HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAXI-STUFF STORAGE - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 9-99 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILAn earthen berm will be constructed within the 12' landscape area to provide additional screening
along Riverside Avenue. Plantings atop the berm will enhance the visual effect and character of
the development.
Division 3.7 of -the LUC recommends lots in infill.situations should be developed first to help
prevent urban sprawl. Development of this infill property addresses the concerns in the LUC and
will allow one of the few remaining vacant parcels along Riverside Avenue to be developed in a
positive manner that increases the character of the existing neighborhood.
Are there exceptional physical conditions or extraordinary and exceptional -conditions unique to this
property?
Most properties along Riverside Avenue have been developed during the past twenty to thirty
years and do not conform to any common design characteristic. None of the properties conforms
to the thirty foot. landscape setback requirement for this zone district. In fact most of the
properties have parking immediately adjacent to the attached sidewalk with little or no
landscaping on the property. Requiring this property to be developed with the 30' landscape
setback along Riverside Avenue will create a development that is out of context with the
neighborhood and place this property at a disadvantage in developable area.
For these above listed reasons we are hereby requesting a modification to the Land Use Code. If you should
have any questions please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Ro n
Wickham Gustafson, Architects
Modification — Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640 Riverside Avenue — Filing #9-99
November 18, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
(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 applicant has proposed that the modification of standards meet the requirements of
Sections 2.8.2(H)(1) and (3) of the LUC.
2. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
This request is to modify Section 4.23(E)(2)(b) to allow the proposed building storefronts to
be set back from the landscaped yard without any of the building abutting the setback line.
To meet the requirement the buildings would either have to be turned 90 degrees or they
would have to be moved towards Riverside Avenue, with the proposed public parking
located to the rear of the buildings. Moving the buildings towards Riverside Avenue and
placing the necessary public parking to the rear would create several major and
undesirable situations:
1. Security of the facility would be greatly compromised. Safe, secure storage for large
vehicles or large quantities of items is the target market for this development. To
place the public parking at the rear of the buildings would require that either the
security gate controlling the access to the storage areas be eliminated or that public
access to the parking areas be eliminated. The buildings are designed to allow
public access to the front portion of the buildings along Riverside Avenue. Without
direct access by the public the targeted market for these spaces is not tenable.
2. Increased access.of the public to the storage areas would lead to an increase in
vandalism and theft and would greatly compromise the security of the facility.
Recent thefts and vandalism at other storage facilities in the Fort Collins area
reinforces the need for secure storage of personal belongings.
3. Placing parking at the rear. of the buildings creates conflict between the parking for
the storefront offices and the overhead door access into the storage units. For a
large truck to enter a front storage space would require encroachment into the
vehicle parking spaces. In addition, there is greater conflict between trucks and cars
in the compliant layout due to the fact that the vehicle parking area is on either side
of the main drive entry into the facility.
33
1 intent for this development.
2 I'm just saying that by you putting these
3 buildings here (indicating) with a commercial storefront
4 appearance to them
acting as
a buffer between these uses
5 and then these uses
back here
which are more of an
6 industrial appearance with the overhead doors that would
7 be on either side here, this acts as a good buffer.
8 Otherwise, if we turn these buildings 90 degrees to
9 maintain that 30-foot setback, you'd have much more
10 visibility of those overhead doors and the industrial
11 appearance that those give from Riverside.
12 MR. GAVALDON: Another question_, it was about the
13 parking there. If there was opportunity to adjust the
14 security, like I was talking earlier, and pushing it --
15 I'm not trying to design your project. I'm just giving
16 you ideas, sharing some opportunities.
17 If there was a revisiting of the security
18 approach to it and the parking be more in the security
19 area or less secured with the staging security, it seems
20 like -- and keeping it commercial as you want and more to
21 pedestrian friendly, is there opportunity to look at that?
22 MR. GUSTAFSON: Well, the parking that's out here
23 (indicating) is for people that are going to meet mavDe a
24 plumber or a tile person. Or coming in here that they
25 need -- they just need access to the front of the
15
1 in some instances, if they're a tile installer,
2 that somebody could come in and look at different samples
3 of tile. So that's where we came up with -- in the front
4 here, more of a commercial -type of appearance. Not
5 retail. These aren't retail facility. It's a
6 commercial -- more of -- commercial appearing, but more of
7 an office, warehouse -type of situation.
8 One of the things we also saw was very important
9 was, with this type of a facility, is that there's public
10 access, unrestricted public access to the office
11 commercial front, but highly secured restricted storage to
12 the back here where there is warehouse and storage space.
13 Now everybody has seen in the paper -- over the
14 last several months the number of vandalism and thefts
15 that have been occurring in storage spaces in the Fort
16 Collins area. This is a facility that is designed to
17 prevent that or to at least as much possible to reduce
18 that.
19 One of the things we were also looking at was a
20 centralized location. Some place near the heart of Fort
21 Collins so we didn't have a contractor working at the
22 north end of town that had to drive all the way to
23 Loveland or all the.way -- hopefully cut down on the
24 vehicle miles traveled that these guys are having to
25 do. So we found a spot here on Riverside.
1
1 Mg.. GP_VALDON: Welcome back everyone to the -- to
2 the Planning and Zoning Board meeting for November
3 18th. Next item is modification of the standard for the
4 Maxi -Stuff Storage.
Steve, are
you ready?
5 NL2. OLT:
We're ready
to go. Good evening, Mr.
6 Chairman and Members of the Board. I'm going to do this a
7 little differently than I normally would in that in the
8 interest of expediting the item and with modifications of
9 standards being somewhat nontraditional, I'm going to
10 actually read from the staff recommendation to you because
11 of the citations in the code that are a little difficult
12 to memorize.
13 So moving ahead. Again, as you indicated this is
14
a request for two modifications of standards in the land
15
develop -- or in the Land Use Code. I better get into the
16
right system. Land Use Code, being Section 4.23 --
' 17
3
4.23(e) development standards in the I, Industrial Zone,
18
again, of the Land Use Code. And more specifically we'll
19
be dealing with subsections 4.23(e)2(b), that's building
20
design orientation, and subsection 4.23(e)3(a)2, being the
21
site design screening.
0
4
22
This property is located at 1640 Riverside Avenue
f
23
and is on the east side of Riverside Avenue just north of
24
East Prospect Road. Again, the property is in the I,
25
Industrial, zoning district.
n
1
N 99' 91' 40. E R.4 3.49' i
911E OATAr 1
IMLM
li
A/ ^ IYOIq. .1Y�RIY YiOt'1O\yf
4Pm A♦ b 1�11� i (� i7
gg ' i 11
rwo�s+-w�a�oa •.eye —
1
N 99' 49' 44' E IC.47000' I8 Q8
Ye lie
IL
si
17
1 is a small corridor here where you can actually see. And
2 all you're going to see is more open space. You're not
3 going to see a building.
4 Steve, could you go to the next -- next slides?
5 In your package, there are actually three site
6 plans. You can go one more. Go to the site plans.
7 MR. OLT: I don't think I. have that?
8 MR. GJSTAFSON: In your package you'll see that
9 there's actually two compliant site plans and then the
10 site plan that we have in front of you with the two
11 modifications. In those -- in the compliant site plans,
12 one of them we actually took the buildings and turned them
13 90 degrees and slid them to the 30-foot setback. What
14 happens then is the front of the building becomes
15 extremely visible to Riverside. And those have a --
16 because of the nature of them, are going to have more of
17 an industrial appearance to them. So we lose that
18 up -scale commercial appearance that we were trying to
19 obtain.
20 One of the other ones also is where we moved --
21 we actually took the buildings and flipped them and tried
22 to put the parking in the back. Again, what happens
23 there, we end up with a severe conflict between the large
24 vehicles that are going to be getting into that back area
25 into the warehouse portion of the buildings, and then
64
1 STATE OF COLOPADO )
2 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF LARLMER )
4 I, Anne Hansen, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary
5 Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the
6 preceding videotape was transcribed, Request for
7 Modification of Maxi -Stuff Storage; that said precedings
8 were taken down by me in stenotype notes and thereafter
9 reduced under my supervision to the foregoing 65 pages;
10 that said transcript is an accurate and complete record of
11 the proceedings so taken.
12 I further certify that I am not related to, employed
13
by, nor of
co=.sel to
any of the
parties or attorneys
14
herein nor
otherwise
interested
in the outcome of the
15 case.
16 Attested to by me this 7th day of December, 1999.
17
18
19
20
r ,
2 2
23 n
.f�M t�Qn'✓l f�
Anne Hansen
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
140 West Oak Street, Suite 266
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506
25 My commission expires: 02/13/03
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. CRP_IG: Yes.
THE CLERK: Carpenter.
MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
THE CLERK: Bernth.
MR. BERNTH: No.
THE CLERK: Gavaldon.
MR. GAVALDON: Yes. Motion's denied. Any other
business? The modification is denied. I'm sorry. Thank
you.
W
1 one because I do also agree with Mika! that it is a nice
2 plan, better than what's there. But I just -- having the
3 same problem I can't get past that "better than or emsal
4 to."
5 So I agree with Sally that these modifications
6 are tough ones, but I just still feel like we can come up
7 with some kind of a compromise that we can make it work
8 for both sides and actually meet -- maybe be able to do a
9 slight modification and meet the equal to or better
10 than. So I'll support the motion.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I'm going to be supporting
12 the motion, too. I think Dan attempted on some neat
13 suggestions. But with concepts and stuff, and I'm
14 struggling with the two. And I'm looking at the bigger
15 picture and what Riverside is going to bring. And with
16 the issues and the process on this, it just seems like we
17 could have achieved a compromise and better plan. But I
18 didn't see that.
19 So I'm going to support the motion as made and
20 second it because I feel that it does not meet that
21 particular part of the modification process.
22 May we have role call, please?
23 THE CLERK: Torgerson.
24 MR. TORGERSON: Yes.
25 THE CLERK: Craig.
M.1
1 years from now, those buildings will redevelop. And if we
2 can stay with the standards, it will ultimately be a
3 better -- better urban streetscape.
4 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Paul, did -we cover the
5 denial and the specifics we need so in case it goes appeal
6 we have given Council our reason for denial?
7 MR. ECKMAN: I think so. From what I heard, you
8 had indicated the reasons why you didn't think it advanced
9 the standard as well as compliance would have, and that it
i0 was -- did I hear it was detrimental to the public good?
11 I can't remember if I heard that.
12 MR. GAVALDON: Sally, you want to clarify that
13 for us?
14 MS. CRAIG: No. To me it's that "equally well or
15 better than." It's number one. "The plan as submitted
16 will advance or protect the public interest and purposes
17 of the standard for which the modification was requested
18 equally well or better than would a plan which complies
19 with the standard for which a modification is requested."
20 MR. ECKMAN: I think that's sufficient to support
21 a denial.
22 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Sally, for
23 clarifying. We just wanted to make sure we have good
24 specifics. Any other Board discussion? Jennifer.
25 MS. CARPENTER: I'm really struggling wish this
m
1 that bothers me. I have the same concerns Dan does.
2 Well, what is going to come in? Are we losing by not
3 letting this? But cn the other hand, we can't let every
4 person that stands up there -- that's what we keep running
5 into with these modifications. They make us feel so
6 doggone bad, that I just wish that we could get over the
7 hump on these things. And I don't know how that's going
8 to happen. That's my motion.
9 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Is there a second to the
10 motion?
11 MR. TORGERSON: I'll second.
12 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. We have a first and second
13 for denial. Any Board discussion?
14 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah. I just wanted to say, I
15 think it's a very nice plan. And compared to what's
16 there, it's substantially better. I'm kind of hung up
17 on as -- achieves the purposes as well or better than a
18 plan that substantially complies. I just can't seem to
19 meet that criteria. And I'm judging the merit of this
20 modification specifically based on what the code requires
21 me to not based on the project's merit because it is a
22 nice project and it's substantially better than what's
23 there.
24 I just thick, you know, looking at the long-range
25 urban planning goals, at some point, maybe it's a thousand
59
1 First, I would recommend the approval of the
2 modification of standards in Sections 4.23(e)2(b) and
3 Sections 4.23(e)3(a)2, the Land Use Code for Maxi -Stuff
4 Storage, as long as they substantially adhere to the
5 conceptual plans delivered to the Planning and Zoning
6 board, those plans being number 1, number 3, and number 4
7 and number 5 of 7 outlined on their initial plans, and
8 that granting the request for modification would not be
9 detrimental to the public good nor would it impair the
10
intent and purposes of
the Land Use
Code,
and
11
additionally, the plan
as submitted
will
advance and
12
protect the public interest
and purposes
of the
standard
13
for which the modification
is requested
equally
well or
14 better than a plan which complies with the standard for
15 which a modification is requested.
16 MR. GAVALDON: Is there a second to the motion?
17 Very good motion. Okay. Not seeing a second, that motion
18 dies for lack of a second. Does anyone want to make an
19 attempt on the motion or do we need more discussion?
20 MS. CRAIG: I might as well get right out there
21 with Dan.
22 I move that we deny it. I don't feel that it is
23 equally well or better than a plan. I think that
24
somewhere
here
we're between industrial
and employment,
25
and they
aren't
meeting either by this
modification. And
58
1 sidewalk, they: is there going to be a raised area that's
2 landscaped between you and the parking lot?
3 MR. GUSTAFSON: Yes. Yes. It will -- from the
4 sidewalk, it will come up to 30 inches and then drop back
5 down probably 3 feet, 3 and a half feet before you even
6 get to the parking lot level.
7 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. And if we just have that
8 on the record, does that make it legal even though this is
9 wrong?
10 MR. FCKMAN: Well, I think so. But I was
11 think_n.- about that condition some more in looking at
12 these elevations and wondering if I might have advised you
13 a littlebit too far with that. Because if you pin -- if
14 you pin a condition to specific elevations, that might
15 have been Mr. Gustafson's general idea of what a building
16 might look like, but it might not actually turn out to be
17 exactly like teat.
