No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 01/09/2003Minutes approved by the Board at the February 13, 2003 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — January 9, 2003 8: 45 a.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) llChairperson: Steve Remington lPhone: (H)223-7138 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday January 9, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Andy Miscio Steve Remington William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Lingle STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Remington, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Stockover made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 14, 2002, meeting. Miscio seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. APPEAL NO. 2402 —Approved Address: 1334 West Oak Street ZBA J&.uary 9, 2003 Page 2 Petitioner: Fred and Ardith Kerst Zone: NCL Section: 4.6 (D) (1) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1, to 2.7 to l in order to allow a 632 square foot, one-story addition to the rear and east side of the existing single family home. Without a variance, the addition cannot exceed 181 square feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Due to age and health problems, one of the owners is unable to climb stairs. Therefore, they desire to construct a bedroom on the ground level. For security reasons, they desire to be able to access the home directly from the garage. Therefore, they are proposing to connect the bedroom addition to the existing garage. Staff Comments: The lot line between this lot and the lot directly to the east was recently adjusted with the result that this lot was made larger, and the east property line was moved further east. Previous to the lot line adjustment, this lot contained 9500 square feet of lot area with 3582 square feet of building. Therefore, the previous lot area to floor area ratio was already nonconforming at 2.65 to 1. The new, proposed ratio is 2.7 to 1, meaning that this parcel of land will actually be more in conformance with the standard than what originally existed. Therefore, the Board may determine that the proposal as submitted promotes the standard equally well as did the original level of compliance on this property. Staff Slide Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated a lot line adjustment was done on the property. The lot area (lot number 14) was enlarged. The Applicant also owns the lot next door (lot number 15) Bames noted the property complies with lot to floor area ratio, and all of the setback requirements from the building to the lot lines. Barnes explained the Applicant's proposal. The addition would be attached to the back of the house and to the existing detached garage. Barnes said the garage would be remodeled to include a deeper garage to better accommodate a vehicle, and the garage would have alley access. Remington asked staff if the setbacks for lot 14 complied with code. Bames stated the original lot 14 contained 9500 square feet of lot area; and the square footage of the building on lot 14 was 3582 square feet. Barnes stated that prior to the lot line adjustment, the lot to floor area ratio was 2.65 to 1, when 3 to 1 is required, making the lot already non -conforming with respect to the lot to floor area ratio. Barnes noted the setbacks were also non -conforming. Bames stated that with the lot line adjustment that the sideyard setbacks will comply with code even with the addition. ZBA January 9, 2003 Page 3 Applicant Participation: Kim Normandin, 300 Jackson Avenue, representative for W and K Design addressed the Board. Ms. Normandin explained the homeowner's desire to have the master bedroom and bath on the main level due to Mrs. Kerst's arthritis, and the homeowner's desire to have the garage attached for security and safety reasons. Ms. Normandin explained the items included in boardmembers packets. Ms. Normandin stated the addition would consist of 632 square feet. Remington asked Ms. Normandin if any of the surrounding properties had attached garages. Board Discussion: Miscio was in favor of the appeal. Donahue was concerned about the size of the addition, and felt the proposal was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Barnes noted that the property is across the street from City Park, and a number of the homes on the block are quite large. Barnes stated the proposal was not out of character for the neighborhood. Mrs. Kerst, 1334 West Oak Street, addressed the Board. Mrs. Kerst stated that she and her husband are trying to keep the addition as small as possible. Mrs. Kerst explained why she wanted to have an attached garage. Mrs. Kerst stated that the neighborhood has mixed sizes of homes. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2402 based on the egdal to or better than standard. Miscio stated approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. Remington stated that the purpose of the standard for the setbacks and the lot to floor area ratio is to allow space between buildings for adequate open space. Remington stated the lot to floor area ratio is improved. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Dickson, Remington, Hall, Stockover, and Donahue. