The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAFFORDABLE SELF STORAGE - PDP - PDP170005 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS� ��ty� • .Fort Coll i ns -'�� PROJECT: APPLICANT: � MEETING DATE STAFF Mav 17, 2018 Ciav Frickey PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Affordable Self Storage, PDP170005 Curtis Koldeway Hauser Architects 3780 E 15t" St Loveland, CO 80538 OWNERS: Randy and Deb Milan 1402 Catalpa Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80521 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Project Development Plan to develop 4 lots of the Evergreen Park Replat (Parcel #'s 9701310009, 9701315001,9701214008 and 9701214007) as a self storage facility. The proposal consists of in a mix of drive up and interior storage units. Building A on the corner of Conifer Street and Red Cedar Circle will be a 2 story facility with interior storage units while the remaining five buildings will each be one story. The overall proposal contains 96,773 feet of building area and is located in the Industrial Zoning district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Affordable Self Storage, PDP 170005. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff finds the proposed Affordable Self Storage Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 — Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 — Administration. • The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(A) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the Planning Services 281 N College Ave — PO Box 580 — Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 f�gov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.675Q • Staff Report — affordable S�Stor�ge; PU�'1 i u0�5 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 2 public good and the proposal submitted deviates from the Code in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. • The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(C) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3— General Development Standards, if the Modification of Standard to Sections 3.8.11(A) and 3.8.11(C) are approved. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.28 Industrial (I) of Article 4— Districts, if the Modification of Standard to Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) is approved. COMMENTS: 1. Backqround The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the Pine Tree Park Annexation in November 1972. Three of the four lots were platted as part of the Evergreen Park Replat in March 1974. The most easterly lot was platted as part of the Conifer Industrial Park Minor Subdivision on November 12, 1992. The site has been used as an outdoor storage facility for many years and sat vacant prior. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Industrial I Li ht industrial, office South Service Commercial (CS), Community Retail, residential Commercial — North Colle e CCN East Community Commercial — North Day shelter, vehicle repair, light industrial Colle e CCN , Industrial I � • St�fr Report — Affordable S�elf Sto�age, �DP1 i00�� P�anning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 3 West Industrial (I), Service Commercial (CS) Metal fabrication shop, motel, vehicle repair A zoning and site vicinity map is presented on the following page. . • Staft Repori — Affordabie �e;t S�r�rage. F'DP � 7u0•;:, Planning & Zoning Board Hear;n� 05-17-2018 Page 4 Figure 1: Affordable Self Storage Zoning & Site Vicinity ,�,.�.�� --._ , i. E ; �� ,f,., -+� ; , , �-- � f; �_�_.—� � �I y'� _� � _ 1_. --1; � � ��— �� . . � � a -} _--- - .i .:�. J --� ..� . ... I � �MMN .... . R�. :: � , 1 �, . . __.�.--- .. _.._.__...�..._�. ._.._..-_r �� . . . i i � ti i « . � .:� : ,.. . i i . . __..... �,�. .;P :. .. . � _ . : _ .__. _._ . � r Brist�econe Dr - ��.. --- - , ...� , ,.. . L��..---' ( -� � , � — _— � —._ � � ,_ � — - � � --- -- � , I R, � . � ( �..�:- �-....��„„......«. - w... � . p . I ... ... �� . '�. . �. Mibtlon Ct ' e � � �. . .. "' ' ;:r ' � .�_.____' __ . LMN �. , � . . . �...-__�_ ._.- _ I : .. _ _..,_,� , � .._._._._ ... .._.. . . � , __ ^__ . . .....: �._.._ ,.. . _ _ .. ....._.._ . � r � � __ � � � .. � � � i i ' � � �. - ` , . ._ __ . . a _ � : ' U �'' �n "- - I . I�� .. .....,¢87� . .�;,_ � i a '�� NoknmisCl � I ... . __—_ o . . _. . ,_ m — � ' � ..------�- I . , r-� _.,. � a � -- - - ---'--_ � � �s L � "i �� . , , —,�,-� �� , 14. d , � � ' ___ _ r � -- � -- � � --- Hickory St I � I` . � � . . , -___._._...:._ SIt2� i _.v.. �..W. � + ' ,f///��,�� --`�-":.r � �/'/i: i r, � % � � -, — - � CanHer Sl � �F � '— i .�✓... � � . �_..�_._...__._.,.. . _. ----r , _ ._.�., .9��.p1aY �.` . _ . . . ._ . .._ _ . .. f I _. . __ I � eR� f� � ' . . . . , �I i Ffreweerd Lr. P-� ( di � I ��"--�.1 , . . . . � � _ � j � �'"l'- r ' . ,� _ � y . . �. YJalinower Ln - � i 4. in . � . . � m ! . � � ' � 4 f � . �_. ..._ '-_ � ..li� ,/ � .. �� _ _; a� - _ - - �� - - - ---.