the parcel of ground about two
10 to two and a half acres in size in the midst of C
11 commercial, urban estate, RL low density residential,
12 so, again, short answer to your question, Mr . Campana,
13 nowhere close .
14 MR. CAMPANA: Okay. Then segue into: So do
15 you know of any other time it was allowed -- outdoor
16 recreational vehicles were allowed to be stored in C
17 zoning?
18 MR. OLT: To my knowledge -- to my knowledge,
19 we have not had a request of that nature . Certainly, it
20 wouldn' t have even been considered until a request like
21 tonight, because of the recent addition of permitted use
22 ordinance that has been implemented in the City' s Land
23 Use Code . So we wouldn' t even be considering something
24 like this prior to July of this year, 2008 .
25 MR. CAMPANA: It would require a rezoning,
38
1 huh?
2 MR. OLT: It would have required a rezoning
3 or a text amendment, which this is not doing. This is a
4 site-specific, you know, additional permitted use on
5 this piece of land, a portion of the C commercial
6 district on this property alone.
7 MR. CAMPANA: Right .
8 MR. BARNES : Let me, if I can, just clarify
9 that, since you asked. Have we ever allowed this use in
10 the C zone; and we did, prior to the adoption of the
11 Land Use Code . Now, that gets confusing, because this
12 area, South College area, was zoned HB, highway
13 business, prior to that . There were other areas of town
14 that were zoned C commercial . But prior to ' 97, the C
15 zone did allow RV boat and trailer storage uses .
16 MR. CAMPANA: At least the last 11 years or
17 so, we haven ' t done it .
18 MR. BARNES : That ' s right .
19 MR. CAMPANA: So that I understand correctly.
20 We annex that in on the South College corridor there .
21 We kind of have to accept the properties as they are, or
22 are we allowed, once we go into C zoning, to have 90
23 days to come into conform with our Land Use Code, or --
24 because as I look at those photos that you had up there,
25 it just -- it looks like there ' s zoning violations all
39
1 over the place with setbacks and landscaping and fences
2 and -- I 'm just curious .
3 MR. BARNES : They' re not really zoning
4 violations . The only time anything has to be brought
5 into compliance is if the use of the property changes or
6 if the property is redeveloped, they demolish what ' s
7 there and reconstruct .
8 Those are the events that would cause
9 properties to be brought into compliance . There are a
10 lot of properties, not just in this area, but throughout
11 the city, that have been in the city limits for many
12 years, and as codes have changed, they' re not required.
13 We don ' t go back on them and say, now you 've got to put
14 up a fence around your junkyard, or something like that .
15 So they are what they are until the use changes or until
16 they' re totally redeveloped.
17 MR. CAMPANA: A different use, different
18 owner?
19 MR. BARNES : Not a different owner .
20 MR. CAMPANA: Just a different use, different
21 business .
22 MR. BARNES : That ' s correct -- well, not a
23 different business . A different use.
24 MR. CAMPANA: So if you all moved out but if
25 Budget moved in, it would be the same thing.
40
1 MR. BARNES : That ' s correct . They wouldn' t
2 be required to do anything to the site .
3 MR. CAMPANA: But the intent is that, over
4 time, everyone ' s brought into compliance .
5 MR. BARNES: That ' s right . That ' s why we
6 require, when their use changes, that that triggers so
7 that incrementally, we get upgrades throughout the city
8 on properties that have been developed years and years
9 ago.
10 MR. CAMPANA: Thanks .
11 MS . SCHMIDT : Thanks .
12 MR. CAMPANA: And Pete, could that be -- even
13 if it ' s an approved use, would it -- let ' s say the
14 commercial right now might be truck leasing, but if it
15 changed to something else, but it was an approved use,
16 would they have to make upgrades to the area, or --
17 MR. BARNES : Yes . Yeah. They can only --
18 once they' re in the city, unless they go through this
19 new process now which allows addition of permitted uses
20 that aren' t allowed in the zone, they can only change
21 the use to a use that ' s allowed in that zone . But even
22 if it is permitted, they' re going to have to potentially
23 do upgrades if it doesn't already comply.
24 MR. STOCKOVER: But Peter, aren' t most of the
25 upgrades landscaping, sidewalks, setbacks?
41
1 MR. BARNES : Well, that ' s certainly the most
2 visible ones you see, but they may have to plat the
3 property. If it ' s not platted, they may have to
4 dedicate additional right-of-way. For instance, this
5 property with the PDP is dedicating some additional
6 right-of-way for Aran, I believe . And so there are
7 those types of things . They have to do handicapped
8 parking, bike racks, trash enclosures, you know, like
9 you said, sidewalk improvements .
10 MR. CAMPANA: Would it include building
11 improvements as well, articulation, face treatment,
12 top --
13 MR. BARNES : Generally, I can' t recall that
14 we ' ve got into them to requiring people to remodel the
15 facade of the building. Now, the Code does say that if
16 they are proposing to remold the facade, they have to,
17 to the extent reasonably feasible, comply with the
18 standards in 3 . 5 . 3 .
19 MS . ROLLINS : And are there individuals that
20 take a look at that and then just say, I 'm going to stay
21 the way I am right now, because with what I 'm proposing,
22 it just doesn' t make sense to do all these upgrades or
23 change -- you know, a different -- I know -- I know for
24 some residential units that are upgrading, just the
25 addition, like, sewer connection is extremely expensive,
42
1 and that type of stuff. So --
2 MR. BARNES : Right .
3 MS . ROLLINS : -- does that happen?
4 MR. BARNES: Yeah, that does happen.
5 MR. LINGLE: Steve, I guess, based on the
6 direction that Paul gave us in terms of the speculation
7 on the rezoning of those surrounding properties, I 'm
8 having a really hard time understanding how 12-foot-high
9 RVs and an 8-foot fence is compatible with UE and RL
10 zoning, where, you know, those are our two least
11 intensive residential zoning districts, and -- you know,
12 I -- that compatibility thing, I 'm having a hard time
13 understanding how that is deemed compatible.