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2403 — Approved with conditions Address: 320 North College Avenue Petitioner: Greg Fisher Zone: T Section: 4.9(B)(1)(b) Background: The owner and petitioner request a variance as provided by Sections 2.10 and 4.9(B)((1)(b) of the Land Use Code to allow installation of a permanent structure that contains a use which was existing on the property at the time the property was placed in the T zoning district. Specifically, the variance would allow the existing 3,530 square foot office building, the existing 1516 square foot shop/truck wash building, and the existing fuel pumping structure to be removed and ZB A Ja.. _ay 9, 2003 Page 4 replaced with a new 7,990 square foot office building. There are two ways to receive approval to construct a new structure on this property in the T zone. One way is to grant a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals; the other is to rezone the property to RDR. The owner and petitioner are seeking approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals instead of a rezoning. Hardship: Please see attached petitioner's letter A. Staff Comments: The purpose statement of Section 4.9 of the Land Use Code states that: "The Transition District is intended for properties for which there are no specific and immediate plans for development. The only permitted uses are those existing at the date the property was placed into this District." Since the proposed office building will contain a use that existed on the property prior to the property being placed in the T zone, the variance provisions that allow consideration of the applicant's land use request do apply . The applicant has submitted a letter to the Board outlining numerous unique circumstances applicable to this property as a result of railroad track relocations, zoning changes and other relevant information. The letter outlines the applicant's argument for supporting the development request to allow the construction to occur in the T zone. However, it is important to note that Section 4.9(B)(1)(b) states that "...the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance in accordance with Division 2.10 permitting installation or enlargement of a permanent structure...". The key words in this section are the words "may grant". This means that it is not mandatory that the Board grant a variance. The applicant can still construct the office building without a variance, but it would require that the property be rezoned. Since the development can be accomplished with or without a variance and be required to comply with the same development standards regardless of the process, staff of the Planning Department will be submitting a recommendation to the Board outlining their position as to whether or not the proposal should be allowed to proceed without rezoning the property to the appropriate zoning district. (See Appeal Number 2404 for specific minutes for this appeal.) 5. APPEAL NO.2404 — Approved with conditions Address: 223 Willow Street Petitioner: Greg Fisher Zone: T Section: 2.10 and 4.9(B)(1)(b) ZBA January 9, 2003 Page 5 Background: The owner and petitioner request a variance as provided by Sections 2.10 and 4.9(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code to allow installation of a permanent structure that contains a use which was existing on the property at the time the property was placed in the T zoning district. Specifically, the variance would allow the construction of a 1950 square foot enclosed truck wash addition to the rear of the existing warehouse/shop building. There are two ways to receive approval to construct an addition to a building on this property in the T zone. One way is for a variance to be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals; the other is to rezone this property to RDR. The owner and petitioner are seeking approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals instead of a rezoning. Hardship: Please see attached petitioner's letter B. Staff Comments: This is similar to Appeal #2403. Since the proposed truck wash bay is a use that existed on the . property prior to the property being placed in the T zone, the variance provisions that allow consideration of the applicant's use request do apply. The applicant has submitted a letter to the Board outlining numerous unique circumstances applicable to this property as a result of railroad track relocations, zoning changes and other relevant information. The letter outlines the applicant's argument for supporting the request to construct an addition to the back side of the building. As is the case with Appeal #2403, the addition can still be constructed without a variance, but would require that the property be rezoned. However, in this particular case, if the property is rezoned, it's possible that the building would then be classified as a "building containing a nonconforming use". In that event, the addition would be limited to about 1275 square feet and would need to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. This resulting process would require that the entire parcel of ground be brought into compliance with the applicable standards, meaning that landscaping, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk and other improvements would probably need to be made. If the property stays in the T zone, then most of these improvements would not be required. Staff of the Planning Department will be submitting a recommendation to the Board outlining their position as to whether or not the proposal should be allowed to proceed without rezoning the property to the appropriate zoning district. *These two appeals were heard together because they are interrelated. Board member Dickson recused herself from the Board due to a possible conflict of interest. Barnes handed out more information that was