Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 32, MIDPOINT SELF-STORAGE - PDP - 28-98B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 15 Estate property across the railroad tracks; the location and species of those trees should be discussed with the City Forester. Member Colton seconded the motion. Member Craig stated that she would not support the motion because she cannot support cutting down a 100-year-old tree. Going from three trees to one tree has already provided mitigation and the loss in units, which may create about $1000 per month in income, does not make up for the loss of the tree. The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Craig voting in the negative. Member Bernth moved for approval of the Prospect Industrial Park, Lot 32, Midpoint Self -Storage Project Development Plan, File #28-98B. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Craig voting in the negative. Project: Elizabeth Street Apartments — Project Development Plan and Modification of Standards Project Description: Request for a 50-unit, single building apartment on 1.95 acres located north of Elizabeth Street between City Park Avenue and Constitution Avenue. The applicant is also requesting modification of two City Standards. ..The property is zoned MMN — Medium Density se Neighborhood. Recommendation:' Approva Hearina Testimonv, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Brian Grubb, City PlanKe-r, gave the staff presentation. He stated that this is a combined application for approval of a PDP and two modifications. The site is lofted north of Elizabeth Street between Constitution and City Park Avenues and is zoned MMN. It is surrounded on three sides with MMN zoning, one side with commercial, and one side with CSU property. The multi -family use is allowed in the MMN zone district. There are Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 14 Urban Estate unless the applicant could show justification for changing the structure plan. Member Torgerson asked if the buffer between the industrial zoning and the residential zoning only applies to areas that are currently being used as residential, not to areas that could potentially be residential. Planning Director Gloss replied that the standard cites a residential land use or a zone district. He added that the railroad right-of-way provides a definite buffer. Member Torgerson asked if a railroad track next to vehicles parked along the rear of the property was really a buffer to a residential zone district. Planner Olt stated that there is still a 20 or 30 foot setback from the property line to where the vehicles would be stored, then the railroad right-of-way, then the neighborhood. Member Torgerson stated that there is another application in the process where the applicant went to great lengths to buffer the same use from a residential area. He added that the cottonwood would make a great buffer. He stated that it might be detrimental to the public good to remove the tree by virtue of the aforementioned buffer standard. Member Colton asked if it would be possible for the applicant to add two or three more trees along the rear of the property to provide a continuous screen to help improve the buffer and provide mitigation for the cottonwood. Member Torgerson stated that he did not believe the Board would be within their rights to ask the applicant to do that. Member Colton asked if the applicant would be willing to do that, even though the Code does not require it. Mr. Sherman replied that the applicant would be willing to add the trees if that would get the project approved. Mr. Eckman stated that the Board could place conditions on modifications and those conditions could be focused in any way the Board feels necessary to mitigate the circumstances. Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Prospect Industrial Park, Lot 32, Midpoint Self -Storage Modification of Standards with the condition that three additional 3 inch caliper trees be planted between this property and the Urban Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 13 Chairman Gavaldon suggested continuing the project so the City Forester and the applicant could discuss planting more trees and location of trees. Member Bernth stated that he did not think that was necessary, he was comfortable with Mr. Buchanan's assessment. Member Colton asked whether or not Mr. Buchanan truly felt this to be adequate compensation or if it was the best that could be done after deliberating with the applicant. Doug Moore, Natural Resources, stated that the Code calls for no more than six mitigating trees per lost significant tree. This is according to Code section 3.2.1. Mr. Sherman stated that he had a letter from Planning Director Gloss which contained the suggestions from City Forester Buchanan. Chairman Gavaldon asked for copies. Planning Director Gloss stated that Code section 3.2.1(i)(7) states that larger than minimum sizes shall be required for replacement trees but it does not set a specific caliper size so that is to be at the discretion of staff. With respect to the setback issue, there are no specific setbacks for the rear or side yard unless it abuts a residential use or residentially zoned property. This is an unusual circumstance because this property abuts one that is in the T — Transition zone. There is some discussion from the developer that it could be residential. If the area were zoned residential, the required landscape setback would be 80 feet. Planner Olt stated that the setback in question was along the side property line which does not abut the potential residential neighborhood. Planning Director Gloss stated that no setback requirement exists between buildings in the industrial park. Member Craig stated that the structure map shows the area currently zoned as Transition, as Urban Estate, making it almost necessarily residential in the future. She asked if that could be used as criteria since it is currently zoned T — Transition. Planning Director Gloss stated that the zoning is different than the Structure Plan designation. Paul Eckman, City Attorney, stated that if the structure plan shows Urban Estate and if the zone were to be changed from T to some other zone, it would seem to have to go to I Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 12 Planning Director Gloss stated that the original concept plan did include residential but the final decision has not yet been made. Member Torgerson asked about a knoll that looks over the industrial park and how that might be buffered if the area were to be residential. He stated that the significant tree would have made a