14 MR. OLT: Well, the way we' re looking at it
15 is, an 8-foot-high fence is a significantly high fence
16 in itself, and that has to be engineered, so there will
17 be additional costs to the property owner to install
18 that fence, because it has to -- to -- obviously,
19 withstand wind shears and things like that .
20 But the -- the 8-foot-high fence with
21 landscaping; it will significantly -- first of all, the
22 RVs -- most of what you see out there now, because I was
23 out there the other day, taking pictures and
24 measurements . We ' re looking at basically the vehicles
25 that are 9 and a half to 11 feet tall . So, yes, they
43
1 would extend above the -- the fence somewhat .
2 But you -- you look at the -- the -- the
3 landscaping, the trees as proposed along the outside of
4 the fence as they mature, and -- and when you get the
5 full breadth of those trees, you' re going to have
6 significant screening to -- to the areas to the -- to
7 the south and to the east .
8 You' ll -- you' ll see portions of the top of
9 some of the vehicles, yes, and we ' re not looking,
10 necessarily, at all RVs . I don' t know how many out of
11 the -- out of that area -- potentially there could be,
12 you know, 40 or 50 or 60 vehicles parked there on a site
13 that large, but, again, it ' s for boats, trucks, RVs .
14 Staff has just determined that it really -- it ' s an
15 insignificant visual impact, I think, by the time you --
16 you, you know, put the -- put up the fence and the
17 landscaping as it matures .
18 MR. BARNES : I also want to mention that --
19 Dave, you thought -- you indicated that the UEs on one
20 of our more, I think you said, restrictive or some other
21 term residential zone --
22 MR. LINGLE : Least intensive .
23 MR. BARNES: Least intensive . Actually, the
24 UE zone allows industrial uses and does allow some
25 commercial uses . It allows planters, using greenhouses,
44
1 small-scale reception centers, composting facilities,
2 resource extraction processes and sales .
3 So, certainly, the industrial uses, the
4 composting and resource extraction processes and sales
5 are going to have some outdoor storage components as
6 part of those uses .
7 MS . SCHMIDT: And Peter, in here -- because I
8 was reading that earlier, and what is that resource?
9 Does that mean like mining, like digging up the gravel,
10 or . . .
11 MR. BARNES: Well, we ' ll look at that
12 definition here. I think we have one for that .
13 MS . SCHMIDT: And that -- that ' s what came to
14 mind when I read it, but I would think people need
15 special permits to do that. I don' t know. Resource
16 extraction. Recovery by any means whatsoever of sand
17 and gravel . Also, rock, minerals . Minerals,
18 substances, organic substances, other than vegetation,
19 from water or land or beneath the surface thereof,
20 exposed or submerged.
21 MR. BARNES : You' re going -- you' re going to
22 find, like, LaFarge, Connell Resources . They' re going
23 to have those big facilities where they' re using those
24 materials for their paving, concrete processes .
25 MS . SCHMIDT: But somebody on a small
45
1 acreage, they could start digging gravel, if they wanted
2 to, on their --
3 MR. BARNES : They could.
4 MS . ROLLINS : LaFarge. Their zoning' s not
5 UE. It ' s something different, isn' t it?
6 MS . SCHMIDT: Might have been when they
7 bought --
8 MR. BARNES : I 'm not even sure it ' s in the
9 city limits, but --
10 MS . ROLLINS : Okay.
11 MR. BARNES : -- they could do it in a UE
12 zone .
13 MS . ROLLINS : Okay.
14 MS . SCHMIDT: Dave, did that answer your
15 question? Okay.
16 I guess some of the other questions I had is,
17 what is -- what is the distance that you have to stay
18 away from a sewer line? As far as you can' t build right
19 on top of it, right, but is there a -- you know, it
20 seems to me that the way the sewer line is constructed,
21 if you did your buildings in a different fashion, you
22 could have quite a bit of cord storage for RVs, even
23 with the sewer line coming through the middle of it .
24 MR. OLT: Well, as you can see, this -- these
25 two two lines running parallel to one another,
46
1 diagonally through this portion of the site, that is the
2 existing sewer line. So that is somewhat problematic in
3 terms of how buildings could -- could occur over that
4 line . It pretty well is cutting that large block of
5 property in half.
6 I did have a follow-up conversation with
7 Terry Farrill of South Fort Collins Sanitation District
8 this week, just to verify that, you know, they have, in
9 fact, decided to maintain that line in its present
10 alignment, and they have, and they' ve actually done
11 improvements to that sewer line. They do not intend to
12 move it.
13 Would they allow the property owner to move
14 it at his expense? Yes, conceivably. An estimate to do
15 that at 60 to $70 a foot, according to Mr . Farrill, for
16 450 feet, would be approximately $30, 000, is what I was
17 told, so obviously, there would be a significant expense
18 to relocate that line at this point in time. Would they
19 permit buildings on top of that? His answer was no.
20 MS . SCHMIDT: But you could build right up to
21 the lines that are on that diagram, or is there a better
22 way on each side --
23 MR. OLT: Well, they'd have to -- I mean,
24 that ' s a -- that ' s a fairly wide easement . Obviously,
25 the line is not that wide . There ' s -- I don' t have a
47
1 dimension on that. It ' s probably 20 to 30 foot wide
2 easement, with the line in the middle, so there ' d be
3 easily 10 feet or so to the -- 10 to 15 feet either side
9 of the line.
5 Could you do that? Yes . Just looking,
6 though, at the configuration, it would be a challenge to
7 put buildings on that site as -- in the alignment
8 through the property to -- to really effectively
9 function, I think. But, again, it could be done, yes .
10 MR. CAMPANA: I think it says 20-foot-wide
11 easement .
12 MR. OLT: Thank you.
13 MR. CAMPANA: The whole sewer line?
14 MR. LINGLE : Steve, I think you explained
15 this at the work session, but I want to understand now.
16 When -- when that was the proposal, and you were talking
17 about a 12-foot-high building with a shallow sloped
18 roof, essentially like a three-sided building, open on
19 one side, with a roof .
