HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAXI-STUFF STORAGE - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 9-99 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY COUNCILl
t
f
N 63' S]' R•40,43' e
J� 5n OATH ITT -TIT
90 •Or. �.l7.OY
A � 1 � � !N •d iNi+ � ���
IY •9O rfi�
Z � rob. RO�Yl WI1 ' ro •b J WI1 -
4PmJ.
1
1
: t LOT Ia:'
,
( m
r
11 1 lu W. no��wn � Itl
e a
N 99' 4* WE R-47000'�I N IN
11 ll 4y y 777r
Y Qt 9t
r
t
�139�
�(O%A M2c;-i,K& `t-rode, a4S lb 41n-e. L.U1C-'
R.4o.49' q
-TAN .
917E DATA. 4 -
.ram � Wmw Y. YnCN IY
_
t - — W
{iX, IY tl
iA tl INItI
b .YG
in
�i ryb nn Wm IM r.S�
LL I
N 09' 40' 44' E R-41OD0
�35
e.a a yIXJ�
LL
eie
Y
to
Jj-
IIfIEi
mill
le !p le
let lc
r
�f
i�
o-
• N ... A.. � GC
\ \ \
! `1
9e ! ae
r
! m
g
o
WE DATA,
IN Yam•
� '�__
• �
�—i.Ia•.�
\Y Y. IL IO-
YiY�• •1WY rW
/ v
•I
rwo.r ��Yra�
.
__ __ —
Y .o.•n ai.rw •oa
� yaG
lie
pppp
t1
t1
Lau
1
r
y
aa
I9
Y�
r
��- . fc-,!5v,
- aw*"t WWA& o6vjo� tr,
r
�s
A(J' ,P.rrh
5 IMTX
1-1
ova®
IN!
December 10, 1999
City of Fort Collins
City Clerk
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522-6580
DEC 1 4 D
CITY CLERK
As Partners in the entity of Riverside/Prospect, LLC, owners of the property at 1640 Riverside Avenue, we
desire to appeal to the Fort Collins City Council the decision on item number 6 of the November 18, 1999 Fort
Collins Planning and Zoning Board meeting. This item dealt specifically with a proposed modification to
Section 4.23(E)(2)(b) and Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 of the Land Use Code (LUC) for Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640
Riverside Avenue. Our grounds for appeal is that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the code and charter at the Public Hearing November 18, 1999.
As specified in Section 2.8.2 the Planning and Zoning Board shall review and make a decision on a
modification request based upon the following criteria:
"...the granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair
<" the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code; and that:
• The plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard
for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would-wfan which complies
with the standards for which a modification is requested
As presented at the public hearing the plan proposed which requires a modification meets the intent of the LUC
and actually advances the public interests more than a plan which conforms to the LUC. As specified in the
LUC the property could be developed with buildings abutting the 30' Landscape Setback with much more of an
industrial and storage uq# appearance. Our intention with the office/warehouse concept is to provide a
commercial appearing facility which acts as a buffer to the more industrial appearing storage units. This
arrangement creates:an upscale image that can be used to define a commercial appearance of the Riverside
corridor rather_than an industrial appearance.
Attached is a copy of the desired plan requiring modifications and a plan that conforms to the LUC. The plan
which conforms to the LUC was the idea presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on November 18. This
plan creates a development with a much greater industrial, storage building image thereby perpetuating the
industrial appearance of Riverside Avenue.
With the desire of creating a visually pleasing environment and allowing an infill property to develop we
hereby request the Fort Collins City Council to hear our appeal of the November 18 Planning and Zoning Board
decision regarding Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640 Riverside Avenue.
Sincerely,
Tom Smith Clayton Schwerin
Partner, Riverside/Prospect, LLC Partner, Riverside/Prospect, LLC
NC; ex
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard
would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that
the proposed project would substantially address an important community
need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's
Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as, by
way of example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or would
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-
wide concern (such as, by way of example only, traffic congestion or
urban blight), and the strict application of such a standard would render
the project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited
to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or
topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to
install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought
to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical
difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such
property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the
act or omission_ of the applicant."
The Planning and Zoning Board, on November 18, 1999, denied the requests for
Modifications of Standards, citing their finding that the request will not advance or
protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for
which a modification is requested. The following reasons were given:
The site is in an area that is somewhere between industrial and employment,
and the plan as submitted does not meet either with the modification.
2. Looking at the City's long-range urban planning goals, at some point, the existing
buildings are going to redevelop. If we stay with the standards in the LUC, it will
ultimately make for a better urban streetscape.
5
Section 4.23(E) Development Standards, Subsection 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 Site
Design - Screening states:
"A minimum 30' deep landscaped yard shall be provided along all arterial
streets, and along any district boundary line that does not adjoin a
residential land use. If a district boundary abuts upon or is within a street
right-of-way, then the required landscaped yard shall commence at the
street right-of-way line on the district side of the street, rather than at the
district boundary line."
