AGENDA. December 8, 2015 REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND APPEALS BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "AGENDA. December 8, 2015 REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND APPEALS BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M."

Norma Andrews
5 years ago
Views:

1 AGENDA December 8, 2015 REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND APPEALS BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. 1) CALL TO ORDER 2) ROLL CALL 3) APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 10, ) OLD BUSINESS A. V : A Variance request for the Willow Bend Oil and Gas Facility (located on the southwest corner of East 152 nd Avenue and Holly Street). 6) NEW BUSINESS A. DP : A Resolution for a Development Permit (DP) to consider approval of the architectural elevations, site plan, and landscape plan to develop an approximate 14,886 square-foot medical office building (located on the southeast corner of East 136 th Avenue and Cottonwood Lakes Boulevard - Cottonwood Lakes Medical Campus Lot 1). 7) OTHER MATTERS A. Scheduled public meetings there are currently no items scheduled for the January 5, 2016 meeting. 8) ADJOURNMENT

2 ROLL CALL: MINUTES THORNTON DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND APPEALS BOARD NOVEMBER 10, 2015 Allan Inge (Chair) Donald Schieferecke (Vice-Chair) Bruce Thomas Paul Hepner Leon Reed Rick Zetterman Daniel Alonzo Anna Sparks Jessica Sandgren Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Also attending were Leah Dawson, and Lori Hight of the City Development Department; Gary Jacobson, Deputy City Attorney; and Koli Campanella, and Victoria Nagel Recording Secretaries. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. REED AND SECONDED BY MR. ALONZO TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. THOMAS AND SECONDED BY MR. HEPNER TO APPROVE THE October 6, 2015 MEETING MINUTES. MR. REED ABSTAINED, AS HE WAS NOT AT THE LAST MEETING. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS: At this time, individuals wishing to provide testimony during the public hearings were sworn in by the Recording Secretary. DP : A Resolution for a Development Permit/Special Use Permit (DP/SUP) to consider approval of the site plan, landscape plan, photometric plans, and architectural elevations to develop approximately acres of property (Qwest Thornton Central Office Subdivision, Lot 2A - located on the west side of Washington Street and south of Pennsylvania Street). The floor was opened at 6:02 p.m.

3 Minutes of the Development Permits and Appeals Board Meeting November 10, 2015 Page 2 Ms. Dawson introduced Lori Hight as the case presenter for Qwest Thornton Central Storage. Ms. Hight presented a staff report, slides and entered into the record City s Exhibit A, the Affidavit of Posting and the legal notice for the case from the Thornton/Northglenn Sentinel which is City s Exhibit B. Barry Sherman, Deb Construction 909 East 62 nd Avenue, Denver, Colorado, was introduced as the applicant. He confirmed he was sworn in. Mr. Sherman explained the access routes into the property, the architecture of the building and presented staff with the color board for the project. Mr. Zetterman asked Mr. Sherman about the caretaker s residence location. Mr. Sherman responded by pointing out the location on the overall south elevation. Gary Rohr, Resolute Investments 7374 South Azton Way #203 Aurora, Colorado, introduced himself as the developer for the project. He confirmed he was sworn in. He described his previous experience with long term properties. Mr. Rohr explained he had been looking for a parcel of land that would allow a storage facility and that this parcel has been empty for a long time. Mr. Rohr discussed current supply for this type of facility is low, but current demand is high due to the growth of the City. He described how the proposal meets city requirements. Allan Jones, 678 East Vine Street #9 Salt Lake City, Utah, confirmed he was sworn in. Mr. Jones introduced himself as the owner of the storage facility to the north of the fence line. He stated that the he received a notice from the City regarding the proposal and expressed his concerns since it is a competitor to his business. He went into detail of questions and concerns to items stated in the Staff Report regarding the proposal. Mr. Reed asked Mr. Jones if the fire access road was located on his property. Mr. Jones said it was not on his property. Mr. Reed asked Mr. Jones if the City required them to put in the access road. Mr. Jones said he had to put a break in the buildings as a requirement. Mr. Reed asked Mr. Jones if fire could access the property if the new property was built. Mr. Jones answered that no, he did not believe the fire department can access his property with the new property. Ms. Ohstrom-Sangren asked if we have any information from fire about this road. Mr. Jacobson responded that staff will respond to these concerns. Ms. Ohstrom-Sangren asked Mr Jones if he knew about the fire department access road. Mr. Jones said he has not heard about the access road.