20 MR. OLT: No, it was actually a -- a -- it
21 would be a building on -- in this particular case, the
22 southerly building was to be a linear building, the
23 length of the site, about 250 feet long. It was
29 two-sided, basically, a side here and a side along here,
25 with openings just at either end -- well, actually, at
48
1 either end, and then one here as this driveway continues
2 down. So you had three openings into that building, and
3 one here. I -- I 'm not even sure one was at the west
4 end. Definitely, there was one at the east end.
5 And then you had, again, with -- with the
6 wall here and here, you had roofs coming in, projecting
7 into the -- basically, the footprint of the building, 10
8 or 15 feet, at a -- pardon? 10 feet, from the wall,
9 let ' s say, right here, building -- the -- the ceilings
10 came in, the roofs came in about 10 feet, at a very low
11 angle, so if you looked at the building elevations, you
12 really couldn' t perceive the roof on that . You were
13 looking at -- from the building elevations, you were
14 looking at a 12-foot-high wall .
15 MR. LINGLE : Okay. And -- and even though
16 the building would not be considered enclosed, by
17 definition, it wasn' t considered out -- outdoor storage,
18 right?
19 MR. BARNES : That ' s right . The building,
20 even though it had this hole in it, when you' re looking
21 down from the top, it was still -- it met the definition
22 of "building, " and we confirmed that with the Building
23 Department as well .
24 So it was a building. And it -- an unusual
25 building, but it did meet the definition, and it would
49
1 have been closed mini-storage at that time .
2 MR. LINGLE: Oh, it would have been closed
3 mini-storage .
4 MR. BARNES: Yeah, which is a permitted
5 use --
6 MR. LINGLE : Yeah.
7 MR. BARNES : -- which is the other building
8 that ' s proposed here. So even though the building was,
9 looking from the top down, more than half of it was open
10 without a roof on it, it was still a building at that
11 point .
12 MR. LINGLE: Okay. I just wanted to
13 understand the distinction.
14 MR. CAMPANA: How long have you owned the
15 property, Mr . Whitman? You can just -- yeah. Please.
16 MR. WHITMAN: We had -- we had purchased that
17 property, I think, in ' 94 or ' 95.
18 MR. CAMPANA: And did that sewer easement
19 exist at that time?
20 MR. WHITMAN: Yes, it did.
21 MR. CAMPANA: Do you think that an easement
22 going diagonally through a parcel of ground like that
23 affects the value of it?
24 MR. WHITMAN: Well, when we -- when we first
25 bought the property and dealing with the County and
50
1 stuff, we were allowed to have just outside storage in
2 the one building, and that ' s where this whole deal
3 started from. And that ' s why we -- it interested us and
4 stuff that we didn' t have the problem and everything on
5 it .
6 MR. CAMPANA: But do you think the value of
7 it was less because of the easement going --
8 20-foot-wide easement going diagonally through it?
9 MR. WHITMAN: I 'm sure it probably was . I
10 wasn' t in the process . My parents had bought the
11 property and stuff back then and stuff. I wasn' t
12 involved with it then.
13 MR. CAMPANA: And to do an enclosed --
14 modified enclosed mini-storage building without a roof
15 over the top, did you get any price estimates on
16 building that?
17 MR. WHITMAN: We did. And it was just
18 phenomenal, with the engineering and stuff.
19 MR. CAMPANA: It was cost-prohibitive .
20 MR. WHITMAN: Yeah.
21 MR. CAMPANA: Not to mention, you'd have to
22 design it around this diagonal easement going through
23 there, but you couldn' t put the structure over the
24 easement, right?
25 MR. WHITMAN: Right.
51
1 MR. CAMPANA: Okay.
2 MS . SCHMIDT: Thanks .
3 MR. LINGLE : Paul, I have a question. On
4 these permitted uses, you know, with other things, we
5 certainly have criteria to look at or something to
6 evaluate it by. And do we have anything along those
7 lines with -- when we ' re considering addition of a
8 permitted use, or is it just -- I mean, if we think that
9 it ' s appropriate -- yeah.
10 MR. ECKMAN: We have this new amendment .
11 Isn' t that what we ' re operating on? 1 . 3 . 4?
12 MR. OLT: Correct .
13 MR. ECKMAN: And there is a list of findings
14 there that you can look at in conjunction -- I think I 'm
15 reading the right section here -- in conjunction with a
16 particular development proposal --
17 MR. LINGLE : Is that in our Land Use Code
18 already? Do you think it ' s part of the book?
19 MR. ECKMAN: I don ' t think it ' s been put into
20 the Code yet .
21 MR. OLT: But it is in the ordinance. There
22 is an ordinance --
23 MR. LINGLE : Okay.
24 MR. ECKMAN : Ordinance 73-2008 . Let ' s see
25 when this was adopted. July 1st is when we -- when we
52
1 passed it on second reading .
2 So there are six findings . Would you like me
3 to read them to you? Or . . .
4 MR. LINGLE: Well, what page is it on?
5 SPEAKER: It ' s on . . .
6 MR. LINGLE: Oh.
7 SPEAKER: Article 1, Page 10 .
8 MR. OLT: Now, the updates --
9 MR. BARNES : The page updates for the Code
10 book haven ' t been published yet .
11 MR. ECKMAN: The amendments haven' t been.
12 MR. BARNES : Right.
13 MR. OLT: What Paul will be reading from the
14 ordinance is not in the Code book yet .
15 MR. BARNES : What was in the Code book is
16 very similar to what was in there. There were changes
17 made to some of those paragraphs .
18 MR. LINGLE: Okay.
19 MR. ECKMAN: I think -- I think 1 through 4
20 did not change . Correct me if I 'm wrong, Peter. The
21 changes were in 5 and 6, I think. So you can look at 1
22 through 4 . I ' d be happy to read 5 and 6. 5 is such use
23 is not specifically listed by name as a prohibited use
24 in the zoned district to which it is added, and then we
25 added this, or if such use is prohibited, the proposed
53
1 use is specific to the proposed site, is not considered
2 for a text amendment under paragraph B below, and it is
3 specifically found by the Board not to be detrimental to
4 the public good and to be in compliance with the
5 requirements and criteria contained in Section 3 . 5 . 1 .