The Appellants submitted an alternative plan proposing to allow a 12' wide
landscape setback along Riverside Avenue in lieu of the 30' setback as
prescribed in the LUC. The landscape setback reduction to 12' is warranted
because the alternative plan proposes to: 1) provide a greater amount of
landscape materials within the setback than is required by the LUC; and 2)
construct an earthen berm, with plantings on top, within the setback area. The
increased landscape treatment is designed to enhance the visual effect and
character of this development and surrounding area.
The Appellants have proposed that the modifications of these standards meets the
requirements of Sections 2.8.2(H)(1) and (3) of the LUC. Their contention is that
approval of requests for modifications will allow for the development of an upscale
storage facility that has the appearance of a commercial establishment. As proposed,
this development would enhance the image of the area through increased landscaping
materials and the appearance of a commercial development rather than an industrial
facility. The Appellants feel that the proposed development, with the requested
modifications, is much better than (equal to or better than) a development that conforms
to the standards.
As specified in Section 2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures, (H) (Standards), the
Planning and Zoning Board shall review, consider, and approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for a modification based upon:
"... the granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public
good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code; and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and
purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested equally
well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for
which a modification is requested; or
4
• The plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and
purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested
equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the
standards for which the modification is requested.
As presented at the public hearing the plan proposed which requires a modification
meets the intent of the LUC and actually advances the public interests more than a
plan which conforms to the LUC. As specified in the LUC the property could be
developed with buildings abutting the 30' Landscape Setback with much more of an
industrial and storage unit appearance. Our intention with the office/warehouse
concept is to provide a commercial appearing facility which acts as a buffer to the
more industrial appearing storage units. This arrangement creates an upscale image
that can be used to define a commercial appearance of the Riverside corridor rather
than an industrial appearance.
Staff Response:
The Appellants' request was for modifications of two standards as set forth in the LUC:
Section 4.23(E) Development Standards, Subsection 4.23(E)(2)(b) Building
Design - Orientation states:
'Along arterial streets and any other streets that directly connect to other
districts, buildings shall be sited so that a building face abuts upon the
required minimum landscaped yard for at least 30% of the building frontage.
Such a building face shall not consist of a blank wall."
The Appellants submitted an alternative plan proposing to allow the western
buildings' storefronts to be set back from the landscaped yard without any of the
building facades abutting the setback line (Note: These buildings were designed
with office/display areas facing Riverside Avenue, with storage/warehouse space
behind. Additional buildings to the east were to be limited to self -storage units).
The reason given for the alternative plan was that to meet the requirement of the
LUC, the buildings would either have to be turned 90 degrees of they would have
to be moved towards (closer to) Riverside Avenue, with the public parking
located to the rear of the buildings. Moving the buildings closer to Riverside
Avenue and placing the public parking to the rear would compromise the security
of the facility by increasing the public access to the storage areas, thereby
increasing the possibility of vandalism and theft, and creating conflict between
the public parking for the commercial storefront offices and the overhead door
access into the commercial storage units in the rear of the western buildings.
The intent is to separate the commercial activities from the self -storage area with
a security gate.
3
b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously
established rules of procedure;
C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings
which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or
d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant
evidence offered by the appellant."
The Appeal:
(Note: Bold text represents excerpts from the appeal document)
Appellants: Tom Smith
Partner, Riverside/Prospect, LLC
Clayton Schwerin
Partner, Riverside/Prospect. LLC
Grounds for Appeal:
On December 14, 1999, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office
regarding the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the Notice of Appeal from the
Appellants Tom Smith and Clayton Schwerin, it is alleged that:
The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter at the Public Hearing on November 18, 1999.
As Partners in the entity of Riverside/Prospect, LLC, owners of the property at 1640
Riverside Avenue, we desire to appeal to the Fort Collins City Council the decision
on item number 6 of the November 18, 1999 Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
meeting. This item dealt specifically with a proposed modification to Section
4.23(E)(2)(b) and Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 of the Land Use Code (LUC) for Maxi -Stuff
Storage, 1640 Riverside Avenue. Our grounds for appeal is that the Planning and
Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the code
and charter at the Public Hearing November 18, 1999.
As specified in Section 2.8.2 the Planning and Zoning Board shall review and make
decision on a modification request based upon the following criteria:
• "...the granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the
public good nor impair the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code;
and that:
2
City of Fort Collins
Commu_ .y Planning and Environmental, .vices
Current Planning
MEMORANDUM
TO: . Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Stephen Olt, City Plannerfo
THRU: Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S.
Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director
DATE: January 5, 2000
RE: Modification of Standards in Section 4.23(E)(2)(b) and Section
4.23(E)(3)(a)2 of the Land Use Code for the Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640
Riverside Avenue — Appeal to City Council
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal regarding the November 18,
1999 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the request for two Modifications
of Standards of the Land Use Code LUC for the proposed Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640
Riverside Avenue.
The property is zoned I — Industrial and is located on the east side of Riverside Avenue just
north of East Prospect Road (see attached Vicinity Map).
Section 2-48 of the City Code states:
"Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be stated,
the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or
commission committed one or more of the following errors:
(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter;
(2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as
contained in the Code and Charter;
1
281 North College Avenue - PO. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6750 - FAX (970) 416-2020