Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWHITMAN STORAGE FACILITY ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE - 11 08C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board April 16, 2009 Page 17 Additionally, in support of his motion the fact that there was a 9 foot fence and the zoning to the south is now CL (Limited Commercial.) Rollins seconded the motion. The motion was passed 4:1 with Member Campana dissenting. Other Business: None Meeting adjourned at 0115 p.m. Dush,JCurrent Planning Director Brigitte hmidt, Chair Planning & Zoning Board April 16, 2009 Page 16 proximity to a natural area --the screening uses the applicant is contemplating is really going to help. Another concern last time was the need for more articulation and from she's heard that's being addressed. It will be of a higher quality than what may already be in the area. It's going to be very visible to the rear but with screening and shrubbery it will,in time, be a benefit to the area. The SCCP rezoned the other area to CL so that is something we have to work with. In this case, it gives Mr. Whitman a little more leeway to provide the accommodation that he's planning on. Staff member Olt wanted to point out that when the Board approved the Project Development in October, 2008 there was a condition imposed on that approval that there be additional articulation along that west side towards future Aran Street. He just wanted to make the Board aware that the final plan has not yet been submitted so that has been put in abeyance until this request/action has been taken. Staff will be looking at that and how it satisfies the Board's condition of approval at such time as the final plan is submitted. Member Stockover moved to approve the Whitman Storage Facility Addition of Permitted Use, #11-08C to add Recreational Vehicle, Boat and Truck Storage as an addition of permitted use. In support of his motion he adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusion on pages 7 and 8 of the staff report. In reviewing the request to add Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage as a Permitted Use for a portion of the property at 209 East Skyway Drive, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. B. Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. C. Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi -public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetic, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. D. Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. E. Such use is not specifically listed by name as a prohibited use in the zone district to which it is added, or if such use is prohibited, the proposed use is specific to the proposed site, is not considered for a text amendment, and is specifically found by the Planning & Zoning Board to not be detrimental to the public good and to be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1. F. Such use is not specifically listed as a "Permitted Use" in Article 4 or if such use is not specifically listed, the proposed use is specific to the proposed site, is not considered for a text amendment, and is specifically found by the Planning & Zoning Board to not be detrimental to the public good and to be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1. Planning & Zoning Board April 16, 2009 Page 15 property. He said it was a very long block away. Looking south toward the Whitman property, the left hand street is the one that "shoots down" (an alley) toward the Whitman property. You can scarcely see the north edge of the Whitman property in the winter time. There is no way the screened storage can be seen from his property. There is no "colorabie" injury to his property from what occurs in the way of outdoor storage on the southwest portion of the Whitman property. Zier said Schumm is not alleging an injury to his property so he does not know what to say other than there is a pathological opposition on the part of this gentleman who is very rational sounding. Zier said to give you an idea --Mr. Whitman came to the neighborhood meeting in a golf cart and afterward Mr. Schumm filed a complaint with the Police Department. Zier takes very seriously legitimate relevant comments but he doesn't see it here by Mr. Schumm. Zier does not think Schumm's comments are relevant and you cannot grant him the relief that he wants. Zier said with regard to the dialogue with Mr. Barnes relative to unscreened outdoor storage of RVs and trucks for sale or lease could occur on this site without any screening. That would be perfectly legal on the C (Commercial) portion of where this is being proposed. This is a far better proposal than that. if Mr. Whitman wanted to sell these units, they would not have to be screened and that would be perfectly legal. He hopes the Board sees that what is being proposed is a sincere effort to protect the neighborhood and is clearly a proper transition in the way the Code codifies it. Member Campana said he appreciates the effort on the part of applicant and staff but he didn't support it in October and he will not be supporting it tonight. It's truly frustrating to try and get public input and not have anyone come to a public meeting after all the letters that have been sent out. He also realizes that as soon as the tractor shows up, it's when most of the people start complaining. He believes