6 6 says, such use is not specifically listed
7 as it permitted use or if such use is not specific --
8 is -- if such use is not specifically listed, the
9 proposed use to the site is not considered for a text
10 amendment, and is specifically found by the Board not to
11 be detrimental to the public good and to be in
12 compliance with the requirements of Section 3 . 5 . 1 . So
13 it ' s all about the same .
14 But your other findings -- you know, it has
15 to be appropriate to the zoned district. It has to be
16 basic characteristics, so on, so forth; noise, dust,
17 odor, and so on.
18 MR. OLT: And -- and those are, in your
19 findings of fact, in the staff report, are findings of
20 fact, A through F, are word for word from the ordinance
21 Paul just read.
22 MS . SCHMIDT: Does anyone know -- possibly,
23 Mr. Whitman -- what is the anticipated number of
24 vehicles that you could have stored there? I 'm sure it
25 would vary, depending if there are all large RVs or
54
1 smaller ones . But what -- what are you thinking about,
2 number-wise?
3 MR. WHITMAN: We really haven' t even thought
4 that far . I 'm assuming we could probably put about 40,
5 50 cars -- or RVs . We haven' t even --
6 MS . SCHMIDT : Okay.
7 MR. WHITMAN: It ' s been such a long process
8 that we haven' t even got that far.
9 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Any other questions?
10 Let me also ask Paul, then, when we vote on
11 these, can this be considered a precedent? Like when
12 the next person comes in, in commercial, and wants to
13 have RV storage --
14 MR. ECKMAN: I think, as Steve mentioned on
15 pages 6 and 7, you have the findings of fact and
16 conclusions here. Each time one of these comes to you,
17 you need to go through the criteria of the Land Use
18 Code, 1 through 6, and measure it again. And so that --
19 those paragraphs from your report this time would apply
20 every time it comes . So, no, this would not be
21 precedent-setting, except to the extent that the same
22 facts might measure up against the same criteria
23 identically, something like that .
24 MS . SCHMIDT: So having said that, probably,
25 anyplace along Kelmar strip or South College would be
55
1 available for RV outdoor storage. Because the same
2 conditions would really apply to just about every parcel
3 down there, I would think.
4 MR. OLT: Again, it -- it ' s hard to, you
5 know, answer that question directly. Yeah, I mean,
6 we ' re looking at -- at other sites, let ' s say, along the
7 Kelmar strip that could conceivably be considered to be
8 contextually in compliance as -- as -- you know, staff
9 has determined this would be if approved. But, again,
10 it ' s still -- they still have to measure up on a
11 site-specific basis and evaluate it against this
12 criteria accordingly.
13 MS . LINGLE: And Paul, I think you -- we
14 did -- when we looked at this on the North College
15 project, that -- I believe you told -- that we could
16 still consider the compatibility criteria, 3 . 5 . 1, I
17 think?
18 MR. ECKMAN: 3. 5 . 1, yes, because that ' s
19 listed in the -- in the Code, too .
20 MR. LINGLE : Was that . . .
21 MR. ECKMAN: So, for example, under -- well,
22 let ' s see. These are lettered E and F in your staff
23 report . There are 5 and 6 in the Code. It says that
24 you can -- you need to specifically find that it ' s not
25 detrimental to the public good and that it would be in
56
1 compliance with the requirements of 3 . 5 . 1, and if
2 compatibility is in 3 . 5 . 1, numbers escape me at the
3 moment, but then you could measure it against
4 compatibility as well .
5 MR. LINGLE : Okay. I missed that . Thank
6 you.
7 MR. ECKMAN: Uh-huh.
8 MS . SCHMIDT: Any other questions, or would
9 you like to discuss it? Would someone want to put a
10 motion on the floor?
11 MR. BARNES : Well, one thing I would say is
12 what I brought up at the work session, which is if the
13 Board is inclined to approve this, I think -- I would
14 think that we would want to add the conditions to that
15 approval that we talked about considering the fencing
16 and the landscape screening, so that in the event, the
17 unlikely event, but that the PDP was either removed or
18 not approved, that those conditions would -- would
19 continue to apply, since the addition of a permitted use
20 would continue to apply to that parcel, regardless of
21 the PDP.
22 MR. ECKMAN: If you wanted those conditions
23 added, I think I remember, Mr. Lingle, you 'd found those
24 on Page 5 and under 6. The first paragraph, the last
25 sentence, has to do with the 8-foot-high fence. And I
57
1 think all you' d need to do is take out the word
2 "proposed, " and you' d have it . The permitted use for
3 recreational and vehicle, and so on. Wouldn ' t that
4 work?
5 SPEAKER: Yes .
6 MR. ECKMAN: The same thing with the first
7 sentence of the next paragraph. That sentence would
8 seem to work as a condition, again, if you took out the
9 word "proposed" in that first line . I think.
10 MR. BARNES : Yes . That ' s -- that ' s what we
11 talked about .
12 MS . SCHMIDT: I guess that landscaping,
13 though, applies to the RL. It doesn' t say anything
14 about the UE to the south.
15 Peter, I guess I had a question about that,
16 just because it ' s always one of my issues with personal
17 experience of, when these things get approved and
18 they' re supposed to put landscape plantings in, and they
19 put the landscape plantings in, and then -- and then
20 they die, and then has their obligation been met?
21 MR. BARNES : No, there is a section in the
22 Land Use Code in 3 . 2 . 1 regarding the landscaping that,
23 in addition to requiring that it be installed in
24 compliance with the approved plan, it has to be
25 maintained, so that if landscape elements die or are
58
1 removed and they come to our attention, then we would
2 notify the applicant that, you need to replace those,
3 and if they fail to do that, then they would be issued a
4 municipal court summons, and we do that quite often when
5 we find dead landscaping or missing landscaping, go back
6 and require that they put it back into compliance .
7 MS . SCHMIDT : Okay. Another question I have
8 is, what -- is there any kind of evaluation on how much
9 traffic is generated by this kind of a use? I mean, are
10 people coming in and getting their storage items, or do
11 people, like, usually leave them there for periods of
12 time, or -- do we have any idea about that?