18 So maybe you should refer to it as being
19 substantially similar or something along those lines so
20 that t^e hearing officer doesn't have to mandate the
21 build-=igs look precisely like those pictures.
22 MR. CAVALDON: Well, anyone want to do another
23 run on a motion?
24 MR. BI."RNrzl: I'll take a stab and embarrass
25 myself one more time.
57
1 it's okay with me. I just wanted to be sure since it
2 didn't show it.
3 MR. GUSTAFSON: Actually, if you look at sheet 5
4 of 7, shows a cross section through the -- through the
5 site showing where the trees are, a berm there. In
6 actuality that's probably not a real accurate
7 representation because from that point the land slopes to
8 the east. So as you get further from Riverside, the
9 ground is going to slope away from Riverside. And so
10 you're actually going to be lower as you get further from
11 Riverside.
12 So even with the 30-foot -- the 30-inch berm
13 right there, cars are going to actually be lower because
14 the _round continues to slope to the east. If you look on
15 sheet 5 of 7, that gives you a representation of now and
16 then when --
17 MS. CARPENTER: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I
18 understand what you're -- okay. But this doesn't show
19 this going down.. So I --
20 MR. GUSTAFSON: So that's why I said it's kind of
21 a misrepresentation is that we didn't -- we just drew the
22 paving flat, that it will be at the same level of
23 Riverside. Where actually the parking is going to be
24 lower than the street of Riverside.
25 MS. CARPENTER: So from walking down the
92
1 And that's -- my main concern is I don't want to see the
2 same stuff we've seen on Riverside Drive that we've seen
3 before.
4 MR. ECKMAN: In making a condition, I just think
5 you ought to -- maybe the entire package is what you ought
6 to refer to. But if you had certain things you wanted to
7 emphasize, such as those elevation or other things,
8 just -- it
would be helpful
to the
hearing
officer to
9 emphasize
those particular
things
that you
think are
10 important to you.
11
MS. CARPENTER: While you guys
are talking, can I
12
ask another question?
We requested at work
session that
13
we get a different cross section so that
it showed that
14
the berm was raised.
Did we get the --
remember the cross
15
sections didn't show
a raised berm? Or
at least we
16 couldn't find it.
17
MR. OLT: I don't think
we got --
that's not what
18
was given to me. The way it was
expressed
to me,
19
Jennifer -- obviously I wasn't at
the work
session. Is
20 there berming? Obviously the statement that there will be
21 berming has been given. There's a commitment for that.
22 That the drawing doesn't show it in text, it's shown on a
23 streetscaped plan. But that's, you know, again, an
24 elevation plan.
25 MS. CARPENTER: Well, if the commitment is there,
55
1 MR. 'ECKMAN: You can make that condition, and
2 then you have to rely on the hearing officer to understand
3 what your condition means. So I'd recommend that you --
4 you word it as carefully as you can and tie it to whatever
5 it is you think is important in this plan's presentation.
6 If you have specific slides, for example, that you want to
7 ask the hearing officer to focus on, that might be
8 helpful.
9 MR. BLANCHARD: We do have the elevation slides
10 if you want to take a quick look at those again that we
11 didn't have -- didn't show tonight. We've got a set of
12 elevations.
13 MR. OLT: Was my interpretation fair, Dan, of
14 what your c-=cern was?
15 MR. BERNTH: It certainly was. Again, my concern
16 is tha= we arant.a modification, and then they don't build
17 what we thin:- they're going to build. But if we have the
18 assurance from the applicant, I feel comfortable with
19 that.
20 The other concern is that it's tough to deny
21 because someone else may build a similar project. Maybe
22 not phis particular applicant, but another project that
23 is -- adheres to the code but is not as nice a project
24 that we're looking at now. In other words, the metal
25 buildings that they can build in -- on Riverside Drive.
54
1 the Industrial Zone. It's designed to be a visual buffer,
2 not necessarily a screen, but a visual buffer. And it's
3 desired to set back further. And that's the only case in
4 the Land Use Code where you do set back further.
5 Everything else has to comply with the build to line.
6 MR. OLT: You're encouraging the buildings to be
7 closer to the streets and sidewalks with direct pedestrian
8 access including in the E, Employment, Zoning District
9 right across the street.
10 MS. CRAIG: But what we're losing on this one is
11 the parking lot between the buffer and the building which
12 you wouldn't find in an employment district across the
13 street.
14 MR. OLT: That's correct. They would have to
15 mitigate that. If they wanted to do something like this,
16 it would have to be mitigated in some fashion in the E,
17 Employment, Zoning District.
18 MS. CRAIG: Thank you.
19 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. You want to attempt another
20 motion?
21 MR. BERNTH: That's all right. Paul, I'm going
22 to ask another question. Can we do that with -- again, we
23 don't have a plan, but conceptually we do have this
24 plan. Can we make that modification -- or excuse me --
25 that request of the applicant?
53
1 I, Industrial, Zoning District.
2 It's our belief that this would go to the
3 mixed -- mixed -use, nonresidential commercial section of
q Article 3.5.3, I believe it is. We deal with the building
5 setback from -- from right-of-way. Bob is getting into
6 that. So I think we'd be looking at that criteria.
7 This being an arterial street, I'm assuming it
6 would be between -- what is it? 10 and 25 feet from the
3 right-of-way line is where the building could be in the E,
10 Employment, Zoning District.
11 MS. CRAIG: So it could be as far away as 25
12 feet?
13 MR. OLT: From the right-of-way line.
14 MS. CRAIG: And that's the building. So that's
15 saving that they could have parking in front?
1E MR. BLANCHARD: No. You're still required that
17 you can't cross -- well, they could -- no. You can't --
is not across the entire front facade because there's still
1° the requirement that you can't cross drive isles that
20 we've dealt with on other projects. So it falls into that
21 whole -- two line section of the code that we've used on
22 others.
23 The reason -- I've always characterized the
24 reason for this 30-foot landscape setback in the
25 Industrial Zoning District is the type of uses you get in
52
1 one that has to do with affordable housing in advancing,
2 that kind of thing.
3 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thanks. Anyone? Sally, go
4 ahead.
5 MS. CRAIG: I need -- just wanted to ask one
6 question for clarification. Steve, if this was the
7
employment district, what -- how
far from the right-of-way
8
would they have to be? What are
the -- footage on
that?
9
Because, you know, they're right
across the street
from
10
employment. And that was one of
the things we were
hoping
11
to accomplish on Riverside is to
make it look more
like
12 employment and less like industrial.
13
And so it would
be
interesting to see --
because
14
we're kind of caught up on
that 30-foot setback --
whether
15
if -- if they make it look
like an employment and
if
16
employment is allowed to
be
so many feet from it,
then
17
maybe we're getting what
we
want, especially if we
can get
18
a condition that somehow
the
hearing officer will
make
19 this look like what they're claiming the plan, that we
20
supposedly haven't
seen,
look like.
21
MR. OLT:
We're
assuming -- in the E, Employment,
22 Zoning District, Bob and I are looking through the code
23 and we're not seeing the same kind of absolute setback
24 requirement in the E, employment, that you have in the I,
25 Industrial. That has been specifically designed for that
51
1 And I think that there's some language that could
2 be developed for a condition that would guarantee that.
3 That the hearing officer would then be -- have the
4 authority and also the responsibility of enforcing the
5 condition applied on the project by the Planning and
6 Zoning Board.
7 So if you're only comfortable with reducing 30
8 feet to 12 feet with the assumption that what those front
9 buildings are going to look like as what's been described
10 here, use that kind of a language in a motion and
11 condition the modification. Then it's incumbent upon the
12 staff and the hearing officer to do that.
13 MR. GAVALDON: Paul, before we go with a motion,
14 don't we need to note that this is equal or better than
15 these causes?
16 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. There are several things. You
17 need to find that this is not detrimental to the public
18 good, that it advances the intent and purposes of the land
19 use code. And then one of those three criteria, I guess
20 they were using the -- that it advances the purposes of
21 the standards as well or better than compliance would
22 have.
23- Although, I saw in your staff report some reference on
24 the hardship standard. I don't know which they're really
25 pursuing or which the Board favors. But certainly not the
50
1 to try another motion or more discussion?
2 MR. ECKMAN: Maybe I could interject.
3 MR. GAVALDON: Yes, Paul.
4 MR. ECKMAN: Bob and I were just talking. If you
5 were inclined to approve this modification, but you don't
6 have a plan but you kind of have a concept, I don't know
7 how comfortable you would feel in conditioning it on a
8 plan being brought -- that this modification would be
9 approved on condition that the plan that's presented be in
10 accordance with the concept you've been presented
11 tonight.
12 I know that's kind of general, but at least it's
13 got -- may have enough specificity in it to give you
14 comfort that when the plan comes in you can pin it to
15 that, that you see. That's just another possible way you
16 can go, if you want to try to motion.
17 MR. BLANCHARD: What I was thinking, Dan, is
18 listening to your comments, you've got a concern that
19 there's no guarantee that those two front buildings are
20 going to appear like they've been described. The only
21 thing we've got is the record. And if I'm interpreting
22 your concern right that you may be more comfortable with
23 the granting -- or approving a modification provided that
24 you have a nonindustrial appearance to those front two
25 buildings that you're going to see from the public way.
49
1 a plan is t at we don't.want to go through the full
2 engineering drawings spending 30, $40,000 to have a
3 project come in here and get shot down in flames. We
4 wanted to see if there was an acceptance of this type of a
5 plan before we go through all of that, engineering and
6 everything else.
7 If this is approved, that's what you would see.
8 If this is denied, then, to be that blunt, that's not what
9 you're going to see.
10
MR. BERNTH:
Under
those perimeters,
you're sort
11
of in a Catch-22 -- I
think
the Board is in a
Catch-22, is
12 if we deny this, we're at risk at seeing a project that
13 obviously would not be as attractive as this.
14 Sc essentially, again_, I feel like I'm in a
15 Catch-22 from the standpcint that I would like to see what
16 they're trying to do. I- is an in -fill project. It will
17 be an attraczive project. For that reason I would have to
18 suopc=c this modification at this time.
19 MR. GAVALOON: Are you prepared to make a motion?
20 MR. BERNTn: I would make a motion that --
21 recommend approval of the modification of standards in
22 Section 4.23(e)2(b) and Section 4.23(e)3(a)2, the Land Use
23 Code for Max_ -Stuff Storage, 1640 Riverside Avenue.
24 MR. GAVALDON: Is there a second? Not seeing a
25 second, the motion dies for lack of second. Maybe we want
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
absent of any particular PDP and would apply to whatever
plan they want to present, I believe. You don't really
have a plan.to consider at this time so it's hard to pin
this to any specific plan.
MS. CRAIG: Dan, I guess what we need to think
about in this regard is -- you know, I agree with what
you're saying. Would you be comfortable if you knew it
was connected to a plan?
MR. BERNTH: Yes. I would be more comfortable
with that.
MS. CR IG: Okay. Now what this applicant can do
then, is he can come through the system. This would be a
Type 2 with a modification on it. So he would be bringing
a -- I think I'm going in the right direction on this one.
He would be bringing a plan in front of us as a Type 2,
but we would have a plan. And then we could grant the
modification with the guaranty that it went with the
plan.
So I'm just letting you know that to keep in
mind. If this does end up getting denied tonight, he
still has an option which is very similar to what he did'
tonight, but it makes us more comfortable because we have
a guarantee that it's attached to a plan.
MR. GUSTAFSON: Maybe I can shed some light on
that, Dan. The reason we came before you tonight without
47
1 fairly amount -- a fairly large area of vacant industrial
2 lands in the city limits. And that criteria is going to
3 have to be applied throughout that zoning district. It's
4 not an isolated criteria for Riverside Avenue. So any
5 industrial district that, you know, fronts on an arterial
6 street, they're going to have to comply with that also.
7 So it was just kind of a clarification
8 recognizing the frustration that this Board has expressed
9 with a couple of projects that we've looked at along
10 Riverside. But do remember that it goes beyond just
11 Riverside Avenue.
12 MS. CARPENTER: I appreciate that reminder.
i3 Thanks.
14 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Bob.
15 MR. BERNTH: I had a v_uestion for Paul. Paul, if
16 we grant tis modification, does that mean that they can
17 use whatever -- excuse me -- whatever plan they want as
18 long as they get the 12-foot setback? In other words,
19 could they do, you know, just the one straight buildings
20 or do they have to adhere to this plan?
21 My only concern is granting that modification
22 then comes back with what we don't want to see.
23 MR. ECKMAN: This is just the modification
24 without a -- without a PDP coming before you. So yes, you
25 would -- your granting of this modification is kind of
46
1 MR. TORGERSON: And he can go through with any of
2 the alternar-e plans given this modification. So we
3 couldn't really just vote on a plan.
4 MR. GAVALDON: I agree with that, but I just
5 wondered maybe continuing would allow them to come back
6 either with a modification that's better than the current
7 one. It seems like we're struggling with it.
8 MS. CARPENTER: Let me ask a question. If we
9 denied this, could he still come back with a different
10 modification? Okay. So there's really no reason to
11 continue it.
12 MR. GAVALDON: I understand. Any other questions
13 or any Board thoughts? Are we getting close to a motion?
14 MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Chair, before you do a
15 motion, just a quick response to Jennifer's comments about
16 her frustration. I -- you know, and I -- this isn't for
17 discussion or anything unless you care to comment back.
18 But one of the things to remember about this
19 criteria, is that it implies throughout the industrial
20 zone property throughout the City. The frustration may be
21 experienced on one segment of the industrial zoned
22 property which is Riverside Avenue.
23 But, in fact, when you express frustration with
24 the criteria, just remember -- I would ask that you
25 remember that it is a valid criteria because we've got a
45
1 MR. TORGERSON: But it doesn't reduce your number
2 of units or create an economic hardship.