received by the Applicant to board members. Barnes stated Cameron Gloss, director of the Current Planning Department, was also in attendance, and Mr. Gloss prepared a staff recommendation on the appeals. Barnes stated that Ken Waido, representative for the Advanced Planning Department, was also in attendance to provide background information on the "T" zoning district, and how the property was placed in the "T' zoning district. ZBA Ja...ary 9, 2003 Page 6 Staff Slide Presentation: Barnes stated that appeal 2403 is the property at 320 North College Avenue, and appeal 2404 is at 223 Willow Street. Barnes noted that a railroad track separates the two properties. Barnes said that 320 North College is comprised of an office building, convenience store/gas station, a maintenance building, and a car wash. Barnes stated the entire property is in the "T" (transition) zoning district. Barnes remarked that once a property is placed in the "T" zone the owner of the property cannot construct an addition to an existing building or construct a brand new building without first obtaining a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Barnes stated there is one other way the property owner could get permission to construct an addition or new building, and that would have been if City Council at the time City Council placed the property in "T" zone, gave a variance at that time to allow for construction of an addition or a new building. Barnes said the " 17' is a holding zone for property to be annexed. Historically, the `17' zone has been reserved for annexation properties which were large parcels of ground (example a farm) prior to the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997, that's how the "T" zone was applied. In 1997 when the Land Use Code was adopted the entire City was rezoned, and the "T" zone was applied to properties that were already developed, but there might not have been agreement between the property owner and the City as to how they should be zoned when the Land Use Code was adopted. Barnes stated that due to this, there were a number of hot spot zonings. Barnes noted that both the properties were considered hot spot zonings. Barnes referred board members to their packets. Barnes presented slides for 323 North College Avenue. Barnes stated the office building is located behind the convenience store that fronts on College Avenue. The building is an older building, and it has been added on to several times over the years. The proposal would be to demolish the existing office building and construct a new one-story office building in its place. Barnes stated the fuel pumping system would also be demolished. Barnes pointed out the maintenance building that would be removed. The remediation building would stay. Barnes showed the railroad tracks that separate the property. When the railroad tracks were relocated the functional access to the back of the building was eliminated. Barnes presented slides for 223 Willow Street. The building at 223 Willow Street was considered a non -conforming use prior to the property being placed in the "T" zoning district. The non -conforming status is removed once the property was placed in the "T" zone, however, if the property is rezoned to some other zoning district that did not allow warehouse uses the building would revert back to a non -conforming use. The zoning district that the City would recommend for this property would be RDR. The RDR zone does not allow warehouse, warehouse distribution use, or maintenance facilities. The building, if in the RDR zone, would be classified as a non -conforming use. As a non -conforming use in the RDR zone the building can be expanded by no more than 25%. The proposed addition would exceed the 25%. The addition to the building will be in the back. Remington asked staff if a building is in the "T" zone, and the board grants a variance, are the development standards the same. Barnes stated the applicable standards of Articles 3 and 4, with respect to development would apply to a property in the "T" zoning district. If the property received a variance to allow this development to occur in the "T" district, the new office building ZBA January 9, 2003 Page 7 would have to meet the standards that would apply to that type of use. It would also have to be located on the property in the appropriate location. The new parking lot would have to meet all of the parking lot design standards, landscape standards would apply regardless of the zoning district. Hall asked staff why the property was placed in the "'I"' zoning district. Bames replied that he would let Ken Waido address the question. Waido stated that historically the T zone was used to zone annexation properties where a property owner was not certain what the ultimate use of the property would be. The T zone allowed City staff to meet the state statutory annexation requirements, which require the City to zone property within a certain period of time after annexation, but not commit the property owner to a specific zoning designation. Waido gave a brief history regarding the property and the previous zoning districts that were assigned to it. The property was zoned T (transition) during the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997. Waido stated the staff recommended zoning designation for the property was RDR. Waido explained there has never been an initiation by the property owner or staff to request rezoning of the property. Miscio asked what the overall image the City had for North College Avenue. Waido