it's his role, sometimes, to take that into consideration as to what he views as being good development and what's not good development for our city. He said we've spent a lot of money on the South College Corridor Plan. He thinks we're trying to improve that area. He thinks the mere fact that staff recommended CL on one side (clearly outdoor storage is not allowed in CL or C) further supports what the intent is of Advance Planning (SCCP) and the direction we're trying to take on South College. He's looking out years from now. He tends to agree that today what the applicant is proposing would look better than what's taking place on some of the properties but we're very early in the process of trying to enhance the South College Corridor. He doesn't think this request is a step in that direction and he's not going to support it. Member Smith said he wasn't at the hearing in October but he understands what transpired after reviewing the minutes of that meeting. He doesn't know how he would have voted at that point. He's going to support the motion this evening, however, because he thinks the applicant's made a very good case primarily in the context of adjacent properties. Part of the Code is transitional land use regulations and the other permitted uses. In the field some of those uses would certainly be any more detrimental to the context of the area so because it is still early in that process for that area, there is potential development of adjacent parcels that wouldn't necessarily feel like they're fulfilling the SCCP. As far as the context, he thinks some of the site mitigation and remedies they're offering are reasonable. In the transitional area for compatibility the vacant properties to the south being rezoned to CL probably tipped him in supporting the request. Member Rollins said in October she apposed this but tonight she's going to support it. She thinks that Mr. Whitman has addressed the concerns she expressed in October relative to adjacent zoning and screening —he's gone above and beyond in what he's proposed tonight. That's what she'd expect with the addition of a permitted use on this site. Chair Schmidt said she feels the same way as Member Rollins. One of the big concerns she had was the vacant property in the UE and that has now been zoned CL. Another concern was the site's Planning & Zoning Board April 16, 2009 Page 14 adjacent to it and have the same use, would they need to make an addition of permitted use request. Barnes said yes. Member Campana asked about the Land Use Code (LUC) with regard to fencing design in C (Commercial). Barnes said it doesn't say a lot about it in the C Zone. If you go to Article III, you will find requirements relative to screening materials, etc. It says fencing should be softened with materials such as landscaping, articulation in the fencing, and height. Olt said on this project, there is articulation and separation of approximately 20 feet between each of the recessions in the fence. Barnes said Mr. Zier also indicated that the height of the fence would be "stepped down." Barnes believes those types of elements (including landscaping) satisfies the Code requirements. Campana said we wouldn't then apply the standards in Section 3.8.11(C ).3 related to fences and walls. Barnes said where it's no more than 6 feet high if located in a rear yard setback —is that the section you're referring to? Barnes said in this particular zone there are no setback requirements other than the build -to line from the street. In residential zones, if you're going to have a fence 6 feet high; it has to be set back from the property line the same distance as required for the building along a street frontage. Barnes said the proposal does comply with Section 3.8.11. Member Stockover asked if there is a minimum fence height requirement. Olt said no there is not ... the section for screening doesn't give you a minimum height. Obviously from a screening standpoint, the height would have to be commensurate with what you're trying to screen and to how it relates to the materials behind the fence. Member Campana asked what the intent of the Code is on this. "C-1" says no more than 4 feet high between the front building line and the front property line. Olt said this is not the front property line —the property has been through that test —in this case that section does not apply. Campana asked what happens when Aran Street is improved. Barnes said that wouldn't be the front property line. You can only have one front property line on a corner lot. Barnes used an example a corner lot in a residential subdivision —they may have a 6 foot high fence along the street side lot line that might be closer to the street than the house but that's the street side lot line and not the front lot line. Barnes said we don't allow fences higher than 4 feet in height in the front yard. Member Stockover asked if the criteria for the front lot line changes when Aran Street is developed. Barnes said no. Barnes added they did change the definition of front lot line about 4-5 years ago. It use to be on a corner lot no matter which way the primary building faced, no matter what the address was; the shortest of your two street frontage was always the front property line. That changed so now it's to whichever street the primary entrance faces or whichever address is used for the property. Olt