3 MR. GUSTAFSON: No. It would not, but it would
4 be a definite security concern on our part.
5 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. GAVALDON: I have a couple of comments. I
7 have to agree with Jennifer on this. And I think if we
8 start making a lot -- this modification, and then with
9 reference on July 1st modification, but I'm going to stay
10 with this particular modification because I feel that
11 there is opportunity to compromise and to make a better
12 plan. I happen to like the 7 to 7 plan. And I don't
13 think that's something that we can say we want the 7 to 7
14 versus the preferred plan.
15 I was wondering if the Board would be inclined to
16 support a continuance to allow the applicant to come back
17 date certain with a plan similar to 7 to 7, and a
18 justification for supporting 7 to 7 or not supporting 7 to
19 7, and why. And try to -- try to achieve some balance and
20 compromise. And even safeguard the security system. Is
21 this something that the Board would be inclined?
22 MR. TORGERSOA': The one note I would make, we're
23 not approving any plans, we're just giving him the
24 modification to the standard.
25 MR. GAVALDON: Okay.
44
1 don't have a secured facility that has monitors and
2 everything else and fencing, it's going to continue. So
3 that's -- our concern about that is the security and also
4 the conflict that can happen. Some guy's backing his
5 truck with the trailer and runs into somebody's car, then
6 he has a liability. And that's something that they're
7 going to look at. So I don't want them to have that
8 possibility that that's going to happen here. My
9 insurance has to pay to fix this guy's car.
10 MR. TORGERSON: Sure. But that would reouire
11 only two security gates versus one. It might be that
12 that's a better location to have your vehicle well off of
13 Riverside when he's punching his code in rather than
14 barely pulling off of Riverside and punching his code in.
15 MR. GUSTAFSON: It gets a little bit harder when
16 you start getting multiple entrances and multiple security
17 points. It gets harder to maintain the security of
18 those. Somebody drives through an opening, somebody may
19 be sneaking -- maybe it's at night he sneaks in and gets
20 in there and nobody sees him. Where at least with one
21 entry point we have secured -- we have security over that
22 point. The property really isn't that wide. I mean, it
23 isn't such a wide property that we need multiple
24 entrances. One entrance would give us the best security
25 . possibility.
43
1 that the Dowers that be decided that was the policy. We
2 didn't decide it. We're supposed to implement it, and
3 the- we get the modification. If it's never going to
4 happen, wy don't we get it changed so that we're not
5 having to deal with this policy all the time? Sorry. It
6 makes me crazy.
7 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thanks. Mikal?
8 IL. TORGERSON: Yeah. I had a question for Mr.
9 Gustafson. I'm looking at one of the plans that you said
10 was compliant with the -- with the LUC, 7 0_ 7 where you
11 brought the parking behind the building.
12 I!=. GUSTAFSON: Right.
13 ME. TORGERSON: And that obviously creates a bit
14 of :-e conflict with the warehouse use and perhaps a
15 conflict between the buses and the parking. But aside
16 from that, what was the major detriment from your
17 stan--4Doint?
18 MR. GUSTAFSON: That causes a real security
19 prohlem by having the parking in the back which was
20 primarily for Dublic use. There's no way to secure the
21 rest of the storage back there without having multiple
22 gates and entrances that we have to control. And it lust
23 cremes a security problem back there.
24 And with the rash of thefts and vandalisms that
25 have been in the storage units in Fort Collins, and if you
42
1 to comply with A-rticles 3 and 4, yes. Then they would be
2 subject to the same rules that this development proposal-
3 is.
4 M.R. GAVALDON: Thank you.
5 MR. BLANCHARD: Now remember if it is a change of
6 use, it may be processed as a minor amendment. It does
7. not mean that they're going to have to do a modification
8 and come into -- or come into compliance with the code to
9 test for a minor amendment, which I have been cautioning
10 you -not to use on another project, is that you do not go
11 into any further noncompliance than you already are.
12 So my suspicion is that along Riverside, as long
13 as -- ever_ if there is a change of use, as long as it's
14 not a chance in character and it's proposed as a minor
15 amendment, you're not going to see anything come into any
16 closer compliance except as perhaps landscaping.
17 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Good. Thanks, Bob.
18 Jennifer?
19 MS. CARPENTER: Here we are again. I'm having a
20 problem with this. We set a policy to change the
21 character of Riverside that we are -- we are supposed to
22 implement. But yet we get told that it's never going to
23 happen and then we go through all these modifications. It
24 does not make sense to me.
25 We have a policy in front of us that we're --
41
1 redeveloped, they could come in for either modification or
2 variances from the DBA to dress up their facility and have
3 their parking closer than we would have our parking out
4 here on the street.
5 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. I have a
6 question, if I may. Steve and Bob, if he's talking about
7 remodeling a new building, if the buildings get a new
8 facelift, do they still have to come through the process
9 and still have to meet the 30-foot if there's new
10 development Doing on along Riverside?
11 MR. OLT: I doubt that just a facelift would
12 require something like that. We'd have to look and see
13 what would trigger actually some sort of development
14 review that would then enable us to get into the -- the
15 articles, the pertinent articles of the Land Use Code.
16 But if they wanted to repaint, did some
17 remodeling or something like that, I don't know what in
18 the code that would bump that = to a major amendment or
19 even a chance of use or something like that. No. I doubt
20 seriously, unless it's dramatic.
21 MR. GAVALDON: But if they did a change of use or
22 redevelopment, they would follow the same process,
23 modification or whatever if they wanted to make some
24 differences.
25 MR. OLT: If whatever they do triggers their need
mus
1 the Land Use
Code. It's
not
something that
I think we
2 would really
be proud of
as
an addition out
here on
3 Riverside.
So it would
just
propagate the
industrial
4 appearance of Riverside.
5 MS. CARPENTER: I do understand that. But when
6 we're looking at the street as a whole and eventually what
7 we want to have happen is to have that be widened and have
8 it be the arterial width that it needs to be, and then to
9 have the buildings comply. It's not going to be pretty
10 enough to be sticking out that much further than the rest
11 of the buildings. You know, we need to try to start
12 getting to that. So I think that I would like to see some
13 kind of compromise that does both, to -- I . .
14 MR. GUSTAFSON: Okay. And the other thing is, as
15 you go west here (indicating), these buildings are even
16 closer to the street. In most instances reality is that
17 these buildings are not going to get torn down and
18 rebuilt. They're going to get remodeled. The structure
19 is fine. They don't look very good, but they could dress
20 them up. But you've got parking 10 feet off the street.
21 And this is an in -fill project. There's a lot
22 here (indicating). There's a couple other lots up the
23 street. Those are really the only vacant pieces of
24 property on Riverside.
25 So by trying to -- these properties, as they
M
1 any questions?
2 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah. I'd like to know what he's
3 thinking.
4 MR. GUSTAFSON: Well, I'd like to address your
5 comment, Ms. Carpenter. We could make this development
6 comply. Like I said, we could bring these buildings right
7 out here, right to the 30.-foot and make it look like an
8 industrial building. We do not want to do that. That is
9 not our intention.
10 Our intention is by putting a more up -scale
11 facility that is not out there on Riverside until you get
12 clear down by the hospital, to buffer from the public
13 right-of-way these more industrial appearing buildings.
14 We could put a building that looks very similar
15 to this on there (indicating), but we don't want to do
16 that. So we have come in with this plan saying with
17 strict letter of the Land Use Code, we could do this,
18 essentially. We don't want to do that.
19 So by some modifications, we could address up
20 this front here (indicating), make it more of a commercial
21 appearance and create that as a buffer from here to the
22 more industrial appearing buildings in the back. That
23 is -- that is our intention of asking for the
24 modification.
25 We could develop this property in compliance with
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
And then in theory if this were to develop out
without modifications, access between parking lots
wouldn't be as much of an issue as trying to tie into
existing buildings that were there.
So that to me doesn't strike me as much of a
hardship because I think everbody's going to be under the
same set of rules there.
MS. CARPENTER: I am having a hard time believing
that three spaces here is a showstopper or that it
couldn't economically work and that we can't come up with
any kind of a compromise.
I do think we need to be looking at this street
as changing. And if we continue to grant a modification
for -- for encroaching into that, we're not ever going to
get there. And it really concerns me to be -- you know,
we keep -- we keep doing this. And it really does bother
me that we're -- we're there. And this one just seems to
me there's got to be a way to compromise this and make it
work so that we're at least a lot closer to the 30 feet.
I don't know that 3 feet helps me much to go from
12 to 15 feet. I think we can actually get closer than
that. So I'm not inclined to vote for it or approve it.
MR. GAVALDON: Does anyone have any questions for
Mr. Gustafson? We're at the discussion stage. If we have
any questions, we can certainly ask him. Does anyone have
37
1 People walking
on the sidewalk, they're going
to be
2 looking at the
landscaping anyway. And having
gone up and
3 down that street
a zillion times in hopes that
it's going
4 to be something
that it's probably never going
to be, I
5 think that what
this applicant is proposing is
not a bad
6 addition to that area.
7 So
the
3
feet,
for him
to go
through
that, to go
6 from 12 feet
to
15
feet
in this
one, I
don't
see what
o we're gaining from it. If it meant that the parking lot
10 was on the edge of the sidewalk, then that 3 feet would
11 become very important to me. But when the edge of the
12
sidewalk has got
another
12 feet of landscaping, then I
13
feel comfortable
with it.
And that's what I understood.
14 Is it, that the landscaping will be there? Is that right?
15 Okay.
16 MR. BLANCEkR.D: That's correct. For perpetuity.
17 MR. GAVALDON: Mikal, do you have anything?
is MR. TORGBRSON: Yeah. I'll just share my
19 thoughts. One of my -- I guess one of my concerns is that
20 the applicant is mentioning that they want to keep these
21 building facades as close to Riverside as they can in
22 order to compete. But under the code, if everybody were
23 meeting the code, they would be a uniformed distance back
24 and we'd keep some of the uniformity in the landscaping
25 and the parking lots.
36
1 Again, I'm just asking if there's any compromised
2 situation where you'd build the same project but be
3 willing to, you know -- again, try to accommodate in any
4 way from a design standpoint more than a 12-foot setback.
5 Between 12 and 30, I guess.
6 MR. GUSTAFSON: One of the things we possibly
7 could do is move these buildings a couple of feet back
8 (indicating). But as you can see where these buildings
9 are placed, and this is an actual aerial photograph, the
10 further we push that behind, the further behind these
11 buildings that becomes less visibility people traveling
12 down Riverside have of that facility. Which puts us at a
13 disadvantage as trying to market the property. If it's
14 sitting back 50 feet off of the street, people that were
15 going to pay to be tenants in these spaces, they want some
16 visibility off of an arterial street.
17 And we have looked-- it may be possible to take
18 this and maybe move it to a 15-foot setback by reducing
19 some of the space back here (indicating).
20 MR. BERNTH: Does any of the other Board members
21 have any thoughts on that just from a standpoint of, you
22 know, trying to go after a compromised situation? I'd be
23 interested in hearing that.
24
MS.
CRAIG:
To be honest with
you, Dan, that 3
25
feet really
doesn't
concern me because
of the sidewalk.
35
1 just asking -- I guess, I'm asking is, if these units
2 become 15 feet by 39 feet instead of 15 feet by 40 feet,
3 you essentially end up with the same number of units. One
4 foot less. Does that kill you?
5 MR. GUSTAFSON: Again, the units are arranged
6 north/south and not this direction here (indicating). So
7 you have an overhead door roughly every 14 feet down this
8 side, this side, and this side. So you access from this
9 point.
10 And so we need to maintain that 14-foot width of
11 the spaces. The length is somewhat immaterial. We can
12 adjust that to the requirements of the tenant. But that
13 width -- that 14-foot width, and that's what gets us from
14 the length of this building from the east side to the west
15 side is based on a 14-foot bay length. It's really the
16 minimum that we have to maintain for someone to pull a
17 vehicle in there and still be able to access around it for
18 any -- if they have to change a tire or do any detailing
19 or maintenance on the vehicles, and to also have room that
20 they can maneuver around those vehicles.
21 MR. BBRN4.M : So we're basically off again. Just
22 doinc the numbers, if we lose units, we're off 6.6
23 percent. Again, I know that's an economic issue. And I
24 see what you're saying about the width versus the
25 length.
34
1 building. They're not actually getting into the back.
2 Take _his parking (indicating), this parking is
3 more fcr the -ablic and not for the people that are
4 tenants in this space, per se. And if you try to take
5 this parking and move it around back, creates conflict of
6 the security and the public access. And also you have
7 trucks that are moving in and out, turning back here, and
8 then you have parking in the way. Much greater conflict
9 of accidents to occur between a truck and a car.
10 MR. GAVALDON: I understand. Thank you.
11 MR.==RNTH: Bob, I had another question. I'm on
12 economics now, so .
13 MR. G:.,STAFSON: Okay.
14 MR. B=RNT'rI: Purely from the standpoint -- and
15 again, we don'- want you to build metal buildings
16 here. ^hat's not the point here. We're trying to find
17 some compromised situa-ion. Ar- least I am. I can't speak
18 for the rest cf the Board, obviously.
19 MR. GUSTAFSON: And we don't want to do the same
20 thing.
21 MR. B=RNTH: Okay. So the question is, is
22 purely -- I'm cuing to assume that most of these units are
23 leased by -- per unit, not by square foot or whatever. So
24 where they're 49-feet -- excuse me -- 49-feet wide or
25 50-feet wide, it's probably fairly immaterial. And we're
32
1 buildings back to, say, 27 feet. More than likely gone
2 ahead and turn this all into storage spaces. So you would
3 not have the commercial appearance of these and the
screening that these buildings provide to the storage
5 spaces in the back. Simply because of the number of units
6 that -- to make this economically feasible that we have to
7 have to make _t work financially, if these move back, we
8 lost these spaces, more than likely what would happen is
9 we would eliminate this and turn this into storage, pull
10 these buildings closer and give it much more of a
11 industrial appearance and lose that commercial appearance.