�- � ..,. � � c . � � �� I � a � ;�- . Erho Mounta�n Ln � � � > � C i ' �,. . . .. —+_ . _ U , . . _: _ � c ' v " N E Hemlock St .;. Z . _ . �, , '. � . '_;U in �, __..._�� '_. _'___'_'__'_—_ .` .-� . ' ; �i CCN , __ I , .r , I , � . ... � � � � � � � �La Ganta �n � ° _ � --} 1 � , . �� ti_�_,,____ - � _ f Pinon St "'-1.._...._ ... ._. � . _._ Z o- _ �_ - �._. i ! � E.,. n � .� �� - � ,� � �� - �" i � IT ' i � `'� �a Ra '�' ; , � N � ,_ _ r—.. , �, � �a ._. i _w � , �� ; r � , �e - �;�, ;_ -��i ��i �� ao� `t ' � jj�� j/ h — ' d � �1 `�''( r � — �'�••�.�., ,.� ._._ Alpine St � .. I � � � "T �t� T,L��! 9 � ��` �T ! �\ �� ,l I � . �� / � _ . � ,��,; --_. , - � . . �{��+, -_/c[anSt �C� ��.�.,��%s�%� . 1 z 2,:, � i T .t � � '�U `�.. �' ' 1 _ � rr p�3.-�.7/ .� ! . . i .' �t �� l,( `}Sr `..,,.. �.� \ __.�.." , � � r,: -.�-LL1 ..�, ..l„,. J %/� +�*�: t� ,.,.`�.. te f;76R�nc 4c�'^tn r.itv oark._,._._� �: . �.� �, C�r„ �t�, �n /-.� ��. . '�r"y-�,.+. J { /+,�/ Ll t , `V � If1Ch = 41 % ieEi Affordable Self Storage � Zoning & Vicinity Map �i�r � � Staft F-��r;�_�r: - �'f��rd�ik��l�� .�If �',_,r � ;�� f i.�.: � ��!'�;,. Plani i: �c; ,5� 7� n rg �o��, � r��t;•ii � ��i`, �' 1�. �.,� _ , 2. Compliance with Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code - Modification of Standards Modification #1 Description: The applicant requests a modification to Section 3.8.11(A) to provide a fence greater than 100 feet in length without a change in alignment. Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and bolded for emphasis): Land Use Code 3.8.11(A): If used alonq collector or arterial streets, such features shall be made visuallv interestinq and shall avoid creatinq a"tunnel" effect. Compliance with this standard may be accomplished by integrating architectural elements such as brick or stone columns, incorporating articulation or openings into the design, varying the alignment or setback of the fence, softening the appearance of fence lines with plantings, or similar techniques. In addition to the foregoing, and to the extent reasonably feasible, fences and sections of fences that exceed one hundred (100) feet in lenqth shall vary the aliqnment or setback of af least one-third (1/3 )of the len_qth of the fence or fence section (as applicable) bv a minimum of five (5) feet. Land Use Code Modification Criteria: "The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose 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, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact fhat the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or Statf Report — Atfarda�l2 Seit St�orage, PDP17000�:; Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 6 � (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 wou/d result in unusual and exceptiona/ practica/ difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficu/ties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). Applicant's Justification for Modification: The architectural story's articulation effect. Staff Finding: screen wall in combination with pilasters that mimic the 2- will be equally visually interesting and will avoid a"tunnel" Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(A) is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(4). A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good B. The project design satisfies 2.8.2(H)(4): the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development p/an, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. As the standard states, the purpose of this Code provision is to prevent the "tunnel effect" of a long, undifferentiated mass along arterial streets. The portion of the fence in question is located on the south end of the site along Conifer Street. This portion of the fence is 104 feet in length. A compliant plan would � � �ta�t -. .,.- ._ ,_ ,.s � _ - _�-,,. , ,epo_t— ,,�< r_�t,�«- �-,� ., cr �,... ��-�� :�� _, Flar ,� r� & �c;n:r7q �oarr� H�ari� � 'S 1 � ;',,; ��:_i�_tF' 7 show at least 35 feet of the fence setback an additional five feet. Alternatively, the applicant could provide a fence 100 feet in length and chamfer the corner, which would meet the standard. As proposed, the fence provides visual relief through wide pilasters, changes in height, parapet caps, and a precast sill, which breaks up the mass of the fence. Motorists and other users of Conifer Street would not likely be able to perceive the difference between a fence 100 feet in length and one that is 104 feet in length. Due to the design and the length of fence marginally exceeding the maximum without the need for an additional setback for 1/3 the length of the fence, staff finds this proposal diverges from the standard in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. Modification #2 Description: The applicant requests a modification to Section 3.8.11(C) to have a fence that exceeds four feet in height in the front yard or side yard setback area in the front yard and six feet in height in the side yard setback area in the rear yard. Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified: Land Use Code 3.8.11(C): Fences or walls shall be: (2) no more than four (4) feet high if located in the front yard, or within any required side yard setback area in the front yard, except if required for demonstrated unique security purposes; (3) no more than six (6) feet high if located within any required rear yard setback area or within any side yard setback area in a rear yard; Applicant's Justification for Modification: The screen wall shields out the low visual interest or visually intrusive building element of overhead doors, blank walls and vehicular tratfic. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(C) is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(1). A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good B. The project design satisfies 2.8.2(H)(1): the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested � � Starf Repor# — Affordabfe Se�i Storage. PDP170U06 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 8 equally well or better than wou/d a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. The purpose of this standard is to avoid excessively tall fences that create an impression of walled off, impermeable portions of the community. For this development, the applicant proposes buildings characterized by repetitive garage doors. These low visual interest buildings would detract from the character of the community if left unscreened. Some of the proposed garage doors rise to a height of nine feet, six inches per the architectural elevations. A seven foot tall fence screens more of these low visual interest buildings than a four or six foot tall fence would. The applicant also proposes a fence that is 100% opaque and with enhanced features such as masonry materials, wide pilasters that rise an additional foot in height, precast sills, and parapet caps. The landscape plan also shows generous evergreen plantings at the base of the fence to further soften the appearance of the fence. For these reasons, staff finds the proposed fence promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a compliant plan. Modification #3 Description: The applicant requests a modification to Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) to have a landscape buffer yard along a zone district boundary less than 30 feet in depth. Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified: Land Use Code 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2): A minimum thirtv-foot deep landscaped vard shall be provided alonp all arterial streets, and along anv district boundary line that does not adioin a residential land use. lf 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 than at the district boundary line. This requirement shall not applv to development plans that complv with the standards contained in Section 3,5.3 of this Code. Applicant's Justification for Modification: As has been demonstrated, providing p/ant materials in conjunction with a screen panel and masonry wall provides a more visual integration of materials than that of a security fence. The screen wall a/so shie/ds out the low visual interest or visually intrusive building element of overhead doors, blank walls and vehicu/ar traffic. The architectural screen wall in combination of p/ant materials provides an s �► Statf Report - Affordabl� Self Storag�.. PDP1 7uGC)`; Planning & Zoning Board Heanng 05-17-2018 Page 9 equally well buffering of that of a thirty-foot deep landscape yard, if not better during winter months. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(1). A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good B. The project design satisfies 2.8.2(H)(1): the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose 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 purpose of this standard is to screen industrial activities from neighboring properties with a different character through dense landscaping. The applicant could meet this requirement by providing a 30 foot deep landscape yard on the east side of the site extending up 235 feet from the south property line. What the applicant proposes is a seven foot tall fence in conjunction with evergreen trees. The seven foot tall fence will screen virtually all of the activities of the self-storage facility from adjacent properties not in the Industrial zone district. As discussed previously, this fence will be constructed of high quality materials with the mass broken up through changes in material, plane, and height. The landscape plan shows a series of evergreen plantings that provide year round greenery to soften the appearance of the fence and provide additional visual interest. As such, staff finds the proposed buffer promotes the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a compliant plan. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Section 3.2.1(D) — Tree Planting Standards All developments shall establish groves and belts of trees along all city streets, in and around parking lots, and in all landscape areas that are located within 50' of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial urban tree canopy. The proposed landscape plan shows street trees planted at appropriate intervals and ornamental trees planted close � • Staft Report — Afzordable Seif Sto~age, Pt�F 170G�)�; Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 10 to buildings to provide screening and a partial urban tree canopy, which meets this code standard. B. Section 3.2.1(D)(3) — Minimum Species Diversity The proposed landscape plan shows 51 trees. No one species may make up more than 25% of the overall total number of trees when a development proposes 40-59 trees. None of the species proposed makes up more than 25% of the overall total number of trees in accordance with this standard. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(1) — Buffering Between Incompatib/e Uses and Activities Section 4.28(E)(3)(a) contains more specific language for buffering between developments located in the Industrial zone district and adjacent developments in other zone districts. Since the Article 4 standard is more specific and rigorous, the Article 4 standard applies per Section 3.1.2. The applicant supplied a modification request for the Article 4 standard, which was discussed previously in this staff report. D. Section 3.2.1(E)(3)(b)(2) — Water Budget Total annual water use shall not exceed 15 gallons/square foot over the site. Sheet L-5 of the landscape plan indicates the annual water use of the site is 8.45 gallons/square foot, which meets this standard. E. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)-(5) — Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The perimeter of parking lots are required to have trees planted at a ratio of 1 per 25 lineal feet along a public street and 1 per 40 lineal feet along a side lot line and parking setback area. Parking lots must also have screening to block at least 75% of light from vehicle headlights. 6% of the interior of the parking lot must also contain landscaping. The proposed landscape plan shows buildings surrounding the six space parking lot on three sides. The only portion of the parking lot viewable from the street is on the west side. Section 3.2.1(N) allows applicants to seek alternative compliance to a standard so long as the proposed plan meets the purpose of Section 3.2.1 - ! � Staff Report — Affordable Se�t Siorag�, PDP1 �7u0�i:-� Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Paae 1' equal to or better than a compliant plan. Section 3.2.1(B) articulates the purpose of this code section, which is, "...to require preparation of landscape and tree protection plans that ensure significant canopy shading to reduce glare and heat build-up, contribute to visual quality and continuity within and between developments, provide screening and mitigation of potential conflicts between activity areas and site elements, enhance outdoor spaces, reduce erosion and stormwater runoff, encourage water conservation and mitigate air pollution." In the applicant's Statement of Planning Objectives, they state the buildings screen the self-storage activity. Due to the placement of buildings, headlights from vehicles will not shine onto adjacent properties. Due to this layout, a water line runs underneath the landscape area immediately adjacent to the parking area. Developments may not place trees on top of water lines since roots can infiltrate these lines. As such, it would not be possible for the parking area to meet the requirements for tree plantings. In lieu of these tree plantings, the applicant's proposed landscape plan shows enhanced plantings on the eastern property line and in the landscape buffer yard on Conifer Street to further enhance the site. In total, the applicant proposes 51 trees, four of which are transplanted Pinon trees that currently exist on-site. Through screening the parking lot with buildings and the enhanced tree plantings elsewhere on the site, staff finds the proposal meets this standard through alternative compliance permitted in Section 3.2.1(N). F. Section 3.2.1(F) — Tree Replacement and Protection Existing trees shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Currently, the site has several trees as shown on the tree mitigation plan. The City Forester and the applicant met on-site on February 5, 2018 to inventory all existing trees and their mitigation value. The City Forester found 11 trees on-site. Of these 11 trees, the applicant proposes to preserve and protect five of the trees, transplant four of the trees, and remove two trees. The applicant gets credit for transplanting four of the trees. The mitigation required for removing the Siberian elms and cottonwood stems is nine trees. The net mitigation required is five trees. The applicant proposes planting five upsized Standing Ovation � � Staft i�e:port — Atfordak;ie Se't Storaye. F'UP170(��5 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 12 Serviceberry trees to meet their mitigation requirement per Section 3.2.1(F)(1)(b). Staff finds this proposal to be consistent with this standard. G. Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) - Bicycle Parking Space Requirements The minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required for a self-storage facility is 4 since the most similar use is Industrial. Affordable Self Storage proposes one bicycle rack that contains 4 bicycle parking spaces in accordance with this standard. H. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) - Wa/kways Walkways must be provided to link sidewalks with building entries through parking lots. These walkways must also provide direct connections to off- site pedestrian and bicycle destinations. The proposed site plan shows a sidewalk leading directly to the entry for the office associated with the proposed storage facility. This proposed sidewalk ties into the sidewalk along Red Cedar Circle and does not cross any parking lots or drive aisles. I. Section 3.2.2(D)(1) - Access and Parking Lot Requirements; Pedestrian/Vehicle Separation To the maximum extent feasible, pedestrians and vehicles shall be separated through provision of a sidewalk or walkway. Where complete separation of pedestrian and vehicles is not feasible, potential hazards shall be minimized by using landscaping, bollards, special paving, lighting, and other means to clearly delineate pedestrian areas. Affordable Self Storage proposes separating pedestrians from vehicles by providing a sidewalk separated from the driving and parking area via curb. J. Section 3.2.2(E) - Parking Lot Layout The proposed parking lot layout is consistent with requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to circulation routes, orientation, landscaped islands, and points of conflict. K. Section 3.2.2(J) - Setbacks The proposed parking lot is setback further than the 10-foot minimum along a non-arterial street required per the Land Use Code. • • �:,:�tf Fiep<;h — r�';,.�''C1�,kile �elf Stt t�.c;�. P��el � 1��:.; P;�nning & Zon�ng Boar� Hearing 05-17-2018 �'ac,e 13 L. Section 3.2.2(K)(2) — Nonresidential Parking Requirements This section of the Code does not have a specific parking requirement for self-storage facilities. In that event, Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(d) states that uses not listed in the parking table use the parking ratio for the most equivalent use. Recently approved self-storage facilities have used a variety of parking ranges based on the square footage of the office space associated with the facility and its similarity to industrial uses. The proposed self-storage facility is parked similarly to other recently approved self-storage facilities per the table below. Pro'ect Parkin Provided Timberline Stora e 9 West Vine Self-Stora e 6 South Colle e Stora e 7 Lema Self-Stora e 4 Affordable Self-Stora e 6 M. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) - Handicap Parking Parking lots with less than 25 spaces must provide at least 1 handicap parking space. This space must also be van accessible with an 8-foot wide access aisle adjoining the space. The parking lot proposed is less than 25 spaces and shows 1 handicap parking space that is van accessible. N. Section 3.2.3 - Solar Access, Orientation, Shading All developments must be designed to accommodate active and/or passive solar installations and must not deny adjacent properties access to sunshine. The proposed building is designed and located to minimize the casting of shadows on adjacent properties and could accommodate future active and/or passive solar installations. O. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting The proposed lighting plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to the general standard, lighting levels, and design standards. P. Section 3.5.1(C) — Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale . �taft Report — Afi�ordabl� Sei � Stcr�ge, P�P17u�05 Planning & Zoning Board Hearirg 05-17-2018 Page 14 Buildings shall be similar in size, height, bulk, mass, and scale or articulated in such a way to be compatible with nearby buildings. The largest building proposed for Affordable Self Storage is a two-storys in height and is consistent in size, height, bulk, mass, and scale to other buildings on Red Cedar Circle and Blue Spruce Drive. Similarly, all of the proposed single story buildings for Affordable Self Storage feature a complementary