13 MR. OLT: No, and I don ' t believe we got a
14 traffic study with the PDP. And I -- I don' t know if
15 we -- if Mr. Whitman can offer any information on that .
16 I mean, we ' re looking, obviously, at essentially
17 long-term storage to a large degree of vehicles that
18 we' re dealing with here . And in this particular
19 request .
20 MR. WHITMAN: We were just -- Randy and I
21 were just talking and stuff, and we did have -- we
22 talked to Ward Stanford, and it was not required to have
23 it . It wasn' t a condition to have that, the usage and
24 stuff, of -- there isn' t that much use.
25 MS . SCHMIDT: Do you have -- do you have any
59
1 idea -- I mean, how does that sort of operate now? Do
2 you have certain hours that you' re open, and then people
3 can come get their vehicles at those hours, or -- you
4 know, how -- how does that kind of work? They just come
5 in, pick it up, and leave, or -- have to get permission
6 from you, or . . .
7 MR. WHITMAN: As far as right now and stuff,
8 our -- our regular business is open from 8 : 00 to 5 : 00 or
9 7 : 30 to 5 : 00 with the recreational vehicles and stuff.
10 Most of the time, they do come in, like on a Sunday or
11 something, if they' re bringing a vehicle back or
12 something from a camping trip, they are -- they can come
13 in on a Sunday or something . They can get in.
14 MS . SCHMIDT: How many vehicles do you have
15 on the premises now?
16 MR. WHITMAN: I think there ' s . . . 10 . I
17 think I got like six RVs and four -- three or four
18 boats .
19 MS . SCHMIDT: Okay. Oh, because all those
20 cars, those trucks in the pictures are gone, the ones
21 from -- the hail-damaged ones?
22 MR. WHITMAN: No, we still have those on
23 there.
24 MS. SCHMIDT: Oh, okay.
25 MR. WHITMAN: That was from Pedersen' s, yes.
60
1 Those aren' t -- those are -- I 'm not getting paid for
2 those. We ' re just doing a good service, trying to help
3 them out .
4 MS . SCHMIDT : Okay.
5 MR. STOCKOVER: Well, I ' ll just throw my two
6 cents ' worth in. You know, the one thing that always is
7 first and foremost is protecting the general public
8 in -- in this case, we ' re hearing no opposition except
9 for one gentleman, who has some very valid points . But
10 I weigh this back and forth in my mind quite a bit, and
11 I think the improvements that he ' s making weigh --
12 outweigh what he ' s asking us to do. And I think that is
13 an intent of the Code, when projects redevelop.
14 You know, he ' s going to be -- required to put
15 in a sidewalk, quite a bit of landscaping, that type of
16 thing, and it -- it is a very good, and I think,
17 substantial start to the revitalization of that area,
18 and I look at, it is a block off College Avenue, and
19 when I weigh all those things in there, the improvements
20 we are getting versus what we ' re giving up, and who is
21 opposed to it, I think -- I 'm -- I know I 'm going to be
22 in favor of it just because he ' s bringing in so much to
23 the table in improvements, and we only have one person
24 who' s opposed.
25 The only note I would like to make is, I
61
1 think, is, as a good neighbor, if that were my business,
2 I would just try and stack all those -- the lower RVs
3 and boats along the fence and try and get anything
4 that ' s taller to the center of the property. And that ' s
5 just something we could do as a good neighbor .
6 I thought about adding that as a condition,
7 but then it ' s an enforcement nightmare, so that ' s the
8 only thing I would ask, is if it is approved, try and be
9 a good neighbor as to how you stack the RVs and where
10 you put the taller ones .
11 MR. CAMPANA: I ' ll definitely say this is a
12 tough one for me . Compatibility is what I 'm wrestling
13 with. I think if I look at photos of -- if I look at
14 the photos you showed tonight of the contexts of the
15 overall area, and I think of the improvements that are
16 being proposed, and to have outdoor recreational storage
17 there, does it -- does it fit, is it compatible with
18 that. I don' t have an issue with that .
19 But I think the intent is for properties to
20 evolve over time to follow into compliance or fall into
21 better alignment with our Land Use Code, and so when I
22 look at compatibility of our Land Use Code and what ' s
23 going to take place on any change of use properties that
24 are going to have to be brought up to Code, then I don' t
25 think -- I don' t think it ' s compatible .
62
1 So I 'd rather be moving forward on this
2 rather than looking back, and so I 'm not -- I won' t be
3 supporting it tonight .
4 MS . SCHMIDT: Any other comments, or do we
5 have a motion?
6 I agree with Gino. This is a really
7 difficult situation, because I 'm -- I 'm wrestling
8 from -- I really -- I -- for me, it would be hard if we
9 approve this, and I -- I definitely agree with Butch' s
10 points, that there are certain improvements going to be
11 made . I just find it hard to imagine a situation where
12 I could say no to any other commercial person that comes
13 in and wants to have this use .
14 As long as there ' s commercial around them or
15 something, you know -- and I don' t know. I mean,
16 that -- that makes it really difficult, and -- and
17 possibly, it ' s something that we want to consider
18 changing in the zone, but on -- on the other hand, we
19 can put in some additional requirements to make sure
20 it ' s an improvement .
21 So if we handle it in this manner.
22 MR. STOCKOVER: I think we can look at any
23 situation without tying it to this one, and that ' s our
24 prerogative, and that ' s what we ' re here for. Our job is
25 to look at each project individually. And I totally
63
1 think we can do that .
2 MS . SCHMIDT: Well, you can, but you have to
3 have your -- your reasons or -- you know, the factors
4 that you review are going to be the same for each
5 project, if you' re basing it on compatibility, those
6 kinds of issues . They will probably be similar for
7 we ' re looking at commercial to commercial .
8 MR. STOCKOVER: I would disagree with that,
9 based on the fact of where each property is in its life
10 span, and I look at, when we ' re looking at the blighted
11 area that we ' ll come to next month -- and maybe even the
12 Foothills Fashion Mall . We look at that completely
13 different than we would look at their property.