12 MR. GAVALDON: I understand. But I don't see as
13 that as -- you know, a good approach to things because the
14 intent of the land use was to, you know -- with Riverside
15 and its potential in the future being a major arterial --
16 major street of our City, I feel that there's a lot of
17 things we can do on this.
18 And I hate to -- you know, I'm not saying that
19 this is going to be a showstopper, but I'd like to see
20 some more opportunities to balance this out and come out
21 with a win/win on this.
22 MR. GUSTAFSON: And we really have looked at how
23
do we
manage
this. And
we don't want
-- we really don't
24
want
this to
be another
steel building
out here on
25 Riverside with an industrial appearance. That's not our
31
1 modification from the 30-foot setback. And Dan gave me a
2 real cood sense of this by his past question. And is
3 there opportunity to go 27 versus the reduction you want
4 and lose three spaces? Is that a real -- is that a real
5 showstopper in this project?
6 MR. GUSTAFSON: It is. Because of the nature of
7 the project, if we lose those spaces, I can tell you the
8 project is more than likely dead.
9
MR.
GAVALDON: Because it seems -- just in my
10
observation_,
the modification and what you're trying to do
11
and taking down
the modification -- taking the
12
modification
to reduce the 30 feet, it seems like you're
13
puttin_ a lot
of intensity into it. Into what you're
14
lookinc to do
with the parking, with the commercial
15
building, the
storage units. And looking at the -- these
16
mobile homes
that I know them very well, I don't own one,
17
but I've bee-:
in them. I see some traffic issues.
18
And
the security seems to ride this whole
19
development.
I think there's something else that could be
20 done to not compromise it but accommodate. And I feel
21 that the three spaces is -- will make a better project
22 overall. I just have a hard time -- hard time
23 understandinc three will be a showstopper.
24
MR. GUSTAFSON:
Let me tell you
what
would happen
25
if we lost those three
spaces and had to
move
these
30
1 Furure conditions, if we improve this to a
2 four -lane, arterial as it's proposed with that 17 and a
3 half foot of additional right-of-way, there would be the
4 edge of parking (indicating) that they're proposing today
5 or tomorrow, the 12-foot landscaped strip would be
6 maintained. The sidewalk in that new four -lane arterial
7 would be right along that -- inside the street
8 right-of-way but along that edge. So there's your 6-foot
9 sidewalk and then the 10-foot parkway that's required and
10 then this be the edge of street.
11 So again, as Mr. Gustafson said, that 12-foot
12 landscape strip would be maintained in the form that they
13 want -o do. Your sidewalk then would be right against
14 that 12-foot edge of the landscaping and then the parkway
15 and then the street.
16 MS. CRAIG: That was very helpful. Thank you
17 very much, Steve.
1s MR. BERNT'r3: Steve, do you have a -- we have a
19 cross section that shows the right-of-way today and in the
20 future. Do you have one of those on screen by any chance?
21 MR. OLT: No, I don't. I'm sorry.
22 MR. GAVALDON: Any other Board questions? I have
23 a couple, if Mr. Gustafson can come up.
24 MR. GUSTAFSON: Yes, sir.
25 MR. GAVALDON: I'm concerned about the
29
1 MR. GUSTAFSON. Actually, Steve, if I could
2 clarify that a little bit. The actual 12 foot between the
3 parking and the property line will be maintained whenever
4 they do widen Riverside.
5 That 12 feet is from the -- from the dedicated --
6 17 and a half foot dedicated, there's an additional 12
7 feet to the edge of the parking spaces. So any
8 improvements that they do to Riverside, that landscaping
9 will remain. Unlike the site at 1450 Riverside, where
10 they had -- where they widened Riverside, they ended up
11 with at one point a 1-foot landscaped setback to a 9-foot
12 landscaped setback.
13 MS. CRAIG: Okay. I do appreciate. Thank you
14 very much. Traz was helpful, but I still want Steve to
15 continue.
16 MR. OL•T: Yeah. If I can elaborate on Mr.
17 Gustafson's comments. And I know this is difficult to
18 see. Again, if you want me to bring it closer, I will.
19 The yellow block that you see here
20 (indicating) -- and this is future conditions. This is
21 existing conditions. If you were to approve the
22 modification, they were to develop this as they want, this
23 is the existing edge of Riverside Avenue now. So there
24 would be the parking, the building, this would all be
25 landscaping.
28
1 we hoped it will be improved to, where would the east edge
2 of the sidewalk be? Would it be right against their
3 parking lot? Would it take out their landscaping? Would
4 it be just before their landscaping?
5 MR. OLT: Let me -- I have a drawing up there,
6 and it's going to be hard for you to see. What I'm going
7 to do is close -- close across the screen to get the
8 drawing a little closer to you in the light and try to
9 describe it to you. And if you want me to bring it up, I
10 will. If you can hang on just a second.
11 MS. CRAIG: Okay.
12 MR. BLANCHARD: While Steve's doing that,
13 remember that in the -- I don't know any of you have ever
14 seen the street design criteria, remember when we're
15 talking about right-of-way that that includes the walk.
16 So within the -- within the boundaries of the right-of-way
17 which that additional 17 feet of dedication would be, that
18 the sidewalk will be contained in that area.
19 MS. CRAIG: I understand that. What it does,
20 though, is the edge of the sidewalk ends up against the
21 parking lot.
22 MR. BLANCHARD: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
23 it was clear that the sidewalk was not going to be outside
24 of the right-of-way.
25 MS. CRAIG: No. I understand.
27
1 two here and one here (indicating). So there would really
2 be three units. But what we're saying is, right -- if we
3 were to just take these buildings and extend them out and
4 create them to conform with the Land Use Code, we could
5 have 62 units. And we've already given up 38 percent of
6 what we could have by putting these buildings in the
7 front.
8 MR. BERNTH: So the question I'm asking is, to
9 adhere to this and to really keep the idea of the
10 buildings the way they look and what you're trying to do,
11 it would be the developer's standpoint tY_•at he could not
12 give up an additional three at this point?
13 MR. GUSTAFSON: That's right. It would make it
14 really unfeasible. The other thing that happens, right
15 now (indicating) you can see there's an existing storage
16 aril. There has been some preliminary discussion about
17 maybe some time in the future combining these two and
18 making it into one type of a facility. This would allow
19 us to have a connecting drive right here. So we could
20 have a shared access. By moving everything back 30 feet
21 would eliminate that possibility.
22 MR. BERNTH: That was my last question. Thank
23 you.
24 MS. CF.AIG: Steve, this is another one for you.
25 Trying to understand when the street is improved to what
26
1
feet plus the 12 feet. Plus then the 24-foot area. So
2
there is -- even with the widening of Riverside, there's
3
more than enough room to get --
4
MR. BERNTH: 71 feet basically.
5
MR. GUSTAFSON: To get that vehicle completely
6
off of Riverside. That was one of the comments that was
7
essentially from traffic, wherever that control panel is,
8
needs to be in a place so that that vehicle can get off of
9
Riverside.
10
MR. BERNTH: My second question is, on page 10 of
11
the staff report, the last two sentences on the bottom, it
12
said that other could comply if the facility layout would
13
be moved back from the site further than from the edge of
14
Riverside Avenue with the potential loss for the proposed
15
45 storage units. This would constitute a 9 percent loss.
16
If I'm looking at here the first plan, the first
- 17
:y
one, first page, whatever, and you can probably pick up 15
18
more feet if you eliminated two of the front spaces and
19
then one at the front at the bottom because obviously
20
they're 15 feet wide, that would give you a 27-foot
21
setback which, obviously, you don't necessarily exactly
22
adhere to the 30-foot. But my question is -- that would
23
only be a loss of three. Where did the four come up with?
j 24
i
I was kind of curious on that.
25
MR. GUSTAFSON: Well, actually there's -- there's
25
1 units -- actually either one of these buildings back here
2 (indicating) would be used for housing of the large
3 vehicles, whether it be an RV or boats, campers, whatever.
4 MR. BERNTH: How long are these? I mean, I don't
5 own an RV so I have no clue.
6
MR. GUSTAFSON:
Well, an
RV can be anywhere from
7
about 20 feet up to some
of them
are 42 feet.
Some are
8
even built on bus chassis.
So you can't have --
that's
9
why we've -- with these
buildings
(indicating),
we have
10
the ability to actually
move the
interior walls
to make
11 them longer or shorter as the need be.
12 MR. BERNTH: Where I'm going with that, Bob, is
13 that in the future of the 17.6 feet we're taking away as a
14 right-of-wav, essentially to the front entry gate -- and
15 tell me if I'm wrong here -- would be 30 feet plus the 24
16 feet and then you're at the entry gate?
17 MR. GUSTAFSON: Right.
18 MR. BER=R : So you really only have 54 feet. So
19 you're like pulling them off the street and your back end
20 is almost hanging off the street?
21 MR. GUSTAFSON: You would actually have -- the
22
actual edge of the street is
not too far east
of where it
23
would be here (indicating).
With the 17 and
a half feet,
24
you have a 6-foot sidewalk,
an 8-foot parkway
that would
25
be in there. So you'd have
14 feet plus the
17 and a half
24
1 the code, yes.
2 But what they're saying then, that it would
3 sacrifice the office/warehouse portion of the
4 development. The mixed -use, so to speak, portion of the
5 development. It would become one-dimensional. It would
6 become nothing but self -storage units.
7 MS. CRAIG: Now how does it meet the criteria
8 where it says, "The building shall be sited so that a
9 building face abuts upon the required minimum landscaped
10 yard for at least 30 percent of the building frontage?"
11 MR. OLT: Well, I don't see the plan. What would
12 happen is that the sides of the buildings would come up --
13 the sides of the buildings you see back there, the
14 self -storage units would come up to that street
15 right-of-way line. And as long as you had 30 percent of
16 the building frontage of the entire width of the site,
17 then it would meet the criteria.
18 MS. CRAIG: I understand now. Thanks.
19 MR. GAVALDON: Any other Board questions?
20 MR. BERNTH: I had a question for Bob, a few
21 questions, actually. Bob, I've noticed that these units
22 are 15 by 40s, 15 by 50s, and 15 by 60s. Those are the
23 ones I would assume that would hold the, like, RV
24 vehicles?
25 MR. GUSTAFSON: That's correct. These -- these
10491
1 warehouse storage areas.
2 MR. GAVALDON: I just want to capture what you
3 were suggesting. So us board members --
4 MR. GUSTAFSON: Did that explain it?
5 MR. GAVALDON: Yes. Thanks. I just wanted to
6 make sure we captured that. Okay. Thank you very
7 much. Are there any Board -- we'll bring it back --
8 before we do that, is there anyone else that would like to
9 speak to this proposal. Just want to give everyone a
10 chance. Fine, we'll bring it back to the Board.
11 MS. CRAIG: I'll start off. Especially since
12 Jerry brought that up, having read this development
13 standard d-.23(e), that they're asking for a modification
14 on, I guess I don't understand how they could do what he
15 just suggested and still meet this criteria, and, that is,
16 push she two storage units up to the landscaped setback.
17 MR. OLT: Well, that's exactly what they would
18 do. =f they were to eliminate the two buildings that
19 they're showing on this plan that you're looking at, the
20 alterative plan, the essentially combined commercial
21 office/warehouse buildings, eliminate those and bring the
22 self -storage buildings that you see then behind them up to
23 just the building setback line and have nothing but a
24 drivewav entry into the site at that locked gate, that
25 secured gate you go in, it would meet then the intent of
22
1 beyond what
would
-- is actually required by Land Use Code
2 and take it
a step
further with mixed -uses and with more
3 natural materials. Increase landscaping out there along
e Riverside. Landscape buffer and things like that to
5 create a nicer appearing facility.
6 If the Board has any questions, I would certainly
7 entertain them at this time.
8 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Steve, did
9 you get that suggestion that he said that would fall under
10 the Land Use Code, being, removing some units?
11 MR. OLT: I don't understand the question, Mr.
12 Gavaldon.
13
MR. GAVALDON: Did you
-- were you
able to jot
14
down this information on if two
units or, I
believe what
15
you said, were removed, it will
fall within
the land use
16
code. It was towards the end of
your presentation.
17
MR. GUSTAFSON: What it
was, is if
we were to
18 remove these two buildings out front that are the
19 office/warehouse (indicating), take these two buildings
20 and essentially just extend those down to the 30-foot
21 setback line which would be allowed, we can bring the
22 buildings to the 30-foot setback line. We would actually
23
end up with 62 storage spaces. But
we would not
have the
24
commercial appearance of these two
buildings and
the
25
screening that these two buildings
are providing
to the
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1d
75
_6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
units by 38 percent.
One of the other issues that we tried to wrestle
with, is in Division 3.7 of the Land Use Code talks about
in -fill development. In trying to spur and encourage
in -fill development and reinvestment in built up areas of
the City, obviously Riverside was developed in the
170s. There's still a few parcels along Riverside that
are undevelor)ed. Most of them have either a metal
building on it like this (indicating) with very little
landscaping or a situation like this where the parking is
maybe at the most 10 feet. Number of places where the
parking is right on the sidewalk with no landscaping at
all.
Obviously, this type of landscaping, already
creates a situation where we are doing better than what's
there now. And even if development -- redevelopment does
occur out here, most of it is going to be more of a
facelift, remodel. You're going to have -- most people
there probably won't come in, raze a building, and try to
rebuild.
In conclusion, what -- like I said, what we're
trying to obtain here is to create an upscale storaoe
professional looking facility that would be a desirable
addition and start to create an identifiable image for
Riverside. Try to do a little bit of a facelift but go
20
1 If
Riverside ever develops,
they would actually
2 develop it
as a modified arterial where there would be a
3 6-foot
sidewalk
from the
property
line out and then an
4 8-foot
parkway
and then
the curb
and gutter.