size, height, bulk, mass, and scale to surrounding developments. Q. Section 3.5.1(D) — Privacy Considerations Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. None of the buildings have windows that face onto adjacent properties. The applicant also proposes a fence along the east and south edges of the property to minimize any issues related to privacy. R. Section 3.5.1(E) - Building Materials All proposed buildings shall use similar materials to existing buildings in the neighborhood or use similar architectural characteristics if dissimilar materials are proposed. The proposed building uses similar materials and architectural details to the existing buildings in the area. The proposed materials include concrete masonry units, stucco, vertical metal panels, standing seam metal roofs, and storefront windows. Other buildings nearby contain all of the proposed materials. The form of the building is also consistent with the unadorned, simple architectural style established in the area. S. Section 3.5.1(F) — Building Color Colors used in developments should of similar shades to other buildings nearby to create a unified development pattern. All of the colors proposed by the applicant are earth tones similar to those used by other buildings nearby. T. Section 3.5.1(I) - Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment • • �f:itf Re��;rt - t�,,�<< t _9�:i:i,= ��-;. �<< r ,c; . ='i�P�- !t;05 ?lanninr ��an n::� 5oarc� H�ariny 0�-i 7-�0' 8 sj`,G? ?,; The proposed plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to the location of outdoor storage, screening of storage areas, and screening of rooftop mechanical equipment from public view. U. Section 3.5.3(C)(1) — Orientation to a Connecting Walkway One main entrance of any commercial building shall face and open directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage. The office portion of the storage facility has a main entrance that faces and directly connects to a walkway that ties in to the sidewalk network on Red Cedar Circle. V. Section 3.5.3(C)(2) — Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings Along streets smaller than a full arterial, buildings should be located no more than 15 feet from the right-of-way. For buildings fronting arterial streets, buildings must be located 10 — 25 feet behind the street right-of- way. All of the buildings along Red Cedar Circle comply with this standard by being located 10 — 15 feet behind the right-of-way. A zone district boundary lies along the centerline of Conifer Street. Section 4.28(E)(3)(2), however, requires a 30-foot landscape buffer yard along all arterial streets and zone district boundaries for non-residential zones. Per Section 3.1.2, Article 4 trumps Article 3 when the Article 4 standard is more specific or stringent. In this case, the Article 4 requirement makes it impossible to meet the build-to line standard. Given these conflicting requirements, staff finds the buildings to meet this standard. W. Section 3.5.3(D) — Variation in Massing Single, large, dominant building mass shall be avoided in new buildings. Changes in mass should relate to entrances, integral structure, and/or the organization of interior spaces and should not be solely for cosmetic effect. Each street facing portion of the buildings proposed have the mass broken up in multiple ways. Buildings A, B, C, D, K, J, and I all feature setbacks in the building ranging from 10' to 25' that relate to storage units with different proportions. All of the street fronting buildings also feature a cultured stone wainscot and pilasters to provide relief to the long . S1a�f �ie�ort - Aficrdab(� S�Sto�age, i='LP17000� Planning & Zoning Board Hearir?g 05-17-2018 Page 16 horizontal masses of the building. This combination of setbacks, wainscot, and pilasters provides ample variation in massing. X. Section 3.5.3(E) — Character and /mage Each building shall contribute to the uniqueness of a zone district and the community at large with predominant materials, elements, features, color range, and activity areas tailored specifically to the site and its context. Walls should be articulated, fa�ades should have entry features clearly defined and should have a clear base and top. As discussed in part P of this section of the staff report, the form of the building and proposed materials fit into the established architectural context of the immediate vicinity. Each wall facing the street is clearly articulated with changes in plane, variation in materials, and by having a clear base, middle, and top defined by differing materials. The entry for the building at the corner of Red Cedar Circle and Conifer Street is clearly distinguished with storefront windows. The base and top of each street facing building is established through a change of materials and a cornice. Each street facing building provides screening for the less adorned buildings interior to the site. Y. Section 3.6.6 — Emergency Access All developments must provide adequate access for emergency vehicles by complying with Chapter 9 of the City Code. The proposed emergency access easement shown on the site plan satisfies this code requirement. 4. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code — Industrial (I), Division 4.28: The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.28(B)(2)(c) — Permitted Uses The proposed use, enclosed mini-storage facility, is an allowed use in the Industrial zone district subject to Administrative review. Since one of the buildings exceeds 50,000 square feet, per Section 4.28(D)(1)(b) this project is subject to review by the Planning & Zoning Board. B. Section 4.28(D)(1)(a) — Dimensional Standards ► � • • �tnft Rc:,;O�' — ?y?f :a �is= �r-If ct > -t,�r' (^C.);�' ` ,'-7 Piannina n� Zo� ic�r; Fo;�r;i ,-�.:��rir�c C� �= �-2�:)1 �°, P��e 1 � � � � The maximum height of buildings in the Industrial zone district shall be 4 stories. None of the proposed buildings will exceed 2 stories. C. Section 4.28(E)(2)(b) — Orientation 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 proposed landscape plan shows a 30 foot deep landscape yard along the entirety of the building frontage facing Conifer Street. This building also features windows, pilasters, a cornice, and changes in material that prevent any blank walls. D. Section 4.28(E)(2)(c) — Building character and color New building color shades shall be neutral, with a medium or dark color range, and not white, bright or reflective. All of the proposed building colors are neutral with a medium color range. E. Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) — Screening Sites located along arterial streets and along any district boundary line that does not join a residential land use must provide a 30-foot deep landscape yard along such streets and boundaries. The proposed landscape plan shows a 30-foot deep landscape buffer yard along Conifer Street in accordance with this standard. The applicant seeks a modification to this standard for the proposed buffer along the eastern property boundary, which was discussed earlier in this staff report. F. Section 4.28(E)(3)(b) — Storage and Operational Areas Storage, loading, and work operations shall be screened along all district boundary lines and all public streets. At district edges, side yards shall be used for vehicle operations and storage areas. The proposed site plan shows vehicle use areas screened by the proposed buildings and fencing along all district boundary lines and public streets. The proposed parking lot is located to the side of the main building along Red Cedar Circle in accordance with this standard. 5. Public Outreach Staff Report — Atforc�aU:e S2if S'o�age. 1'UP � 7Q; ,," � Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 18 Projects subject to review by the Planning & Zoning Board must hold a neighborhood meeting per Section 2.2.2 prior to submittal of a formal development application. The Director may waive this requirement if they determine the development proposal would not have significant neighborhood impact. The Director waived the neighborhood meeting for this project due to the scope of the proposal and its minimal impact on the neighborhood. 6. Findinqs of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for the Affordable Self Storage, PDP170005, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 — Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 — Administration. B. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(A) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted deviates from the Code in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. C. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(C) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan. D. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted promotes the general purpose of the code standard equal to or better than would a compliant plan. � � - E. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3— General Development Standards, if the Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(A) and 3.8.11(C) are approved. 1' • • �::.fi 1-ic,")Gi'' — �iif, '�cl:7�C C..:�` Cj� ;� ]i:. �U�}' f :i F':anning & Z��ring �oa-d 'r;=arinc 0��-' 7-20 � 8 Pc%C7P_ 1 `� F. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.28 Industrial (I) of Article 4— Districts, if the Modification of Standard to Section 4.28(E)(3)(a)(2) is approved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Affordable Self Storage, PDP170005. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Zoning & Site Vicinity Map 2. Applicant's Statement of Planning Objectives 3. Applicant's Modification of Standard Requests 4. Affordable Self Storage Planning Document Set (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations & Photometric Plan)