good buffer. Member Colton asked how the 3 inch caliper trees were decided upon and for cost estimates on the trees. An unidentified member of the audience replied that the trees were approximately $400 each. Member Colton asked if $2400 worth of trees was adequate compensation. Planner Olt replied that the City Forester has deemed the mitigation to be appropriate. He added that the Code states that mitigation can be no less than one and no more than six trees. Member Colton asked how tall 3 inch caliper trees would be. Member Bernth asked if there would be any flexibility in the size of the mitigating trees. He stated that, according to the map, approximately 12 units would be lost in the plan if the tree were to remain. Member Craig asked what the Code criteria was for setback requirements. Planning Director Gloss replied that he would research it. Member Bernth asked if there would be any possibility for greater mitigation. Mr. Sherman replied that their clients were completely open to any type of mitigation although the ceiling seemed to be 6 trees. A 3 inch caliper tree is fairly large. Larger trees may not tend to grow as well. He said they would be open to suggestions of adding other trees if the location would work. Member Torgerson asked about the four trees in the back and if they were clustered together to avoid the water quality pond. Mr. Sherman replied that it was. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 11 Member Craig asked about setback requirements for the buildings, pointing out that there is no setback for some of the buildings. Planner Olt replied that the zero setback was deemed appropriate rather than having a 'double -fence' situation where the buildings are functioning as a fence. Member Craig asked if some sort of setback could be arranged such that there would be a landscaping buffer between the storage building and the neighboring development. Planner Olt replied that was a possibility. Member Craig asked if the applicant submitted any drawings to try to work around the one significant tree. Planner Olt replied they did not. Mr. Sherman stated that the applicant did meet with City staff prior to submittal and found that fire access and waterline loops became a problem when the tree remained in the design. There is question as to how long the tree will survive, particularly when pavement is added around it. The City Forester determined the tree to be approximately 80 to 100 years old. Member Craig asked what the caliper of the mitigating trees could be. Mr. Sherman replied that staff recommended six trees as mitigation, it was a negotiated amount. Two trees were to be placed in the front and four in the rear. The caliper of the trees was estimated to be 2.5 to 3 inches. Member Craig asked what species the trees were. Mr. Sherman replied that they are all 3 inch caliper Autumn Blaze Maples. Planner Olt stated that the 3 inch caliper is one inch smaller than required. Tim Buchanan found this caliper to be adequate for this particular mitigation. Member Craig asked why Tim picked a Maple rather than a more native species. Planner Olt replied that he was not involved in the negotiations. Member Torgerson asked about the potential uses for the property across the rail road tracks that is currently zoned T — Transition. Planner Olt replied that the area is potentially planned to be residential. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 10 Project: Prospect Industrial Park, Lot 32, Midpoint Self - Storage — Project Development Plan Project Description: Request for a mini -storage facility on 3.4 acres consisting of 49,535 sq. ft. of storage units, a 1,124 sq. ft. office/maintenance unit, a 1,048 sq. ft. residential unit and outdoor storage for motorhomes, RVs, and boats. The property is located on the south side of Midpoint Drive, south of East Prospect Road, east of South Timberline Road, and north of East Drake Road. Zoning is I - Industrial Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Steve Olt, Planner, gave the staff presentation stating that this is a request for a mini - storage facility located on about 3.5 acres consisting of 49,500 sq. ft. of storage units, 1,124 sq. ft. office/maintenance unit, and a 1,000 sq. ft. residential unit. There will be outdoor storage for recreational vehicles, motorhomes, and boats on the rear of the property. The site is located in the Prospect Industrial Park which is south and east of the intersection of East Prospect Road and Timberline Road. Access into the area is from Midpoint Drive off Timberline and Sharp Point Road off East Prospect Road. The site will be fenced completely, or the back of the buildings will act as the 'fencing.' There are several existing trees on the site. There are two large cottonwood trees on the site. City Staff, in particular Tim Buchanan, City Forester, has determined that one cottonwood tree is significant and must be preserved under the Land Use Code guidelines. The applicant has requested a modification to the standard that would allow the tree to be removed. Mitigation would be provided with the planting of 6 additional trees. Staff is recommending approval of that modification request. Barry Sherman, representing Midpoint Development LLC, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that various options have been explored regarding the tree removal and the applicant feels that the submitted option is the best. Citizen Input None. Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call: Craig, Berth, Colton, Torgerson, Meyer, Gaveldon, Member Carpenter was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Moore, Grubb, Stringer, K. Moore, Virata, Stanford, Waldo, Deines, Williams. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1, Minutes of the April 5, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 2. #54-87AA Miramont Tennis and Fitness Center — Referral of a Minor Amendment 3. #1-95C New Belgium Brewery — Overall Development Plan (Continued to 6121 at Applicant's request) 4. #17-OOA Modification of Standards — Cherokee Flying Heights (Pulled for Discussion by Member Colton) Discussion Agenda: 5. #3-OOA Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment (Continued to 8116 at Applicant's Request) 6. #9-01 Modification of Standards — Brophy Property 7. #28=9813 Prospect Industrial Park, Lot 32, Midpoint Self -Storage — Project Development Plan 8. #19-99A Elizabeth Street Apartments — Project Development Plan and Modification of Standards 9. #37-94C Park South Commercial Plaza — Project Development Plan Other Business: 10. Resolution PZ01-03 — Easement Vacation (Moved to Consent)