4 Minutes of the Development Permits and Appeals Board Meeting November 10, 2015 Page 3 Mr. Inge reminded everyone that the Board cannot question zoning or uses of the property. Phillip Larson, West Colfax Ave A-180 Lakewood, Colorado, confirmed he was sworn in. Mr. Larson introduced himself as the Stor N Lock Attorney. He went into detail regarding the dedicated street, specific items regarding a Specific Use Permit and items stated in the Staff Report regarding the proposal. Mr. Schiferecke stated that his interpretation of the major concern is competition and asked Mr. Larson if there were CCNRs in place to stop the move in of the competition. Mr. Larson said there were no CCNRs as far as he is aware. Mr. Inge stated apart from fire access issues Mr. Larson s understanding of the SUP criteria seems flawed because the area would be enhanced by this new development. Ms. Hight wanted to address the fire access road in question. She drew attention to the original plat in Adams County which showed a road on the northern plat. However the road was never built; therefore vacating the right-of-way is acceptable. She further explained that there is an emergency access drive with a gate along the northern line in the proposal giving the Fire Department access to the property. In addition to this, Ms. Hight confirmed that the Fire Department has reviewed and approved the plan. Mr. Inge asked Ms. Hight for clarification of the drawing proposal for the landscape area. Ms. Hight agreed the area did show landscaping and said the plan could easily be amended. Ms. Hight then addressed the concern about the employment center classification. Ms. Hight explained the storage facility is a use compatible with the Comprehensive Plan designation, which specifically includes storage centers as employment centers. As for the Specific Use Permit criteria, Ms. Hight further explained that the storage unit is compatible. Mr. Zetterman explained that the roadway vacated was vacated on north side. He asked Ms. Hight to review the proposal for the 20-foot gate and review to the west where it states a six-foot size gate, which would not be wide enough for a fire truck. Ms. Hight explained that she was not sure about the length of the fence but referred to the photo and agreed that it does not look large enough for a fire truck. Mr. Zetterman asked Ms. Hight where the fire access is located. Ms. Hight answered the fire access is off Pennslyania Street. She is not aware of plans for that gate, but as of now a fire hose could get through.

5 Minutes of the Development Permits and Appeals Board Meeting November 10, 2015 Page 4 Mr. Inge stated that according to the participants the fence would be shared. He asked Ms. Hight to describe the process of the reviewing a submittal to the board. Ms. Hight explained the review process. Mr. Alonzo said it looked like paving of the road along the fence and asked about the length of that road. Ms. Hight said no road existed; that it is not pavement it is landscaping. Mr. Alonzo asked Ms. Hight if there were any concerns received by fire about this access road. Ms. Hight answered there were no concerns she had received by fire. Ms. Ohstrom-Sangren asked Ms. Hight to explain more about the employment area distinction. Ms. Hight said it a fairly new distinction, but both the existing and proposed properties have the same designation and zoning. Mr. Hepner asked Ms. Hight if Adams County required the fire road. Ms. Hight answered yes Adams County did require the fire road. Mr. Jacobson asked Ms. Hight if the Fire Department took the fire access road into account during their review. Ms. Hight said she would assume they did. Mr. Jacobson asked if the Fire Department is required to check fire access roads. Ms. Hight confirmed that the Fire Department is required to check fire access roads. Mr. Jacobson explained that fire access to an adjacent property should not come into play with the passing of this approval and is irrelevant. Mr. Jacobson asked Ms. Hight if she would like to add the statement about uses of the Specific Use Permit to page 2 sub paragraph (3a) of the resolution. Ms. Hight confirmed she would like to add this statement to the Resolution. Mr. Jacobson asked the Board to add this statement to the Resolution. Mr. Jacobson then asked if the development of a vacant parcel in subsection (b) is what Ms. Hight had referred to with her earlier statement. Ms. Hight confirmed that it was. Mr. Jacobson asked Ms. Hight to explain how adding to a vacant property would benefit the area. Ms. Hight explained that it can add taxes, reduce crime, lower/remove graffiti, and remove prairie dogs. Mr. Jacobson asked Ms. Hight if a storage facility is a specific use. Ms. Hight confirmed that it is a stated use, but that this is not usually in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Inge asked for clarification of specific use from Mr. Jacobson. Mr. Jacobson explained that same uses are compatible which should be added to the paragraph (3a). Mr. Jacobson read paragraph 3. He said one thing that has been discussed is that