5 The reason
why
at this point
we don't have any
6 street trees, is we
put
the street trees on the property.
7 Because if they ever
come through and
widened Riverside,
8 if we plant
something
now,
10
years they widened
9 Riverside,
we have to
tear
it
all out. So it's our
10 intention that all of our street trees, all of our
11 landscaping will be contained within the 12-foot area
12 behind the new right-of-way line.
13 To give you an idea of -- in this area
14 (indicating), we could do an additional plan that wasn't
15 really shown to you, but that would conform to the land
16 use code, essentially taking -- removing these two
17 buildings, taking these two buildings and stretching them
18 out to the 30-foot setback would actually -- right now we
19 have 45 combination storage units, office/warehouse. We
20 could have a total of 62 just storage units. So we are
21 actually -- voluntarily by putting the office/warehouse
22 here, reducing the number of storage facilities we have by
23 38 percent. And any more reduction of that creates a -- a
24 feasibility to make this project work by reducing any more
25 of that. So we have voluntarily reduced the number of
19
1 sticking in Fiverside or they would be blocking internal
2 traffic.
3 With this plan, like I said, it screens the more
4 intense_ industrial storage uses to the back but also has a
5 commercial appearance to it. The building itself will be
6 faced with split -face block, brick, stucco, something that
7 you don't see along Riverside. Right now the Public
8 Service Company is just an old -block building. These are
9 just metal buildings (indicating).
10 Up here (indicating) you have the styrofoam
li injection plant, which is all steel buildings and then
12 parking right up close to it. So you really don't have --
13 what we're trying to create is an architectural image out
14 there that may help to define Riverside corridor at some
15 point.
16
And
then one of the
other
things we
also did,
17
with the dedication
of the 17
and a
half feet
actually
i8
takes
the
property
line right up to
here (indicating). At
19
that
point
we start
with a 12-foot
landscaped setback
20 which has a 30-inch high berm plus another -- anywhere
21 from 10 to 30-inch plant material on top of that. So
22 there are plants where you can be 5 feet of screening
23 between the street and the parking in that area. So in a
24 sense, from the edge of the street to the parking is
25 almost 40 feet of actual landscaped area right now.
18
1 parkin=. We also lose the unrestricted access to the
2 public, and it destroys the security of the facility
3 because no longer do we have those security gates that
4 keep the public from getting back into the secured storage
5 area.
6 In the alterative plan, we feel that it's -- it's
7 better because number one -- Steve, can you go back to
8 that plan, please?
9 You know, the parking here in front is easily
10 accessible from the public (indicating). All you have to
11 do is pull in. To answer Ms. Craig's question as to why
12 the parking is not in front of the building, if you have
13 somebody wit: a motor home, a 40-foot motor home pulling
14 in here, thev're able to stop right here if somebody is
15 drivinc out.
16 If the drives were actually down here
17 (indicating), there is a much greater -- potential for
18 conflict because people are coming in and out. There's
19 also -- to operate these gates, there's a -- going to be a
20 control panel right here that would be used. So if
21 somebody drives in, they could operate these gates through
22 some type of a key system, and so they can drive
23 through.
24 Whereas if that drive was there, either the motor
25 home or the vehicle that would be parked, would be
16
1 There is a facility similar to this that is out
2 on East Mulberry at Summit View. Very similar to
3 this. Recently has been completed. Again, that's not
4 centrally located. It's kind of out of the way for a lot
5 of people.
6 And again, as I said, this is not just a storage
7 facility. Even though it's called Maxi -Stuff Storage,
8 it's not just storage. We're going to look at it kind of
9 as a mixed -use of different people, different
10 professionals, things like that.
11 We wanted to have something that had an
12
identifiable image.
So if
the contractor will say, "I'll
13
meet you at my shop
here,"
people would recognize it
and
14
it doesn't look like
just
another industrial building
out
15 here on Riverside. So we're going to try to make it
16 visually attractive.
17 But then by taking the office warehouse, we're
18 able to create a buffer between the public roadway and the
19 more industrial appearing storage spaces in the back. As
20 you can see, as you're driving down Riverside right here
21 (indicating), your visibility to the back is fairly well
22 screened by the old Public Service building and then these
23 buildings here. So there's really not a lot of visibility
24 to this back areas.
25 These front buildings, effectively all you have
14
1 fact, for a facility that allows storage of large
2 vehicles, motor homes, boats, trailers, vintage cars. We
3 even have people that have shown interest, they have
4 historic vehicles, fire trucks, other vehicles that they
5 need a place that's secure.
6 The inside of each unit
is finished.
Given
a.
7 complete room -- complete space
that is just
theirs.
It's
8 not your typical steel shed that they've made into a
9 storace space. These are a specially made, highly secure
10 units.
11 After we looked at that, we also did some
12
research
with other
professionals
in the
marketplace,
13
Northern
Colorado,
and discovered
there's
also a need for
14 what we term, "professional warehouse space." A place
15
where you may
have
a contractor,
builder,
plumber that has
16
a need for --
they
may be working
out of
their office.
17
There's actually several
in the
storage space to the
north
18
(indicating) where they
actually
open up the garage
door
19 and that's their office and warehouse. There's several --
20 several of those.
21 There's a big need of a location where they can
22 have warehouse space in the back for tools, materials,
23 supplies, parking of the trucks at night while they're not
24 on the job and then a space in front where they can work
25 with clients, do their bookkeeping.
13
1 MS. CRAIG: That's all for now.
2 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you. Do we want to go ahead
3 and hear from the applicant? Good evening.
4 MR. GUSTAFSON: Good evening. My name is Bob
5 Gustafson with Wickham Gustafson Architects. And we're
6 here representing the owner for the development that you
B
7 see before you tonight, the request for the modifications.
8 I think Steve did a very good job of kind of
9 explaining where we're coming from, but I want to give a
10 little bit of a background in the history as to what our
11 intentions are with this type of a development.
12
Earlier this year
the
developer
came
to us
13
looking at the possibility
of
doing a
storage
facility
14
unlike
any others here
in Northern
Colorado.
it was -- it
15
was a
facility that was
designed specifically
for large
16
vehicles,
motor
homes, people with boats, that
they would
17
each have
their
own space which they could use
to house
18 these.
19 We're looking at motor homes that can be upwards
20 to $1 million that could go into spaces like this. You
21 just don't take a vehicle like that and leave it in a
22 field somewhere. There's going to be vandalism,
23 deterioration of the vehicle itself.
24 People have a lot of money invested in these.
25 And there's very much of a need throughout the country, in
12
1
see. Where is it?
-ere we are. The developer has agreed
2
to dedicate a 17.5
strip alone Riverside Avenue., Now
3
isn't that rewired?
4
MR. OLT:
Yes. The City has -- the City
5
engineering --
6
MS. CRAIG:
So for us to say he has agreed, what
7
would happen if he
disagreed?
8
MR. OLT:
Well, he didn't disagreed. The City
9
said --
10
MS. CRAIG:
He could disagree. Isn't legally he
11
has to give 17 foot
--
12
MR. OLT:
The City said we need an additional 17
13
and a half foot of
right-of-way for future improvements to
14
Riverside Avenue to
bring it to a four -lane arterial
15
street. That's correct. And they --
16
MS. CRAIG:
Legally they have to give us 17 and a
17
half feet.
18
MR. OLT:
They did it.
19
MS. CRAIG:
Okay. That's the point. Legally
20
they have to. So that
is not a concession, that's
21
requirement.
22
MR. OLT:
I don't think it's ever been considered
23
to be a concession.
We said we need that additional
24
right-of-way, and they
said they can do that. But what
25
they're requesting
is modification outside of that.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
development plan. What we're looking at is a modification
for those two standards. One being the 30-foot landscaped
yard, the other being the 30 percent of the building
abutting the right-of-way. At such time that we get the
project development plan, then they will have to meet that
criteria in the code. We're not reviewing project
development plan. We're reviewing request for two
standards.
So what they're showing us, what they're
demonstrating to you that they can certainly provide a
development plan that would be equal to or better than a
plan that would meet the requirement by substantially
increasing the amount of landscaping in this area.
But when they come in with a formal development
plan, then they will be required to meet their street tree
requirements, as per code. But they're -- that's not part
of the modification request. That's outside of --
MS. CRAIG: Okay.
MR. OLT: -- the need for these modifications.
MS. CRAIG: So what I'm seeing tonight is not
what's going to be reviewed or --
MR. OLT: Absolutely not. That's
correct. Again, this is --
MS. CRAIG: That's why I'm talking to staff.
Another thine is in here it talks about -- let's
10
1 MS. CRAIG: -- the 30 feet are at the edge of
2 the parking that they've headed west.
3 NR. OLT: You've got the asphalt, via the
4 driveway or the parking that's got to be in that zone. If
5 you flip-flop -- you've got to have the driveway to get
6 the parking in there. You've got one point of access off
7 of Riverside Avenue right here (indicating). So you're
8 either going to have the parking spaces or the driveway
9 area in that zone.
10 MS. CRAIG: So you're saying to park in front of
11 the offices you would still need that much asphalt?
12 MR. OLT: Yeah, because all you would be doing is
13 flipping the driveway area and the parking area. You have
14 to be able to come in off of this driveway and have a
15 driveway to get you to these parking spaces in front of
16 the building. So you -- you wouldn't take away any
17 parking. You just would be --
18 MS. CRAIG: You wouldn't take away any asphalt.
19 MR. OLT: Or you wouldn't take away any asphalt.
20 You would just flip the parking and driveway.
21 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Another question for staff is
22 that I noticed on this one that there are no street
23 trees. Why are you not requiring street trees on this
24 project?
25 MR. OLT: Again, we are not at the project
0
1 staff was looking at this, why -- why couldn't the parking
2 be in front of their store? Why does -- or.their offices?
3 Why does the parking have to face west and be in this
4 30-foot setback zone?
5 MR. OLT: Well, if I understand you correctly,
-6 Sally, what we're saying is, the parking could be right in
7 front of the units here (indicating).
8 MS. CRAIG: Yes. And their cars would be facing
9 west or north.
10 MR. OLT: Well, that would be east.
11 MS. CRAIG: Or north.
12 MR. OLT: They would be facing east. You still
13 have the driveway and parking. What you've done -- you
14 would 'e just be flip-flopping the driveway and the
15 parking.
16 MS. CRAIG: Yeah. You would be parking in front
17 of the offices like you see almost in every situation.
18 MR. OLT: You'll have to ask the applicant. I
19 really -- again_, that's a tradeoff. I'm not sure that one
20 solution is better than the other in this particular
21 situation.
22 MS. CRAIG: Well, it would have made them not
23 have to come with the modification.. Because the
24 modification --
25 MR. OLT: No.
[]
1 spaces here and seven over in this location that would
2 access the orefronts. Because at this point there would
3 be a gate back into the self -storage area. And they want
4 to separate those two uses, the self -storage units from
5 the actual commercial office storefronts and provide this
6 parking in these locations.
7 What they will do to create a plan that would.
8 conceivably be equal to or better than the requirement of
9 the code that there be a 30-foot landscaped yard from the
10 right-of-wav back before you have any buildings or parking
11 is provide substantial landscaping.
12 This is pretty much uninterrupted landscaping
13 along the frontage of both these parking areas with a
14 30-inch high, berming for starters. And you've got
15 landscaping on top of that. It would be rather dense,
16 significant, substantially screening the parking
17 areas. And then they would have somewhat a typical type
18 of building storefronts in this location (indicating).
19 These being commercial office buildings rather than truly
20 the self -storage building.
21 So with that, I think I would like to end the
22 presentation, entertain any questions, or if you have
23 anything after the applicant has made their presentation.
24 MR. GAVALDON: Any questions?
25 MS. CRAIG: I have one question, Steve. When
7
1 P_venue
being an
arterial
street in the
I, Industrial,
2 Zoning
District,
there is
a requirement
that there be a
3 30-foot landscaped
setback from the street
right-of-way.
4 And in this
particular situation --
I guess, on
5 this plan, it's a
little hard to see where
that
6 right-of-way would be. But I believe it would be right in
7 this location (indicating). 30 feet from -- or the
8 landscaped yard must be 30 feet from this right-of-way
9 back before you encounter any parking or building. The --
10 that's the one standard that they're requesting a
11 modification for.
12 The other standard is, there's a requirement in
13 the -- or I, Industrial, Zoning District that a minimum of
14 30 percent of the building storefronts along this street
15 frontage (indicating) be adjacent to abutting that street
16 right-of-way.
17 And in this particular situation, what they're
18 requesting -- because, again, they're wanting to do a
19 dual -use, be a commercial storefront offices and then
20 storage behind so that they would have customers using the
21 storage, but also meet with their clients in these actual
22 offices along the front of the site.
23 They want to maintain accessability to the
24 storefronts, via, the seven parking spaces. And that's
25 what you see here (indicating). I think there's six
6
1 You have several uses surrounding the property.
2 This is a large electronics firm previously that had been
3 Public Service Company (indicating), I believe, had been
4 there for many years. Teledyne Water Pik assumes this
5 entire site. I'm not sure if this is vacant ground or
6 parking for Teledyne Water Pik.
7 You have then several commercial industrial uses
8 directly to the north as a -- a self -storage facility
9 currently and then several other types of uses.
10 This is the site that they are proposing to
11 develop into a future self -storage facility
12 (indicatinc). But this will be unique in the sense that
13 you'll have access off of Riverside Avenue, which is here
14 at the bottom of the slide. This is the single point of
15 access into the site.
16 And what the applicant is proposing is to
17 construct two buildings at the front of the site
18 (indicating), and both of these would be a combination of
19 offices, commercial storefronts along the west side facing
20 Riverside Avenue, and then storage units in the back of
21 these buildings. And then these buildings to the east,
22 the larger buildings, along the railroad track, would be
23 all inside self storage.