19 It ' s where is that property in its life
15 cycle, and I think that ' s what weighs very heavily with
16 my decision on this, is that we ' re looking at an area
17 that definitely needs some help. And I would look at
18 that completely different if a property were midway or
19 farther along or not so far along in their lifestyle --
20 life cycle, more in their prime, I guess . I definitely
21 wouldn ' t look at something on Harmony Road the same as I
22 look at this .
23 MR. CAMPANA: I would have an easier time
29 supporting it if there was an industrial use adjoining
25 it, near it, but it ' s commercial all the way around.
64
1 We ' re one block off of South College. You know, it ' s
2 not a permitted use in any -- anything surrounding it .
3 So --
4 MR. STOCKOVER: And I -- I -- it was not an
5 easy decision for me, either. I mean, I sat down and
6 read this again this afternoon, and I wrote up a motion
7 to approve it and one to deny it. That ' s -- you know.
8 How much thought I put into it. But I -- I do feel that
9 approving it would be the right decision.
10 MS . SCHMIDT: Pete -- Pete, do you want to
11 make a comment?
12 MR. WRAY: Yeah, if I could, you know,
13 respond to this, you know. For -- for staff to be
14 supporting this, we really looked at this as a -- as a
15 unique situation for this site, specific for this piece.
16 Yes, it ' s adjacent to the adjacent Kelmar
17 strip, and similar-looking uses in the rear yards of the
18 back of those commercial properties . But it supported
19 the vision for the South College corridor plan, and I
20 would even say for East Mulberry corridor, is to
21 envision, over time, redevelopment and infill and change
22 of uses and improvements to the commercial corridor
23 along the immediate frontage of those highways .
24 This property is -- is behind the commercial
25 corridor. Yes, it ' s adjacent to it . We do not see this
65
1 as a precedent, because we -- if we do look at any other
2 property, and this is a new provision of the Code that
3 has just taken place, but in the future, we will look
4 closely at any specific new proposal and -- and
5 strongly, you know, question the pros and cons of -- of
6 any new proposal .
7 In this case, you know, I think we -- we came
8 to the conclusion that it made sense to support this,
9 given the other buildings and use on the property and
10 the -- the -- the compatible appearance of the adjoining
11 commercial, and also, the -- the provision to make sure
12 that the fence and the landscaping -- we even came back
13 and added additional requirements for more landscaping
14 for the original proposal .
15 So from the north, off of Skyway, and to the
16 west, and so the south, with the fence and walls, we
17 felt that it would be, over time, sufficiently screened.
18 And to the east, again, with no opposition, really, from
19 the immediate neighborhood. You have a school and you
20 have potential future residential, maybe two new lots on
21 that RL to the east that will further screen -- those
22 buildings will further screen this . That ' s how we
23 concluded that support .
24 But, again, we don' t see this has a -- as a
25 concern for setting a precedent along the -- the College
66
1 corridor, and again, I -- we had these same discussions
2 on east Mulberry, and that ' s why we had part of our
3 vision language, policy language, and say, we would
4 encourage outdoor storage behind the immediate frontage
5 of East Mulberry and -- and, in this case, South
6 College, to encourage more quality commercial projects
7 along the immediate interface of the highway. So
8 that ' s . . .
9 MS . ROLLINS : As the -- the plan stands right
10 now, I will not be supporting it . I drove all through
11 this whole neighborhood this afternoon, and we keep
12 talking about the commercial to the west . There ' s
13 residential to the north on the other side of Skyway.
14 There is residential that ' s two-story that looks right
15 on to this, to the -- the east, and it ' s urban estate to
16 the south. And so the look of the use that ' s only
17 allowed permitted in industrial, and to say that that ' s
18 compatible with what we ' re seeing right now, I
19 completely disagree with those findings .
20 Now, that being being said, when I was out
21 there, I did notice that TransFort -- or, not TransFort,
22 I 'm sorry, the School District, they -- when they did
23 their bus barn parking, which is open, it has a roof,
24 they -- I think they depressed or they depressed and
25 determined around there, so you have a very, very slight
67
1 visual impact, and -- and the impact of this doesn' t --
2 isn' t just for adjacent houses . I mean, you 've got that
3 huge open basin. I drove way into those other
4 neighborhoods, and you can see this -- this site from --
5 from all over the place .
6 So I would have to see extensive berming,
7 extensive landscaping, to really, really completely hide
8 this use from the potential urban estate to the south
9 from the existing uses, not just directly to the east of
10 the site, but even farthest than that, because when we
11 talked about allowing these additional uses, we -- I
12 know, talked about setting that bar extremely high, and
13 saying, okay, you know, if -- if we -- if something
14 comes before us and we really -- you know, it does make
15 sense somehow, we are going to set that bar very, very,
16 very, high, and I don ' t -- I don' t think in what I ' ve
17 seen so far, it ' s high enough. So I won' t be supporting
18 it the way it ' s proposed right now.
19 MR. STOCKOVER: What would it take to get it
20 high enough, in your mind?
21 MS . ROLLINS : Well, and -- and I don' t know,
22 Butch, like, I didn' t walk out to the berms that were
23 around the bus . I would say that those are probably
24 about as tall as me. So, you know, 7 feet -- no, just
25 kidding. You know, I would imagine that those are
68
1 probably 5 feet high, and if that -- if there could be
2 berming with landscaping on top of that, I think that
3 the visual appearance of that would -- would really help
4 to make -- to improve what ' s out there today.
5 You know, it doesn' t surprise me that people
6 who got notification of this, in the adjacent
7 neighborhood didn' t respond, because they' re sitting
8 there, probably going, what are they talking about?
9 There ' s RVs out there all over the place right now. I
10 mean, you know, if you' re not in some process, and you
11 don' t understand all the subleties of it, you might not
12 even know that this is an opportunity for that not to be
13 there right now. Okay.