6 Minutes of the Development Permits and Appeals Board Meeting November 10, 2015 Page 5 comparable uses are compatible uses therefore the criteria of this use is met. Mr. Jacobson requested this be added to the Resolution. Ms. Hight confirmed this should be added. Mr. Jacobson brought up that Mr. Jones discussed the occupancy criteria for contribution to the area. He explained that staff sees improving the area as the important factor here. Therefore having a vacant property filled is better than an empty property. Mr Inge then asked for final comments after this discussion. Mr. Rohr explained that the only subarea and zoning that allows storage is (i), which this location is designated. He added that the fire concerns seem false since the paving and addition of a gate provided by the new development would benefit both parcels. Finally, he stated that he understands the participants not wanting competition but the community will benefit from this development. Mr. Larson requested that the Board think about section (4b) and the City Council s meaning behind it. Mrs. Ohstrom-Sangren asked Mr. Larson if taking away the fire area would mean fire could not access the property. Mr. Larson stated that there is fire access in the front. He then questioned why a neighborhood meeting had not been held. Ms. Dawson answered that staff requirements had been met so a neighborhood meeting was not necessary. Mr. Jacobson wanted a response to Ms.Ohstrom-Sangren from Ms. Dawson. Ms. Dawson stated that when the Fire Department conducts a review they make sure that emergency access is approved. In addition, with the construction drawing submittal it is possible to take fire access into further review. Mr. Jacobson stated that fire determined this and it s not relevant. The plat shows an unused dedicated road. He stated that it is not a street and it was never improved on; therefore vacation is determined by the State. This is not an issue before the Board and does not affect the criteria of the Specific Use Permit. Mr. Jacobson requested changes to the Resolution be amended and requested confirmation of the testimony presented to the Board. Mr. Inge agreed to the testimony as recommended. The floor closed to further testimony at 7:22 p.m.

7 Minutes of the Development Permits and Appeals Board Meeting November 10, 2015 Page 6 MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. REED AND SECONDED BY MR. HEPNER TO APPROVE. DISCUSSION: Mr. Reed was in favor of the project due to the enhancement of a vacant lot. Mr. Hepner concurred with Mr. Reed. Mr. Zetterman stated that after the clarification of the plans he is in favor of the project. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER MATTERS: Scheduled public meetings there is one item scheduled for the December 8, 2015 meeting. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:36 p.m. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND APPEALS BOARD OF THE CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO Allan H. Inge, Chairperson ATTEST: Recording Secretary F:\dpabmin-form.doc

AGENDA. April 5, 2016 REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND APPEALS BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M.

AGENDA. April 5, 2016 REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND APPEALS BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. AGENDA April 5, 2016 REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND APPEALS BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. 1) CALL TO ORDER 2) ROLL CALL 3) APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 22, 2016 5)