said in this case the primary entrance is off of Skyway and the property address is off of Skyway. Chair Schmidt asked how they plan to water all.the trees. Will they be on a drip system? Mesner said an irrigation system will be installed. Zier said with regard to Mr. Schumm's comments; he's not sure what response this applicant can make for his concerns about City staff and its procedures. He thinks Mr. Schumm has been given great latitude procedurally at all the hearings Mr. Zier has attended. He frequently has been allowed to have rebuttal after our rebuttal which is not in the rules but is frequently asked for and accorded. Even with all of that, he's tried to make a sincere effort in understanding how Mr. Schumm is hurt by this application. Zier does not see damage with regard to zoning and how it is suppose to protect people. It seems he is disaffected with City staff, the City's treatment of him and his property, and he does not want to see something given to someone that he evidently was not given. Zier said he did not know the reasons for that nor does the site specific concerns of his property but he does know where his property is located. He referred to pictures which show Mr. Schumm's property which is a block north of the Whitman Planning & Zoning Board April 16, 2009 Page 13 would be no commercial east of Kel-Mar? He didn't care at the time but he made a lot of plans and did a lot of work based on that. That was reinforced by Greg Byrne (former Community Planning & Environmental Services Director) when Larimer County was trying to rezone this parcel PD. It was reinforced when annexed as UE—no commercial use on UE. It just seems that staff has done a flip-flop here and his objection is with staff more than the applicant. He does not believe that commercial is appropriate rezoning and he certainly does not think that bringing an industrial use to commercial property on this specific site is appropriate. Schumm's second point is the SCCP was an extensive effort. He opposed the rezoning only but he believes that it's a good plan —it's supposed to make things better. So the Kel-Mar strip should look dramatically different so it would be okay to consider (site specific) what the Kel-Mar strip going to look like in the future. Hopefully it would be developed to the standards and expectations that we have. Schumm's third point is the east elevation shows the height of the doors relative to the fence. That came from an engineer so he assumes that includes grade and a scaled drawing of what you will see when constructed. He believes what they're storing has got to be considered to be the height of the doors. The landscaping they are proposing starts at 6 foot with a blue spruce. It doesn't cover the fence because it grows from 6-8 inches per year. It'll take a decade to get above the fence unless you request a berm and even then to get to full height, it's probably take 40 years. What you are going to see are vehicles slightly less than the height of the door. They are going to be well above the fence so what you are going to see is the top half of RVs. His question is: is that the vision you see for Fort Collins under the SCCP? End of Public Input Board Questions: Mr. Mesner said with regard to elevation of the doors on the building. The building itself is elevated 2-3 feet above what the fence would be on the east boundary. Those doors are 18 foot doors. The highest you'll see a very large RV is a 14 high RV. Most are in the range to 8-11 feet. Chair Schmidt asked if he was saying that where the building is elevated but where the RVs would be actually stored would not be as elevated as the building. Mesner said correct. Chair Schmidt asked Zoning Supervisor Peter Barnes about the non -conforming uses. Barnes said that U-Haul property is in the C (Commercial) Zone. Equipment, truck and trailer rentals establishments are permitted uses in that zone so that particular use is allowed. If they are also selling, the zone also allows vehicle sales. The uses have been there and they are permitted in the C zone. The CL zone (south of the Whitman property) wouldn't allow vehicle sales and equipment, truck and trailer rental. Member Campana said that Mr. Zier noted that outdoor storage is taking place on the Kel-Mar strip. Is that legal? Barnes said all the uses that have outdoor storage were there before they were annexed. He said we allow accessory use outdoor storage on the Kel-Mar strip. Outdoor storage as a principal use is only allowed in the"I" (Industrial) Zone. Campana said the difference here (Whitman) is that he'll be storing other's property. Barnes said correct —it's a use, not an accessory to the use going on in the building. It's a principal use onto itself. Campana said one of their concerns before was compatibility with surrounding areas and not knowing what the zoning was going to be to the south —now we know its CL. Campana asked it it'd be allowed in CL. Barnes said RV, boat and truck storage is not allowed as a principal use in the CL Zone. In the CL Zone it would be quite common to find accessory use storage such as a public facility (i.e. City Service Center on Wood Street —which has outside storage of City vehicles, conduit, street light poles, etc.) Campana asked if someone wanted to buy the property Planning & Zoning Board April 16, 2009 Page 12 not something that's