24
What's
being requested of
the
Board
this evening
25
is there's two
modifications. One
is,
along
Riverside
5
1 pedestrian connection from the sidewalk, the public
2 sidewalk, along Riverside Avenue to the commercial
3 storefronts as proposed.
4 The second criteria that the applicant had cited
5 dealing with hardship, staff's evaluation is a plan
6 submitted that requires a modification of the standard
7 could comply if the facility layout would be moved back
8 from the site further from the street edge of Riverside
9 with a potential for a loss of approximately 4 of the 45
10 storage units. But we don't truly believe that a hardship
11 would be imposed on development of the site.
12
What I'd like to go now is
briefly go to
the
13
slides. So I'm going to go to the
other podium.
14
Again, as I indicated, as
you see on the
slide on
15
the screen in front of you, the red -shaded area on the map
16
is the site. And that is -- do we
have the laser
pointer
17
by chance? Then I'll go ahead and
use something.
Can you
18
see that at all? Then I'm not going to use that.
Thanks,
19
Bob. Without touching the screen,
I will try to
direct
20 you through this.
21 Okay. So we use the cursor. Everyone can see
22 the arrow? That site that I now have essentially overlaid
23 with the symbol is the location. This is Riverside Avenue
24 running along the (indicating) west side of the site, and
25 then this is East Prospect Road.
rd
1 modification would not be detrimental to the public good
2 nor would it impair the intent and purposes of the land
3 use code. The plan as submitted will advance or protect
4 the public interest and purpose of the standard for which
5 the modification is requested equally well or better than
6 would a plan which complies for the following reasons:
7 The proposed landscaped parking area in front of
8 the buildings will increase the amount of vegetation
9 adjacent to Riverside Avenue to an amount equal to a
10 project developed according to the standards set forth in
11 the Land Use Code.
12 The proposed landscaped improvements are similar
13 to or greater than those in the surrounding area that were
14 reviewed under prior land use regulations, either as the
15
use -by -right
or the
Land Development
Guidance
System.
And
16
the proposed
design
of the Maxi -Stuff
storage
facility
is
17 more similar to a commercial design and use than a true
18 and sole industrial use.
19
The
alterative plan submitted
provides for
good
20
separation of
uses on -site with access
and parking
for the
21 storefront offices being detached from the self -storage
22 units while still being set back a significant distance
23 from the existing Riverside Avenue.
24
There is a
significant amount
of landscaping and
25
separation from the
existing street, as
well as a defined
3
1 protect the public interests and purposes of the standard
2 for which the modification_ is requested equally well or
3 better than would a plan which complies with the
4 standard."
5 "The
second
criteria
of the granting of
the
6 modification
from the
strict
application of any
standard
7 would
result
in
substantial benefit to the
City by reason
8 of the
fact
that
the proposed project would
substantially
9 address an important cormnunity need," and then it goes
10 into specifics about community needs.
11
And the last
criteria
is,
"By reason of
12
exceptional physical
conditions
or
other extraordinary
13 exceptional conditions or situations unique to the
14
proper-y." And
this nets you to the hardship case. In
15
this particular
case the applicant has
proposed that the
16
modification of
standards that they're
requestina meet the
17
requirements of
sections 2.8.2(h)l and
3 dealing with
18 their plan being equal to or better than a plan which
19 would comply and the hardship criteria.
20 Moving to staff's evaluation analysis of the
21 modification request. Let me get to that point. See, I'm
22 going to summarize this and then go up to the plan briefly
23 before we bring the applicant to the podium.
24 Under the finding of facts and conclusions, staff
25 has determined that the granting of the request of
E
1 Pertinent code sections that we'll be dealing
2 with tonight are, again, the subsection 4.23(e)2(b)
3 building design orientation. And that section states,
4 "Along arterial streets and any other streets that
5 directly connect to other districts, the building shall be
6 sited so that a building face
abuts
upon the required
7 minimum landscaped yard for at
least
30 percent of the
8 building frontage. Such a building face shall not consist
9 of a blank wall."
10 The second subsection we'll be dealing with
11 is 4.23(e)3(a)2, site design screening. And that states,
12 "A minimum 30-foot deep landscaped yard shall be provided
13 along all arterial streets and along any district boundary
14
line that
does not
adjoin a
residential land use. If a
15
district
boundary
abuts upon
or is within a street
16 right-of-way then the required landscaped yard shall
17 commence at the street right-of-way line on the district
18 side of the street rather than at the district boundary
19 line."
20 The charge of the Planning and Zoning Board this
21 evening as specified in Section 2.8.2 dealing with
22 modification review procedures states that, "The granting
23 of the modification would neither be detrimental to the
24
public good
nor impair the
intent and purposes of the
land
25
use code and
that the plan
as submitted will advance
or
PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 1999
MODIFICATION OF THE STANDARD FOR THE
MAXI -STUFF STORAGE
Commission Members Present:
Mikal Torgerson
Sally Craig
Dan Bernth
Jennifer Carpenter
Jerry Gavaldon
Staff Present:
Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office
Bob Blanchard, Planning Department
Steve Olt, Planning Department
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
140 W. Oak Street, Suite 266
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506 or (800) 482-1506
Fax: 482-1230
e-mail: meadors@frii.com
T. tI N g5' 51'
,oe W.,rs.,s'
'9I7E DATA/ V
I /s� � �—• ie/w �v v. ru.os
—
'�
1YOM WI/Y.I�Y
1
fV .W Vm a
Om
Lori
4 _ _r7
1 IYYI. mwYaum � � fr I 6i
YIt1D J. � J F66F y4 /�yryGy(� ,{p
m.n N i� C�•
/rs
N e9' ,e• „• a R•,5o o01 �.. l3 !!
lot:
r
i
1
� 11
RIVE
RIVE_ . ,;' ����I�i•��
��sli��l�la;l
!illi�illiii�ll
�e lit:
r
LL
ft
A
I
g}
v-
MI!
� k
�.O • ,J"�.. J.� Y ; 1 'l.. J J �\. .R.
'\'n" i. ILIA Y
It �1
yQ
'fir ��
1 i� \ �
�\ i ?11 '1
� \\
Y�I �,M \� �
JI\ \\ �� \ 1 \` \\
�.�``
\\ \\•
3
n\
�w�JlJw ���
Wq��
AIM_ •�YI� �ti���� rA
��,1,
� 't,
i
I
��
.'llli�i
r
iI
A�
g
rr - a18
f vat�l o
�
.I Y •san �I.Iws FF� �o�yggy
_ rwo�aa-wleeme erne � � p ���i�
Y
w e'.�are e.00m - g
r
t u-
rr-5►�"itJCY� ht wwwi" 4 ea t r� L,• V G B O
e.e a
0
L
Q
t
/tl+yev%24� ?ta % _. Vc;dy 0-0i' week 9t � 6V► L
sire DATA,
YY. w\ .1i Y. ICY
vmw� u.. r.ws
iroe .rar...�
3ecember 10, 1999
City of Fort Collins
City Clerk
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522-0580
DEC 1 4 P-1
CITY CL` DRK
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)(3xa)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-Vpfan 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 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:thatian 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
Partner, Riverside/Prospect, LLC
CC-, NJk
WkA,
Clayton Schwerin
Partner, Riverside/Prospect, LLC
VICINITY MAP 10/20/99
#9-99 Maxi -Storage- 1640 Riverside
Modification Request
1"=600'
(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.
K.
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
0
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
CommUI. . Planning and Environmental S ices
Current Planning
Citv of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Stephen Olt, City Planner GPo
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
_�? North College Avenge - P.O. BoN 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6750 - F.-%i (970) 416-2020
N
N 83' 52' /O• E R•�15A3'-
eu
ev
917E DATA,
YI YaY �Y V. ti.e�
9
—
IMaIM i� .AaV. 1,a1
. � Y ti9O. Ri�NlWA �
IM •b J WT
-. _
i[ { {88{
LM
r
i IV ]�• ormwe Wn
I
Id V.
W I
Y
Ne9 se'u a R•42000*1 Ll
�[
2
4�
are aura
4P�i\ ink
�YOY\\ Ni�Y.�OW
`k
�lOAA Me�4 Ot -tom 06VNCa44m, IZVS uW� W! -
a�a a a
I
RIVSMDE AVB E gro�
ems. esero.w�ac..w
a�ve�os nveL� 4*ePe ,A, � r
WIT- b '
bp1v.N�wV�RMtl `
!3!0
E
3
9 '
ve
I
lot �T U. I�II�
l�Il�iill�i�ll
r
c
u..
13f�
a�
!
9
—
r s
YYYY
•KQ � ��
� .: . •....yr. .. a"t r 1 ,. � w.:. •. �a: 7C'.' .N.er
i�
�
1 � 1 t �+�
� ., ceumy
ii ���;
J
ii
i
•.
p.sr
" � \ \ '1 t \\ \�J�ii. rtYRYIi " \\
\�i `�L
.M.W
.e�rrr � \ �
_
1
\'• Y� `\ � /\ \�
}[■„■
��
♦.YIYLIq
(. �.
`
it
_--^-.x......
�
3t
ae
r
�IIlm
I
r
�
!g
j�jA
—
v
.
_ _ — —.�
WE DATA,
1'YiW eV11V IY�
C-
1{
- -
nor i
6;�ili;il
I
Y
r -
V xxpp
1
Y
r
�
a
17e* Ql *-a
"t woes-
! S
�J
ffiTE3dATA.
A(-trarh9,Viue- Play, -- 'fib mot- week 4buAmmA6 m L C,
limited contact with their clients in a formal office setting. Material suppliers may also utilize these
spaces to exhibit their products but not act as a retail outlet. Without direct access by the public these
spaces are not tenable.
• Increased access of the public to the storage areas would lead to an increase in vandalism and theft.
With the large storage spaces available it is anticipated that the users would be storing either a large
quantity of materials or items of significant value. Recent thefts and vandalism at other storage
facilities in the Fort Collins area simply reinforces the need for secure storage of personal belongings.
Allowing free public access would greatly compromise the security of the facility.
Placing parking at the rear of the buildings creates the same conflict between the parking and overhead
door.access as mentioned in our original modification request. Large vehicle access would become very
difficult because of the limited turning area in which to maneuver trucks. Encroachment into the public
parking spaces by a large truck would be required in order to enter into the office / warehouse spaces.
As currently designed there is 15% of building frontage abutting the front landscape yard. As noted in our
original modification request this 15% area is approximately 76.5' from the Riverside Avenue ROW which is
far greater than the 30' depth normally required. In our professional design opinion we feel that the
development as shown with modifications to Section 4.23(EX2)(b) and Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 is better for
those reasons contained in our original modification request of September 2, 1999.
For the above listed reasons plus those of our original modification request we would like to present our case to
the Planning and Zoning Board at the next available public hearing. If you so desire we would be pleased to
meet with any additional staff persons that may have any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert Gustafson
cc: Mr. Bill Strickfaden
cA ..yobbcl?506=0
rVLGI_7J-S�TAFSON
LAWRENCE A WICKHAM
ROBERTI.GUSTAFSON
DONALD G. SHIELDS
COREY STINAR
A R C H I T E C T S
1449 RIVERSIDE AVENUE (970) 493-2025
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 FAX (970) 493-2026
October 28, 1999
Steve Olt
City of Ft. Collins
Current Planning Office
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Maxi -Stuff Storage
1640 Riverside Avenue
Dear Mr. Olt,
OCT 2 9 1999
c
�_— .September 2, 1999 we formally requested a modification to Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 of the Fort Collins Land
Use Code which deals with the required front yard landscape setback. During the course of staff review it was
discovered that the site plan as presented would also require a modification to section 4.23(E)(2)(b) which
requires 30% of the building front to abut the required front yard landscape setback Due to site constraints and
program requirements we are unable to deviate from the previously submitted site plan. Therefore we are
hereby requesting that, in addition to a modification of Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)2, a modification to Section
4.23(E)(2)(b) be heard by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board on November 18.
Section 4.23(E)(2)(b) of the Land Use Code states that 30% of the building face must abut the required front
yard landscape setback To accomplish this the buildings would either have to be turned 90 degrees as
previously indicated with the associated problems or they would have to be moved towards Riverside Avenue
with the proposed public parking located to the rear of the buildings. Moving the buildings towards Riverside
Avenue and placing the necessary public parking to the rear would create several major and undesirable
situations.
Security of the facility would be greatly compromised Safe, secure storage for large vehicles or large
quantities of items is the target market for this development To place the public parking at the rear of
the buildings would require that either the security gate controlling access to the storage "areas be
eliminated or that public access to, the parking areas be eliminated. To eliminate public access to
parking destroys the entire concept we have been attempting to create. The buildings are designed to
allow public access to the front portion of the buildings along Riverside Avenue. The tenants of these
spaces are anticipated to be builders or other members of the construction trades that need to have
Future improvements would actually create a double row of deciduous street trees. The first row
on the property would be installed as the property is developed. When Riverside Avenue is
improved to arterial standards an additional row of street trees would be installed in the 8'
parkway strip. This arrangement may not be possible at other properties in the Riverside corridor
because of existing development.
• In June of this year the Planning and Zoning Board approved a similar modification request for a
property in the 1400 block of Riverside Avenue, less than % mile west of this property. This
previously approved modification at 1400 Riverside will result in a developed property with less
landscaping than is proposed with this development. Future improvements of Riverside Avenue
to arterial standards will result in a landscape width at 1400 Riverside between 1' and 9' at the
vehicle parking area. By comparison this development will maintain the 12' landscape yard
between the vehicle parking area and sidewalk. Included in this 12' landscape yard is a 30" high
berm with shrubs and trees which are not possible in the 1' landscape yard at 1400 Riverside.