14 So that -- that ' s not shocking to me . You
15 know, we kind of forgot, because we deal with this all
16 the time . So I would say it -- I -- you know, I don' t
17 know standards . Somebody with the City would know
18 better. But it would have to be really -- you know,
19 like 5 feet high. Maybe Gino would know. And with some
20 landscaping on top of -- on top of that, and, I don' t
21 know, a fence behind that . I mean, I think we have to
22 raise the bar really high, considering that we have
23 residential surrounding three sides of this . And, yes,
24 commercial to the other side, which we want to see
25 improve.
69
1 I mean, the commercial -- components of it,
2 some of those, as I drove -- wherever I could, I drove
3 behind every single one of those commercial properties .
4 Some of them look fantastic . Some of them don' t . But
5 you' re hoping, with this plan that that gets improved.
6 So I could -- if it -- if the bar was raised
7 even higher, support it, but as it stands right now, I
8 can' t .
9 MR. CAMPANA: I 'm no berm expert, so I won' t
10 even touch that one. I ' ve been trying to think of a
11 situation -- of another location in Fort Collins that
12 would be similar to what ' s taking place there. So
13 College and Mason and REI in the future, could this area
14 look something like that, with -- what ' s the name of the
15 new street going in there? Behind -- behind that little
16 buildings?
17 No, no, the new street going in behind Kelmar
18 strip there. So if Aran goes in, that could almost be
19 like Mason, behind REI, with commercial on both sides of
20 it . And when I look -- when I visualize, now, Mason
21 developed, which could be that Kelmar strip in 15
22 years -- who knows what the time frame is -- and I think
23 about those 8-foot-fence and outdoor storage taking
24 place there, it doesn' t set well with me . I don' t think
25 that ' s compatible with that type of use, and I see that
70
1 has what it could take in the future there, and what is
2 the intent of the zoning for that area .
3 MS . SCHMIDT: I guess the only one place I 'd
4 like to go, that I feel a little bit hesitant with, is
5 Mr. Whitman mentioned that he had something from the
6 County where if he were in the County now, you know,
7 where previously it was a violation, it would not be at
8 this point in time? Is anyone aware if that ' s accurate
9 or not .
10 I guess I -- I do feel -- I do feel for -- we
11 went to a lot of pains in that southwest enclave to try
12 to mitigate any effects for people that were switched
13 from, you know, County to City kinds of things, and
14 if -- if it were true that if, today, he were in the
15 County and whatever he wanted to do would be allowed,
16 then I feel, then, you know, possibly, that ' s something
17 we need to take into consideration. But I don' t -- I
18 don' t know. Since it wasn' t for many years, whether
19 that ' s true now or not .
20 MR. OLT: And I can' t speak to that. We
21 haven' t verified that . Obviously, Mr . Whitman has --
22 has stated that, you know, the County has changed
23 their -- their Land Use Code to permit this use in the C
24 commercial district. If he were still in the County, in
25 the commercial district, the use would be permitted.
71
1 MR. CAMPANA: Was he in the C district in the
2 County?
3 SPEAKER: Okay.
4 SPEAKER: My understanding was that he
5 wasn ' t .
6 MR. OLT: Based on my staff report, the
7 research I ' ve done, he was in FA farming in Larimer
8 County prior to being annexed.
9 SPEAKER: All those what-ifs would have to --
10 MR. OLT: In the City.
11 SPEAKER: There would be a zoning change .
12 He 'd still be in the County. The zoning change would
13 take place for that property to C zoning, and then it
14 would be allowed in there.
15 MR. CAMPANA: A few what-ifs .
16 MR. OLT: Correct .
17 MS . SCHMIDT: Did you want to speak to that,
18 Randy?
19 MR. WHITMAN: It would -- it would be the
20 same process as what we ' re doing right now. In the
21 whole thing with the County. But I would have been done
22 with it 10 years ago instead of trying to make it --
23 MR. CAMPANA: Well, 10 years ago, though, it
24 wasn' t allowed, right?
25 MR. WHITMAN: Right . It would have been,
72
1 when we were going through the process with the City
2 with the IGA and stuff, the City -- or the County was
3 going to approve with a special exception and stuff, but
4 with the City writing the letters from Greg Byrnes and
5 stuff, that ' s what it ended up with this whole process .
6 Okay.
7 MR. LINGLE: Well, I guess where I am is
8 that, I think it ' s a little premature for me, if -- if
9 it this -- the south corridor plan process had played
10 the out and we know where we were and that land was
11 zoned CL, I think I could look at this differently. But
12 with it being UE and RL, I definitely agree with Ruth in
13 terms of the compatibility issues and -- and that the --
14 that our evaluation of this needs to be at a high level .
15 I 'm looking at the -- granted, this is the
16 old language, in terms of addition of a permitted use,
17 but what we have to do is find all of these findings,
18 not -- correct, Paul?
19 MR. ECKMAN: Right .
20 MR. LINGLE: And for me, finding E, that --
21 to be in compliance with the requirements and criteria
22 contained in Section 3 . 5. 1, I -- I don ' t find that it is
23 in compliance, in my mind. So I can' t support this . I
24 mean, if it -- if it does become zoned CL in the future
25 in the surrounding land, I think I could be persuaded to
73
1 change my opinion if it came back to us at that point,
2 but . . .
3 MR. OLT: I -- I could add something to that
4 if you 'd like, and this is just based on a discussion I
5 had with Mr . Wilder this afternoon, relative to the
6 South College corridor plan and the fact that he has
7 brought -- this is just factual . You know, he made me
8 aware that, you know, he ' s brought updates to that of
9 that plan to the Board on several occasions, most
10 recently in August .
11 And in each case, it ' s his opinion that, you
12 know, they -- they describe, you know, what the --
13 the -- basically, what the intent of the plan was and
14 where we were going from the land use and zoning
15 standpoint, and, you know, indicated, and -- and even to
16 the extent where he specifically said, this -- this site
17 in question was -- was actually discussed as being
18 proposed by staff, of course, to be zoned C commercial,
19 with the adoption of the plan, and it ' s -- it ' s an
20 opinion he ' s never heard any opposition from, you know,
21 Board members to that -- that change . And that' s just,
22 like I say, a -- a fact, based on discussion I had this
23 afternoon with Timothy.