going to draw your attention to it. That is the technique that Mr. Mesner.has employed here. He thinks it's a very effective one. Zier referred to the Whitman Storage Facility handouts index and described the various pages. He said this is a neighborhood level storage facility —it's very small. That is its appeal. Almost all the people who store at the Whitman's now are within three miles of their home. Most are within one mile. It's desired, it's necessary and it is a savings in a number of ways (from a "green perspective including reduction of highway use). Zier said this is also beautifully kept property. Zier said the Whitmans take very good care of their property. They have an active business there but it is nicely landscaped and manicured. They have shown by their use of the property that they will maintain it well. The applicant takes very seriously his duty to protect his neighbor's property values and quality of life. Zier said he is following the rules. The rules require him to mitigate according to the standards of the Code. The Board's action does not set a precedent as it is a site specific matter. By the way the City Code is written, this is not something if approved, you'd have to approve even across the street. If the conditions were the same and they merited approval the first time, then you should consider it the second time but only because in your judgment it's appropriate to do that. This is strictly a case -by -case situation and that's what site specific means. He said if the Board is judging that or denying it based on anything other than in a case specific fashion that's unlawful. He said it's not proper and it's not fair to the applicant because he's following the rules. Mr. Mesner's plan protects the neighbors well. The staff has worked very hard with the applicant and this application and he thinks the recommendation should be given great credit. Staff made them "snap to" here. This is by far the nicest commercial screen plan that he's seen proposed for outdoor storage and he's done this type of work for over 30 years. The applicant would appreciate the Board's consideration. Public Input: Staff member Steve Olt reported he'd received a phone call from Rick Nelson, 1012 Vasford Circle. Olt reported that Mr. Nelson wanted the Board to know that he and his wife support the project and they would welcome the ability to store their RV in a facility like this in their neighborhood. Brian Schumm, 7203 Woodrow Drive, said he owns property one block north of the subject property. He is currently using it as a rental and he plans to move back into it next summer. He said it was a "brilliant strategy" on the part of the applicant to flood us with all this additional information. With regard to the petition that Whitman's has circulated, they've circulated petitions before --there is no regard as to whether the occupant of the house is a renter or a property owner and many of the addresses are some distance from the subject property. With regard to the pictures distributed tonight (specifically Page 5), Schumm questions the red line because it goes to the top of the eave. He's familiar with the grade on the property and he thinks even a nine foot fence would be well below the eave of that house which is on higher ground. He thinks that Page 6 is also deceptive. He said they've had many discussions about U- Haul to the west. The trucks parked against the fence are for sale --they do not move and he believes that falls under the category of storage. He believes it's legal but a non -conforming use. He thinks the, whole point in the South College Corridor Plan (SCCP) is that if we look to the west (from Whitman's property), we want it to be better than it is today so a comparison of what it looks like today versus what we want it to look like in the SCCP is suspect. Finally, he said the other drawings all show mature trees. There are three points Schumm said he'd like to make. One, it seems that there is some objection to the fact that he's opposed to this and it's not because of the applicant and it's not because of their presentation per se. He said he's spent 15 years working in the area. Why was he opposed to the commercial zoning —he said because when we did the design for Skyway, we were told by staff there Planning & Zoning Board April 16, 2009 Page 11 He noted to the southeast is natural area land owned by the City. The City's Natural Resource Department has never been heard to oppose it. In fact, he has heard Natural Resource staff in public meetings say they would prefer to have certain commercial uses such as storage to residential uses abutting natural areas because of dogs and other normal residential uses that could be disruptive to a natural area. Zier said it is a big site with less than 1/< of the site is being proposed for enclosed storage. There is even interior fencing proposed on the north side of the storage halfway into the lot in case someone could see it through the normal entrance on Skyway. He said also lending itself well to screening is the breakup of existing buildings. One of the techniques of screening is to vary what the eye sees so there there's not a monotonous, unsavory appearance. He said Mr. Olt and other City staff have been very exacting with the applicant reviewing City standards with regard to scale, bulk, etc. The applicant has