Approval of this modification request for 1640 Riverside Avenue will allow the development of an up scale
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 appearance not of an industrial
storage facility but as a commercial development. Lengthy research has indicated a strong need for the type of
facility planned. By locating the facility at 1640 Riverside Avenue we are attempting to utilize an un-developed
parcel of land centrally located in Fort Collins, rather than a parcel of land in Larimer County that would
contribute to sprawl. As design and business professionals we feel that the proposed development with the
requested modification is much better than a development that conforms to the development standards.
Enclosed for your review are copies of the proposed development. Information includes a Site Plan with 17.5'
dedicated for future improvements to Riverside Avenue, Landscape Plan with proposed plantings and quantities,
Landscape Plan depicting future improvements to Riverside Avenue, a Site Plan of the property conforming to
current design standards, Streetscape Elevation from Riverside Avenue viewing towards the site, Elevations of
the buildings with proposed materials, Site Section showing proposed development with modification Site
Section depicting future improvements to Riverside Avenue and an aerial photograph of current conditions with
this proposed development to show surrounding context..
If you should have any questions regarding this information please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
1/111
Robert Gustafson
cc: Mr. Bill Strickfaden
c:l-yobbce2506mod2.wpd
With the dedication of 17.5' of right of way and the 12' landscape strip to be provided, the total landscape
setback along 52% of the property will be 29.5'. 34% of the property will have a 76.5' landscape yard along
Riverside Avenue. This landscape area provided greatly exceeds the amount of landscape area provided by
either property surrounding this parcel or any other developments along Riverside Avenue. Most properties in
the immediate vicinity have little or no landscaping provided between the parking areas and the street with most
parking occurring immediately adjacent to the attached sidewalk. Development of this property as proposed
would greatly enhance the appearance of the area while allowing one of the few remaining in fill properties along
Riverside Avenue to develop.
Strict compliance to the development standards would greatly compromise the intent of the project and create
numerous problems for development of the property. If developed without a modification the appearance of the
storage buildings and professional storage structures would be greatly compromised. Because overhead doors
would be required to be installed at the front of the buildings, and not the rear, the professional storage units
would lose the desired commercial storefront appearance. Visibility of the rear storage units would become
greater thereby increasing the industrial appearance of the entire facility. Large vehicle access would become
very difficult because of the limited turning area in which to maneuver trucks. For a large truck to enter a front
storage space would require encroachment into the vehicle parking spaces. In addition there is a greater conflict
between trucks and cars in the compliant layout due to the fact that the vehicle parking area is on either side of
the main drive lane into the facility. The modified plan has the car parking separated from the main drive eisle.
In our professional design opinion we feel that the development with the modification to the landscape setback is
better for the following reasons:
• The budding appearance from Riverside Avenue has more of a commercial flair than industrial
image. Use of natural looking materials and storefront glazing systems reduces the image of an
industrial warehouse, thereby creating an enhanced image of this area of the Riverside corridor.
• Buildings will be setback farther from Riverside Avenue providing more of a parklike streetscape.
The modified plan would have buildings setback more than 59' from the right of way whereas the
plan conforming to the development standards would have buildings 30' from the right of way.
• As proposed this development would have a much greater building and landscape setback than
properties on either side and other properties in the Riverside corridor. Most properties in this
area have been developed with parking very close or adjacent to the existing attached sidewalk.
• Internal traffic circulation has a much clearer definition. Trucks and recreational vehicles can
easily access the rear entrances to the buildings without interfering with the car parking.
• Buildings closest to Riverside Avenue provide a much more significant screen of the rear storage
buildings, thereby reducing the industrial storage image.
• Additional landscaping is proposed along Riverside Avenue. An earthen berm with evergreen and
deciduous shrubs is utilized to screen the parking area from the street. Street trees will be
provided in the berm area as part of the landscape treatment.
WIC:KHAM
-\
GUSTAFSON
LAWRENCE A. WICKHAM
ROBERT J. GUSTAFSON
DONALD G. SHIELDS
COREY STINAR
A- R C H I T E C T S
1449 RIVERSIDE AVENUE (970) 493-2025
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 FAX (970) 493-2026
September 2, 1999
SEP 0 2 1999 ;v
Steve Oh
City of Ft. Collins
Current Planning Office
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Maxi -Stuff Storage
1640 Riverside Avenue
Dear Mr. Olt,
In response to your comments dated 06-18-99 for a modification request for the above referenced property
following please find rebuttal as to why we feel that a modification is justified and that granting a modification to
the development standards would create a better development and still maintain protection of the public welfare.
As planned the development would provide large, easily accessible storage areas for recreational vehicles, boats,
campers, vintage automobile collectors, etc. In addition to these uses the development plans to provide office
and warehouse space for professional trades such as plumbers, carpenters, concrete workers, etc. The buildings
closest to Riverside Avenue would be designed with a commercial appearance rather than an industrial
appearance to act as a buffer to the storage buildings located in the rear. These front buildings would be two
stories in height and have natural appearing materials such as block and stucco and storefront type glazing for
windows and doors. The entrance to the warehouse portion of these buildings would be from the rear and not
visible from Riverside Avenue. Our reasoning for this arrangement is to provide an upscale, architecturally
pleasing front to the building that is visible to and accessible by the public while providing good access for large
trucks and trailers to the rear of the building.
To accomplish our goals of having a street appearance that is more commercial than industrial, provide public
access, including parking, and to screen the industrial activities from the street as much as practical a reduction in
the landscape setback along Riverside Avenue is needed. This reduction from 30 feet to 12 feet as proposed
would occur on approximately 52% of the Riverside Avenue frontage. The remaining area along Riverside
Avenue would comply with the 30 foot landscape setback (34%) or be comprised of the entry drive (14%). The
developer has agreed to dedicate a 17.5' strip along Riverside Avenue to obtain the desired 100' right of way for
future improvements to the Riverside Corridor.
1
V
M
�\
GUSTAFSON'
R C
H
I
T
E
C
LAWRENCE A. WICKHAM
ROBERT J. GUSTAFSON
DONALD G. SHIELDS
COREY STINAR
1449 RIVERSIDE AVENUE (970) 493-2025
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 FAX (970) 493-2026
June 2, 1999
Steve Olt
City of Ft. Collins
Current Planning Office
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Maxi -Stuff Storage
1640 Riverside
Dear Mr. Olt,
-he developer of the above referenced property is hereby requesting a waiver to the Land Use Code (LUC) from
.ne Fort Collins Plannine and Zoning Board. The property in question is situated in an established (I)- Industrial
Zone and consists of 2.27 acres. The intent of.the developer is to construct a number of large storage units for
storage of recreational vehicles and for use by trade professionals such as carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc.
as a location in which to house their equipment. Exterior storage at this location will be prohibited.
This request is to modify Division 4.23(E)(2)(a)(2) to allow a 12' landscape setback along Riverside Avenue in
lieu of the 30' setback prescribed in the LUC_ This landscape reduction to 12' is warranted for the following
reasons as specified in Division 2.8 concerning modifications to the LUC.
Does the modification advance or protect the public interests and purposes equally well or better?
• The development of this property is proposed to have a greater amount of landscape materials
within the 12' setback than is required by the LUC in the.30' setback (division 3.2.1). This
increase in landscape material will greatly enhance the character of the surrounding area.
As proposed the facade of the buildings facing Riverside Avenue will utilize natural looking
materials such as split face block and stucco. These materials are not normally required to be
used in an industrial zone district and will add additionalcharacter to an existing industrial
neighborhood.
VICINITY MAP 10/20/99
#9-99 Maxi -Storage- 1640 Riverside F
Modification Request
1"=600'
Modification — Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640 Riverside Avenue — Filing #9-99
November 18, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 11
5. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION:
A. The requested 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 is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
B. Granting the requested modification would not be detrimental to the public good nor
would it impair the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code.
C. 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.
- The proposed landscaped parking area in front of the buildings will increase the
amount of vegetation adjacent to Riverside Avenue to an amount equal to a project
developed according to the standards set forth in the LUC.
- The proposed landscape improvements are similar to or greater than those in the
surrounding area that were reviewed under prior land use regulations, either as a
use -by -right or the Land Development Guidance System.
- The proposed design of the Maxi -Stuff Storage facility is more similar to a
commercial design and use than a true industrial use. The alternative plan as
submitted provides for a good separation of uses on -site, with access and parking
for the storefront offices being detached from the self -storage units while still being
set back a significant distance from the existing Riverside Avenue. There is a
significant amount of landscaping and separation from the existing street, as well as
a defined pedestrian connection from the public sidewalk to the commercial
storefronts.
D. The strict application of the standard sought to be modified would not result in unusual
and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of the property.
- The plan as submitted that requires a modification of a standard could comply if the
facility layout would be moved back on the site, further from the street edge of
Riverside Avenue, with the potential for a loss of 4 of the proposed 45 storage units.
6. RECOMMENDATION:
A. Staff recommends approval of the Modification of Standards in Section 4.23(E)(2)(b)
and Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 of the Land Use Code for Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640
Riverside Avenue - #9-99.
Modification — Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640 Riverside Avenue — Filing #9-99
November 18, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 10
- The proposed landscape improvements are similar to or greater than those in
the surrounding area that were reviewed under prior land use regulations,
either as a use -by -right or the Land Development Guidance System. The
Fort Collins Housing Authority and the Coloradoan Newspaper were
approved and developed with 10' wide landscaped strips separating areas
from the sidewalks adjacent to Riverside Avenue. Several properties on the
opposite side of Riverside Avenue have been developed with approximately
10' wide landscaped strips behind the sidewalk. This plan will maintain 29'-6"
landscaped yard between the proposed 12 parking spaces in front of the
storefront offices and the existing Riverside Avenue ROW, as well as an
additional 10' of turf grass area to the back of sidewalk. The setback from
back of sidewalk along the street and the edge of the parking spaces will be
39'-6" until any improvements are made to Riverside Avenue.
The proposed design of the street frontage for the Maxi -Stuff Storage facility
is more similar to a commercial design and use than a true industrial use.
Placing the parking to the rear of the buildings or along the driveway into the
facility, to meet the requirement, would create a conflict between the parking
for the storefront offices and the overhead door access into the storage units.
There would be potential conflict between vehicles using the office spaces
and storaae units and vehicles entering the facility via the one driveway
entrance if the buildings are turned sideways to Riverside Avenue. The
alternative plan as submitted provides for a good separation of uses on -site,
with access and parking for the storefront offices being detached from the
self -storage units while still being set back a significant distance from the
existing Riverside Avenue. There is a significant amount of landscaping and
separation from the existing street, as well as a defined pedestrian
connection from the public sidewalk to the commercial storefronts.
The strict application of the standard sought to be modified would not result in
unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon
the owner of the property.
- The applicant has provided two options to a Site Plan for the self -storage
facility. One is in compliance with the setback requirement in the LUC. The
other could comply if the facility layout would be moved back on the site,
further from the street edge of Riverside Avenue, with the potential for a loss
of 4 of the proposed 45 storage units. This would constitute a 9% loss in the
number of storage units on -site.
m
Modification — Maxi -Stuff Storage,
November 18, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 9
1640 .Riverside Avenue — Filing #9-99
proposed design of the street frontage for the Maxi -Stuff Storage is more similar to a
commercial design and use than a true industrial use. The amount of landscaping and
separation from the existing street, with a well defined pedestrian connection from the
public sidewalk to the commercial storefronts, provides for a plan that is equal to or better
than a plan that meets Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 of the LUC.
The applicant's comparison to the recent approval of the modification of the
standard in Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 for the property at 1450 Riverside Avenue
(Riverside Center) is considered by staff to be somewhat inconsequential because
the circumstances are different. That property is 628' wide (parallel to and along
Riverside Avenue) and 224' deep (from the right-of-way to the rear of the property).
It was determined that, in that case, 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 because of the intensive landscaping and
berming that is being provided. The proposed Maxi -Stuff Storage development plan
is similar to the Riverside Center plan in that it has uses to the front of the site that
are commercial, not industrial, in nature and require less security from the street.
The parking needs to be readily accessible to the storefront offices. This site will
provide as much or more landscaping, along with the berming, than does the
Riverside Center plan and it will maintain a much larger setback from the street than
that center.
Staff has also determined that:
Granting the requested modification would not be detrimental to the public
good and would not impair the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code.
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.
The proposed landscaped parking area in front of the buildings will increase
the amount of vegetation adjacent to Riverside Avenue to an amount equal
to a project developed according to the standards set forth in the LUC. This
is accomplished by the applicant's proposed screening for the Riverside
Avenue frontage that consists of a combination of 30" high earthen berms
and vegetation plantings. The proposed screening is over the 30" minimum
height and extends well over the minimum of 70% of the street frontage
along the parking lot, as required in Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) of the LUC.
Modification — Maxi -Stuff Storage. 1640 Riverside Avenue — Filing #9-99
November 18, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 8
d. 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 the property.
Section 4.23(E)(2)(b) of the LUC requires that that along Riverside Avenue, being an
arterial street that directly connects.to other zoning districts, the buildings shall be sited so
that a building face abuts upon the required minimum landscaped yard for at least 30% of
the building frontage. The applicant has stated that placing the parking to the rear of the
buildings or along the driveway into the facility, to meet the requirement, would create a
conflict between the parking for the storefront offices and the overhead door access into
the storage units. There would be potential conflict between vehicles using the office
spaces and storage units and vehicles entering the facility via the one driveway entrance if
the buildings are turned sideways to Riverside Avenue. Staff has determined that the
alternative plan as submitted provides for a good separation of uses on -site, with access
and parking for the storefront offices being detached from the self -storage units while still
being set back a significant distance from the existing Riverside Avenue. The proposed
design of the street frontage for the Maxi -Stuff Storage is more similar to a commercial
design and use than a true industrial use. The amount of landscaping and separation from
the existing street, with a well defined pedestrian connection from the public sidewalk to
the commercial storefronts, provides for a plan that is equal to or better than a plan that
meets Section 4.23(E)(2)(b) of the LUC.
Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 of the LUC requires that a 30' deep landscaped yard be provided
along all arterial streets, and along any district boundary line that does not adjoin a
residential land use. If a district boundary line 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 that at the district boundary line.
The boundary line between the 1 - Industrial Zoning District (on the east side of
Riverside Avenue in this area) and the E —Employment Zoning District (on the west
side of Riverside Avenue in this area) appears to be in the street right-of-way for
Riverside Avenue. Therefore, the required 30' deep landscaped yard on the
property at 1640 Riverside Avenue must commence at the right-of-way line on the
east side of the street. This is a Site Design/Screening requirement in the
Development Standards section of the I — Industrial Zoning District.
The subject property at 1640 Riverside Avenue is 396 feet deep from the "new" right-of-
way line to the rear of the property. It varies in width from 216' (at the front) to 256' (at the
rear). Staff has determined that the size and configuration of the property does not
necessarily preclude the ability to develop the property as proposed and provide the 30'
deep landscaped yard (not to include parking areas and buildings) outside of the ultimate
street right-of-way and within the property boundaries, as required in Section
4.23(E)(3)(a)2 of the LUC. The entire layout of the facility could be moved further back on
the site, with the potential for a loss of approximately 4 storage units. However, the
Modification — Maxi -Stuff Storage. 1640 Riverside Avenue — Filing #9-99
November 18, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
• As proposed, this development would have greater building and landscape
setbacks than properties on either side and other properties in the Riverside
corridor.
• Internal traffic circulation has a much clearer definition.
• Buildings closest to Riverside Avenue provide a much more significant screen of the
rear storage buildings, thereby reducing the industrial storage image.
• Additional landscaping is proposed along Riverside Avenue.
• In June, 1999 the Planning and Zoning Board approved a similar modification
request for the property in the 1400 block of Riverside Avenue. This previously
approved modification will result in a developed property with less landscaping that
is proposed with this development. Future improvements to Riverside Avenue will
result in a landscape width between 1' and 9' at the vehicle parking area.
Approval of this request for a modification of two standards for 1640 Riverside Avenue 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 appearance not of an industrial
facility but as a commercial development. As design and business professionals we feel
that the proposed development, with the requested modification, is much better than a
development that conforms to the development standards.
4. ANALYSIS OF MODIFICATION REQUEST
In reviewing the proposed alternative plan for purposes of determining whether it
accomplishes the purposes of this section as required, the Planning and Zoning Board
shall take into account whether the proposed plan demonstrates innovative design and
best meets the intent of the Land Use Code.
Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC specifies that the Planning and Zoning Board shall only grant
a modification for the following reasons:
a. granting a modification of standard would neither be detrimental to the public good
nor impair the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code; and
b. the modification would result in the project addressing the purposes of the standard
equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard; or
c. the modification would result in a substantial benefit to the city; or
Modification — Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640 Riverside Avenue — Filing #9-99
November 18, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
The applicant specifically requests the Planning and Zoning Board allow a project that has
been planned to provide large, easily accessible storage areas for recreational vehicles,
boats, campers, vintage automobile collectors, etc. The development plan would also
provide office and warehouse space for professional trades such as plumbers, carpenters,
concrete workers, etc. The buildings closest to Riverside Avenue would be designed with a
commercial appearance rather than an industrial appearance to act as a buffer to storage
buildings located in the rear. The reasoning for this arrangement is to provide an upscale,
architecturally pleasing front to the building that is visible to and accessible by the public
while providing good access for large trucks and trailers to the rear of the building.
To accomplish the goal of having a street appearance that is more commercial than
industrial, to provide public access that includes parking, and to screen the industrial
activities from the street, a reduction in the landscape setback along Riverside Avenue is
needed. The reduction from 30' to 12', as proposed, would occur on approximately 52% of
the Riverside Avenue frontage. The remaining area along Riverside Avenue would comply
with the 30' landscape setback. The developer has agreed to dedicate a 17.5' strip along
Riverside Avenue to obtain the desired 100' right-of-way (required by the City) for future
improvements to the Riverside corridor.
Strict compliance to the development standards would greatly compromise the intent of the
project and create numerous problems for the development of the property. If developed
without a modification, the appearance of the storage buildings and professional storage
structures would be greatly compromised. Because overhead doors would be required to
be installed at the front of the buildings, and not the rear, the professional storage units
would lose the desired commercial storefront appearance. Visibility of the rear storage
units would become greater thereby increasing the industrial appearance of the entire
facility. Large vehicle access would become very difficult because of the limited turning
area in which to maneuver trucks. For a large truck to enter a front storage space would
require encroachment into the vehicle parking spaces. In addition, there is greater conflict
between trucks and cars in the compliant layout due to the fact that the vehicle parking
area is on either side of the main drive entry into the facility. The modified plan has the car
parking separated from the main drive aisle.
In our professional design opinion we feel that the development with the modification to the
landscape setback is better for the following reasons:
The building appearance from Riverside Avenue has more of a commercial flair
than industrial image.
• Buildings will be set back farther from Riverside Avenue, providing more of a park-
like streetscape. The modified plan would have buildings set back more than 59'
from the right-of-way, whereas the plan conforming to the development standards
would have buildings 30' from the right-of-way.
Modification — Maxi -Stuff Storage,
November 18, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
1640 Riverside Avenue — Filing #9-99
As currently designed there is 15% of building frontage abutting the front landscape yard.
This 15% area is approximately 76.5' from the existing Riverside Avenue ROW, which is
far greater than the 30' depth normally required. -
This request is to modify Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)(2) to allow a 12' wide landscape setback
along Riverside Avenue in lieu of the 30' setback as prescribed in the LUC. This landscape
setback reduction to 12' is warranted for the following reasons as specified in Division 2.8
concerning modifications to the LUC:
1. Does the modification advance or protect the public interests and purposes equally
well or better?
* The development of this property is proposed to have a greater amount of
landscape materials within the 12' setback than is required by the LUC in the
30' setback (Section 3.2.1). This increase in landscape material will greatly
enhance the character of the surrounding area.
* As proposed, the facades of the buildings facing Riverside Avenue will utilize
natural looking materials such as split -face block and stucco. These
materials are not normally required to be used in an industrial zone district
and will add character to an existing industrial neighborhood.
* An earthen berm will be constructed within the 12' landscape area to provide
additional screening along Riverside Avenue. Plantings atop the berm will
enhance the visual effect and character of the development.
* Division 3.7 of the LUC recommends that lots in infill situations should be
developed first to help prevent urban sprawl. Development of this infill
property addresses the concerns in the LUC and will allow one of the few
remaining vacant parcels along Riverside Avenue to be developed in a
positive manner that increases the character of the existing neighborhood.
2. Are there exceptional physical conditions or extraordinary and exceptional
conditions unique to this property?
* Most properties along Riverside Avenue have been developed during the
past 20 to 30 years and do not conform to any common design characteristic.
None of the properties conforms to the 30' landscape setback requirement
for this zone district. In fact, most of the properties have parking immediately
adjacent to the attached sidewalk with little or no landscaping on the
property. Requiring this property to be developed with the 30' landscape
setback along Riverside Avenue will create a development that is out of
context with the neighborhood and place this property at a disadvantage in a
developable area.
Modification — Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640 Riverside Avenue — Filing #9-99
November 18, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
2. MODIFICATION REQUEST — PERTINENT CODE SECTIONS
This request is for modification to the following sections of 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."
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."
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
(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
Modification — Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640 Riverside Avenue — Filing #9-99
November 18, 1999 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
submitted, without the required 30' deep landscaped yard, would not comply with the
requirement set forth in this section.
The applicant is requesting approval of a Modification of two Standards (by the Planning
and Zoning Board) and is required to demonstrate compliance with the Modification of
Standards criteria. The applicant submitted a Preliminary (Alternative) Site Plan for the
Maxi -Stuff Storage Facility at 1640 Riverside Avenue that shows a 12' wide landscaped
yard between the ROW and parking for the proposed storage units and office spaces.
The applicant has submitted an application for a modification of two standards as set forth
in Section 4.23(E)(2)(b) and Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 of the LUC. For illustrative purposes,
the applicant submitted:
• a Preliminary Site Plan not meeting the building and landscaped setback standards
• a Landscape Plan not meeting the building and landscaped setback standards
• 2 Preliminary Site Plans meeting the building and landscaped setback standards
• a Streetscape Plan
• an Exterior Building Elevations Plan
• a Preliminary Riverside Avenue Streetscape Cross -Sections Plan.
This modification of the standards requests that the Planning and Zoning Board determine
if the modification request meets the intent of the. LUC.
COMMENTS
1. BACKGROUND
The surrounding zoning and land uses from the proposed project development plan are as
follows:
N: I; Existing commercial and industrial (various businesses)
W: E; Existing industrial (TELEDYNE Water Pik)
S: I; Existing industrial (RAM Electronics)
E: I; Existing office and industrial (Upland Prospect Business Park)
The property was annexed into the City as part of the East Prospect Street First
Annexation on September 6, 1973.
I ITEM NO. 6
MEETING DATE 11/18/99
STAFF Steve Olt
ICity of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Modification of Standards in Section 4.23(E)(2)(b) and Section
4.23(E)(3)(a)2 of the Land Use Code for the Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640
Riverside Avenue - #9-99
APPLICANT: Wickham Gustafson Architects
c/o Robert Gustafson
1449 Riverside Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNER: Riverside/Prospect LLC
301 East Lincoln Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for two modifications of Section 4.23(E) Development Standards in the I
— Industrial Zoning District of the Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically Subsection
4.23(E)(2)(b) Building Design — Orientation and Subsection 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 Site Design -
Screening. The property is located at 1640 Riverside Avenue and is on the east side of
Riverside Avenue just north of East Prospect Road. The property is in the I — Industrial
Zoning District.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the modification request.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This request is for two modifications of Section 4.23(E) Development Standards,
Subsection 4.23(E)(2)(b) Building Design — Orientation and Subsection 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 Site
Design — Screening.
Section 4.23(E)(2)(b) of the LUC requires that along Riverside Avenue, being an arterial
street that directly connect to other zoning districts, the buildings shall be sited so that a
building face abuts upon the required minimum landscaped yard for at least 30% of the
building frontage. Without a modification of the standard, the Preliminary (Alternative) Site
Plan as submitted, without any building face abutting the required landscaped yard, would
not comply with the requirement set forth in this section.
Section 4.23(E)(3)(a)2 of the LUC requires that a minimum 30' deep landscaped yard be
provided on the site, commencing at the street right-of-way (ROW) line for Riverside
Avenue. Without a modification of the standard, the Preliminary (Alternative) Site Plan as
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
City Cl
a�
Citv of Fort Collins
NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, January 18, 2000 at 6:00 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the 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 November 18, 1999 regarding Modification of Standards for
Maxi -Stuff Storage, 1640 Riverside Avenue (49-99), filed by Tom Smith and Clayton Schwerin,
Partners, Riverside/Prospect, LLC. 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 (221-6515) or the Planning Department (221-6750).
Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may
identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by January 11. Agenda materials
provided to the City Council, including City staffs response to the Notice of Appeal, and any
additional issues identified by City Councilmembers, will be available to the public on Thursday,
January 20. after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office.
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 (221-6515) for assistance.
Wanda M. Krajicek
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
December 28, 1999
cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
300 LaPorte Avenue • PO. Box 380 • Fort Co;ii:r, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6515 • F.-kX (970) 221-6295
6
91TE DATA,
ypy.YA Y.WV �tlal
�44 ^ IMOCM! M6. ,MO V. I.ILi
t 4 '
M
V
LOT I
°' Y Iw. NIOT f@lAi Q [ yy 9 7n
! � 9IlItQf!!�i 6I
YYglM� ea� CCC �tl�
il: f ill:
r
�t O
SIB 'P[-A f4 lwi2 M cc> I Cj .T I Ot-I-S _
a
6
.lu.cv...er. I u�. _ SITE DATA.
,m w am u. na,as
----- ----- -_
wcrww .w�v.�w
LQIJ
.�n
rr+aar WVtMm Aw
N W W H'r Z- We ,
r
t & u_
')ecember 10, 1999
City of Fort Collins
City Clerk
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522-0580
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 a•plan 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 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.
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 propeM, 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,
�o s
Tom Smith
Partner, Riverside/Prospect, LLC
Clayton Schwerin
Partner, Riverside/Prospect, LLC
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY III �M NUMBER: 27
DATE: Januan_- 18, 2000
FORT -COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Stephen Olt
SUBJECT:
Consideration of the Appeal of the November 18, 1999, Determination of the Planning and
Zoning Board to Deny the 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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisio e Code
and Charter, and after consideration, either: (1) remand the r o the Planning and Zonirrg�
Board or (2) uphold, overturn, or modify the Board's de ci 'on.
�ter'tiv�,u��Qro���� �rrQ•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On November 18. 1999. the Planning and Zoning Board denied the request for 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.
Section 4.23(E)(2)(b) requires that along Riverside Avenue, being an arterial
street that directly connects to other zoning districts, the buildings shall be sited so
that a building face abuts upon the required minimum landscaped yard for at least
30% of the building frontage.
Section 4?3(E)(3)(a)2 requires that a minimum 30' deep landscape yard be
provided on the site, commencing at the street right-of-way line for Riverside
Avenue.
The property is zoned I — Industrial (as of the effective date of March 28, 1997 for the new Land
Use Code). The property is located at 1640 Riverside Avenue and is on the east side of Riverside
Avenue just north of East Prospect Road.
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 Clavton 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.
Attachments:
1. Notice of Appeal
2. Staff Report (with recommendation, attached plans, and supporting documentation) to the
Planning and Zoning Board for the November 18, 1999 public hearing
3. Staff response
4. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of November 18, 1999