24 MS . SCHMIDT : Steve, I would say that that ' s
25 probably accurate. I would say that at the times that
74
1 Timothy has been there, I think some of our discussions
2 about the south corridor plan have focused on different
3 things, the way this was, the expense of people trying
4 to redevelop along there, what they have to pay for
5 improvements on College and Aran -- whatever the name of
6 that street is .
7 So we ' ve discussed some of those things in
8 detail . I don' t think we 've discussed every single one
9 of the recommended changes in the plan in detail,
10 because, personally, I -- you know, when you brought up
11 that it was going to be CL, I have some concerns with
12 that, just because it is so close to a natural area. If
13 it stays CL with some of the restrictions there, that
14 might be appropriate. But if they' re going to change
15 those so that it ' s more like what ' s on Riverside, you
16 know, that -- it ' s still something I ' d have to look at
17 in more detail .
18 And I don' t think we ' ve discussed, as far as
19 I can recall, the times that Timothy' s been there, we
20 haven' t discussed each and every one . You know, he' s
21 probably mentioned them, and then maybe there ' s been one
22 that we 've highlighted on. So I don' t -- I don' t want
23 to speak for the whole Board, but I can say that I
24 haven' t given all the aspects of it as careful enough a
25 review as if -- as if a whole plan would come and we 'd
75
1 be, you know, waiting to approve it at a hearing. So --
2 I don' t know if other people agree with that .
3 MR. STOCKOVER: I say we have a motion and
4 vote on it .
5 MS . SCHMIDT: Go for it, Butch.
6 MR. STOCKOVER: If we make -- if we vote and
7 it ' s a tie, is that not an approval?
8 MR. ECKMAN: That ' s correct .
9 MR. STOCKOVER: So it would be, in effect, a
10 denial?
11 MR. ECKMAN: That ' s correct .
12 MR. STOCKOVER: Okay. And then his options
13 would be to take it to City Council for over -- if he
14 didn' t agree with that.
15 MR. ECKMAN: Your decisions are appealable to
16 Council . That ' s right.
17 MR. STOCKOVER: Okay. Well, are you guys
18 ready for a motion? Or more discussion?
19 I move to approve the Whitman Storage
20 Facility Addition of Permitted Use, item 11-08 B, and in
21 support of my motion, I adopt the findings of facts and
22 conclusions as contained on Page 6 and 7 of the staff
23 report, with the exclusion of item G on Page 7, because
24 there is known opposition, and we got the letter . I
25 would also include the following: On Page 5, item 6,
76
1 first paragraph, it -- we strike the second word
2 "proposed" -- and this we discussed -- and the second
3 paragraph, 6, the word -- we strike the word "proposed. "
4 Oh, sorry. The first paragraph, I had the
5 the wrong "proposed. " It would be the fourth line down,
6 the second word, "proposed, " that is stricken.
7 MS . SCHMIDT: With those being conditions of
8 approval, those two last things you added?
9 MR. ECKMAN: Did you say in the second
10 paragraph, the entire paragraph, or just the first
11 sentence of the second paragraph there?
12 MS . SCHMIDT: The first sentence, I think, is
13 what -- we ' re striking the whole sentence?
14 MS. SCHMIDT: We ' re using the first sentence .
15 MR. STOCKOVER: I thought we were just
16 striking this one word.
17 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, but the second sentence is
18 unnecessary to the condition, is it not, in that
19 paragraph?
20 SPEAKER: Yeah, I think -- I think the goal
21 of David' s original concern was that there be adequate
22 landscaping along the fence, along the whole perimeter,
23 and so I think, possibly, if you want to bolster the
24 8-foot-high fencing and landscaping, there had been some
25 talk about doing evergreen landscaping instead of
77
1 deciduous trees. Then you don' t need that second
2 sentence at all that talks about additional landscape
3 plantings .
4 MS . SCHMIDT: Well, my -- my concern was, it
5 was adding the second sentence of the first paragraph
6 and the first sentence of the second paragraph as
7 conditions of approval .
8 MR. STOCKOVER: Can we add that as a friendly
9 amendment, and I ' ll just strike my additional
10 conditions? That ' s what I ' d like to do, and have you
11 add that as an amendment to my motion, please .
12 MS . SCHMIDT: Second sentence of the first
13 paragraph under number 6, and the first sentence of the
14 second paragraph under number 6, striking the two -- the
15 two words "proposed" in each of those?
16 MR. ECKMAN: Right.
17 MS . SCHMIDT: Okay. As conditions of
18 approval .
19 MR. ECKMAN: Yes . What about the conditions
20 that staff had recommended? Is that under
21 consideration? Pardon?
22 MR. OLT: Paul, that ' s on the next item.
23 That ' s not on this one.
24 MR. ECKMAN: Oh, that ' s on the next item.
25 MR. OLT: It ' s on the Project Development
78
1 Plan. Yes .
2 MR. SCHMIDT: Yes . Now we just need a
3 second.
4 MR. WETZLER: Second.
5 MS . SCHMIDT: Okay. Any more discussion, or
6 are we ready to vote? Vote?
7 I guess we' re ready to vote, Angelina.
8 THE CLERK: Okay. Let ' s go to Rollins .
9 MS . ROLLINS : No.
10 THE CLERK: Wetzler?
11 MR. WETZLER: Yes .
12 THE CLERK: Campana?
13 MR. CAMPANA: No.
14 THE CLERK: Lingle?
15 MR. LINGLE : No.
16 THE CLERK: Stockover?
17 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes .
18 THE CLERK: Schmidt .
19 MS . SCHMIDT: No.
20 THE CLERK: Defeated, four to two.
21 MS . SCHMIDT: And I think Mr. Whitman heard
22 from the comments, I -- I think people, you know, are
23 very much -- I hate to use on the fence with this, but,
24 you know, the discussion being, with -- if -- if another
25 proposal came back with additional landscaping and then
79
1 maybe at the time that the zoning was -- is changed for
2 that other parcel of property, things might look
3 differently.
4 So we ' ll move along to the discussion of the
5 PDP.
6 (Matter concluded. )
7 * +
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25