tried to be mindful of those requirements. Zier said there is also very good access as well as low traffic use. The average customer comes to the site about a half dozen times in a calendar year. Normally traffic is the major issue with regard to commercial uses and that is not present here. The site lends itself to the kind of mitigation that the Code contemplates. The property was rezoned to C (Commercial) by unanimous vote of the City Council. They found that it complies with the principles and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the key principles of the Structure Plan Map. Since there has been a new procedure approved by City Council allowing people to come in on a site -specific basis and ask for an addition to a permitted use, they would like to avail themselves of that. After the Board's denial to an addition to a permitted use request by Mr. Whitman's in October 2008' they've gone back to the drawing board based on the comments made by different board members and tried to address them. It is their responsibility to reasonably mitigate the concerns of the Board under the standards of the Code and provide for appropriate screening making it compatible with the area. He thinks Mr. Mesner's plan does that. He said staff has reviewed it and recommended appropriately. Zier said, finally the change to the adjacent zoning to the south was a part of the South College Corridor Plan approval from UE to Limited Commercial. It was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said it was approved by City Council over Mr. Schumm's objection. The purpose of zoning is to protect people's property values, enjoyment, and quality of life --that's why we have zoning. That's really what we're talking about tonight. We need to focus on the area and what the people who live there are going to suffer if this is a "deleterious" use. What about this use is going to hurt them? There was one opponent at the neighborhood meeting —Mr. Schumm. There were 435 letters sent for the April 1 meeting. In October there were 115 letters. He had never been to a neighborhood meeting where there has been so little opposition. If people are concerned, they will come to a neighborhood meeting and they will come to the Planning & Zoning Board meeting. He thinks it shows the Board that it is compatible or people would be letting you know. From the number of people near this use, none are in opposition. Not only are they not in opposition, they are affirmative supporters. It is a nine -foot fence. It is crenellated which means it's similar to a medieval castle from a "look down" view. It's a structural fence because of the wind and other reasons. It's two toned. Within the crenellations it'll be slightly darker than the second- tone which will match the existing buildings. It follows the contours. If the Board prefers there be a 3-4 foot berm and a smaller fence on top of that, you might even achieve a higher elevation than 9 feet the applicant is willing to do that —they're flexible. The idea with visual screening is not to draw attention to something. It isn't to totally obscure it —it's to draw the eye to something that is more pleasing. Most of the people who will be viewing it will be passing by on the two collector streets. The variability of the fence, the two colors, and different landscaping would screen so even if there is an AC (air conditioning) unit on an RV and it is visible; it is Planning & Zoning Board April 16, 2009 Page 10 attendance. Oft said the proposal is supported by the City's Land Use Code and the South College Corridor Plan and staff is recommending approval of the addition of permitted use. Board Questions: Member Rollins asked if neighbors to the south (as visible on some photographs provided by staff member Olt) were given notice of the proposal. Olt replied the notice was sent to affected property owners within 2,000 feet of the site. Applicant's Presentation: Dennis Mesner of Mesner Engineering of Loveland Colorado provided copies of drawings that showed the combination of landscaping and fencing and how it is to provide screening for the proposed use of the property. He said the actual site is considered transition from the more intense commercial uses along College Avenue to the residential uses adjacent to the site. The nine -foot fence was developed based on comments made by the Board. They had a challenge in that they didn't know at what elevation Aran Street will be when completed --nothing has been done as far as planning or design of Aran. They considered some options such as berming with a retaining wall and setting the fence,on top of the retaining wall especially along the southern boundary. That would provide a higher elevation to establish landscaping, it would elevate the fence, and it would actually visually lower the vehicles stored inside the fence. Mesner said they've inset the fence in some places to give it a visual break and to make it look deeper. They've added differences in color and shading. They've added extensive evergreen shrubbery along the exterior of the fence in order to soften the fence and bring the eye away from the fence itself. The landscaping will be a minimum of eight feet high. All of it will exceed 12 feet and most of it will go up to 25 feet over time. There is a combination of deciduous and evergreen with the majority being evergreen. Mesner said along the eastern side, they more "intense" and larger blue spruce to provide a denser material to screen the use. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked that copies of handouts presented to the Board also be distributed to those present in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Mesner provided Brian Schumm a copy. Rick Zier, 322 E. Oak, is a land use attorney. He distributed handouts to the Board and Mr. Schumm. He provided an original petition to the administrative secretary. He said the site itself lends itself very well to mitigation and screening. The screen techniques described by Mr. Mesner are effective on this site for a number of reasons having to do with the immediately surrounding area. Zier noted the Kel-Mar Strip is immediately to the west across what will become the right-of-way for Aran Street is legal outdoor unscreened storage. It's unsightly but it's perfectly legal. The site is a transitional site. There is residential zoning to the east, including a large lot with the Montessori School. To the north are residences screened by the existing residence, a storage building and a large enclosed storage building that already exists. None of the adjacent owners are in opposition. He said no opposition has been voiced by individuals immediately affected by this site. Those with whom they could make contact have signed a petition in support of the proposal. Zier said to the south are the two large lots that now have been zoned Limited Commercial (CL). In October there was some concern by a number of members that zoning was in the works but it was not an accomplished fact and they were unwilling to take that as an "article of faith" that it was coming. It is now an accomplished fact having been approved by City Council recently. That factors into the Board's concerns of compatibility. There has never been any known opposition by the owners of those two lots. Planning & Zoning Board April 16, 2009 Page 9 trailers are parked on the site without being screened from the public street. To the south of the rental center are retail and wholesale businesses that utilize both interior and exterior storage of finished goods and materials. The properties to the west of the site do have chain link security fences along the entire length of the property line. The property to the north of East Skyway Drive is a hot tub and spa dealership. The dealership involves the retail sales, service and set- up of hot tubs and spas. The business stores inventory both in the building and outside the building. Delivery and service vehicles are parked at the facility when not making a delivery or sales call The extension of Aran Street to the south of East Skyway Drive is to occur at some point in the future as a part of the South College Avenue access improvements. The Whitman Storage Facility is dedicating street right-of-way and planning for the future extension of Aran Street. The Whitman Storage Facility will not utilize Aran Street for access. The area to the south of the site is vacant land that is platted as Lots 2 and 3 of Block 1of Lynn Acres subdivision. The lots have been rezoned from Urban Estate (UE) to Limited Commercial (CL). The First Reading of the ordinance amending the Zoning Map occurred on March 3, 2009 and Second Reading on March 24, 2009. To the east of the site is Lot 4 of Block 1 of Lynn Acres subdivision. This lot is used as a Montessori School and child care center. The site is zoned Urban Estate (UE). To the east of the Montessori School is the Huntington Hills West Subdivision. This is a small low density single family subdivision. To the south and east of the Lynn Acres and Huntington Hills West subdivisions is the City of Fort Collins "Prairie Dog Meadows" Natural Area. Is the Proposed Use Compatible with the Neighborhood Context and with Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code? The proposed permitted use for the storage of recreational vehicles, boats and trucks is compatible with the existing Commercial (C) zoning to the west and north. The permitted use is similar in nature to the uses in existence in the Commercial (C) zone to the west. The proposed permitted use for recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage will be screened by solid fencing and landscaping to provide a visual barrier and pleasing appearance to the neighborhood to the south and east. The area adjacent to the proposed permitted use located in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone on the site will be used to establish additional landscape plantings to provide screening and habitat within the Natural Area Buffer located at the southeast comer of the site. The existing Low Density Residential (RL) zone located on the site will provide a transition buffer between the proposed permitted use for storage of recreation vehicles, .boats and trucks and the existing low density residential properties to the south, east and north. City Staff concurs with the applicant's contextual analysis of the Whitman property and proposed addition of permitted use. The Planning & Zoning Board, on October 16, 2008, denied a request for the Addition of Permitted Use, being Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage. At that time the applicant was proposing an 8-foot high fence and there was not as much landscaping as we're seeing now. South College Corridor Plan was just recently adopted and as part of that Plan, the two properties directly south of the Whitman property were previously zoned UE (Urban Estate) are now CL (Limited Commercial.) Olt reported a neighborhood meeting took place on April 1 after 435 letters were sent out to surrounding affected property owners. Three residents, the applicants, their attorney, and City staff were in Planning & Zoning Board April 16, 2009 Page 8 Project: Whitman Storage Facility — Addition of Permitted Use, # 11-08C Project Description: This is a request to add Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage as an Addition of Permitted Use in the Commercial zone district specifically for a portion of the property at 209 East Skyway Drive. The property is partially developed. The parcel to be used for the aforementioned vehicle storage is a portion of Lot 3 in the southerly'/z of the Whitman Storage Facility subdivision plat. It is approximately 1 acre in size and zoned C, Commercial. Recommendation: Approval Hearina Testimonv, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff presentation: City Planner Steve Olt noted the site currently contains an existing single-family residence, an existing office/retail sales building, and two existing repair shop buildings. The proposed use, Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage, is not permitted in the C District. The proposed use has been reviewed by the criteria of Section 3.5.1, which addresses compatibility with the surrounding area. The application is for a proposed use is Recreational Vehicle, Boat, and Truck Storage on a portion of Lot 3 in the southerly'/ of the Whitman Storage Facility subdivision plat. It is approximately 1 acre in size and zoned C, Commercial. This use is defined in the City's Land Use Code as: Recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage shall mean the renting of space in an unroofed area for the purpose of storing any recreational vehicle, boat or truck. For the purposes of this definition, a recreational vehicle shall be a transportation structure that is primarily designed as a temporary living accommodation for recreational, camping and travel use including, but not limited to, travel trailers, truck campers, camping trailers and self-propelled motor homes. This use is "outdoor", open storage and must be adequately screened from view by surrounding properties, as set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(6) of the Land Use Code. The Applicant has provided the following description of the surrounding area: The area surrounding the site is partially developed. The site abuts East Skyway Drive along its northern border. East Skyway Drive is classified as a collector street on the City's Transportation Master Plan. East Skyway Drive provides a link between South College Avenue and Lemay Avenue. The area to the north of East Skyway Drive is a single family residential development known as Huntington Hills. The subdivision is zoned Low Density Residential (RL). The eastern portion of the Whitman site has been zoned Low Density Residential (RL) to transition to the established residential neighborhood to the north and east. No additional uses are being requested within the Low Density Residential (RL) zone. The area to the west of the site is known as the Kel-Mar Strip. The Kel-Mar Strip is zoned Commercial (C) and consists of many commercial establishments with uses similar to the existing and proposed uses in the Whitman Storage Facility. A rental center is located immediately west of the site on the south side of East Skyway Drive. The rental trucks, vans and Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Excused Absence: Lingle Staff Present: Dush, Eckman, Olt, Bames, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review. Director Dush reviewed the Consent and Discussion agenda. Citizen participation: None Consent Agenda: Chair Schmidt asked members of the audience and the Board if they'd like to pull any items from the Consent Agenda. There were no requests to pull any items from the consent agenda. 1. Minutes from the March 16, 2009 Planning & Zoning Hearing 2. King Soopers' Store # 9 Remodel —Modification of Standard, # 10-09 Member Stockover moved to approve the consent agenda which includes: item # 1—March 16, 2009 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing minutes, item # 2— King Soopers' Store # 9 Remodel — Modification of Standard, # 10-09. Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0. Discussion Items: 3. North College MarketPlace — Modification of Standards, # 43-08 4. Whitman Storage Facility -Addition of Permitted Use, # 11-08C Project: North College MarketPlace — Modification of Standards, # 43-08 Project Description: This is a request only to modify two (2) standards set forth in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC). The property is undeveloped; however, a supermarket -anchored shopping center is being proposed. The parcel is approximately 27 acres in size and zoned CCN, Community Commercial North College. The requests for modifications of standards are as follows: • Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions. This section requires that Two - Way Drive Aisle Widths for 60 degree angled parking be a minimum of 24 feet. The applicant is requesting a width of 22 feet.