responded that the area was part of the downtown plan area, and the focus of the area is to maintain a mixed use. Miscio questioned if the Schrader's proposed use would be compatible with staffs vision of North College Avenue. Waido replied that the use (warehouse and vehicle maintenance facility) is not allowed in the RDR zone, it is not deemed compatible with the long-range vision for the downtown area. Remington asked how different the process would be if the Applicant were willing to go through a rezoning process. Bames responded that the process for the new office building would not be substantially different. The new office building would have to meet all the applicable development standards. Barnes stated that the process for Appeal 2404 would be different because the building would contain a non -conforming use. The expansion of the building would be limited to 25%. Gloss made his presentation. Gloss stated that the property should be zoned RDR just as the surrounding properties are zoned RDR. Gloss stated the City is planning significant redevelopment in this area. Gloss noted that the City has entertained a lot of discussion with property owners in the area regarding redevelopment. Gloss stated that the industrial use of the property does not necessarily fit into the plan of the Downtown River Corridor project. Gloss gave his analysis on the variance review criteria. Gloss felt the Applicant's issue regarding the condemnation action that took place to relocate the railroad line was overstated. Gloss stated that from staffs perspective according to the previous rail line location the Applicant did not suffer a significant hardship. Gloss noted that the issue of contamination was not relevant to the variance request. Gloss stated that staff did not believe the request met any of the criteria for the Board to grant the variance request. ZBA Ja_aary 9, 2003 Page 8 ADTalicant Participation: Brad March, representative for Schrader Oil, addressed the Board. March told the Board the Schraders went around to neighboring properties and had petitions signed in support of the appeal. Mr. March introduced Wayne Schrader. Wayne Schrader, President of Schrader Oil, addressed the Board. Schrader gave the background of his family and business. Schrader stated his family has been in the petroleum business in Fort Collins since 1937. Schrader stated his ties to the property started in 1941. Schrader rebuilt the service station in 1966. Schrader stated the existing office building was built in 1967, and the need for more office space is necessary as the business has grown. Schrader gave his opinion on the condemnation and the railroad relocation. Schrader stated he has waited for approximately five years to receive the deeds to the property from the railroad. Schrader stated his proposal would be an upgrade to the property as well as maintain the Old Town character. Remington asked Schrader what his opposition was to having the property zoned RDR. Schrader stated he would let Mr. March address that issue. March explained why the condemnation was a hardship. March stated the Schraders had three primary concerns: (1) that the federal government required that all their tanks be upgraded for environmental reasons; (2) the upgrade of the office building; and (3) that the utility of the truck wash facility was lost due to the condemnation. March then discussed the issue of contamination (coal -gasification) on the site due to the operation of public services companies at the tum-of-the-century. March stated the issue with the contamination caused a substantial delay in the process of the condemnation, and in exchange the properties that the Schraders were going to be paid or compensated with due to the relocation of the railroad lines. March stated the Schraders did not receive titles to the property until 2000. March also made note that the City had planned on building a new library, and approached the Schraders about the possibility of acquiring the property for the new facility. In turn the Schraders held off on their development plans due to this possibility. March gave a summary of a 1998 variance request made by the Schraders. Barnes asked March to state why the Schraders were opposed to the rezoning. March responded that the Schraders would like to avoid the lengthy process, and that the RDR zone would limit the size of the addition to 223 Willow Street to a size that would not be large enough for trucks. Remington asked if all the deed and title issues were resolved. March replied yes. Miscio asked Mr. March if the new warehouse building was going to be substantially larger. March replied that the warehouse building is the exact same building. Miscio asked March if the track wash would be enclosed. March responded yes. March noted that without Planning and Zoning Board approval, the use would not be allowed. Donahue asked Mr. March about the compensation for relocating the maintenance building. March stated the Schraders were compensated for the relocation and value of the maintenance ZBA January 9, 2003 Page 9 building, but not for lost land. Donahue then asked if the Applicant was wanting to trade the maintenance building for the addition to the truck wash. March stated that was correct. Eckman asked March, in regards to the condemnation, if there were any promises made by the City that the Zoning Board of Appeals would grant a variance. March said absolutely not, although there was an understanding that the Zoning Board of Appeals could be approached. Greg Fisher, 3115 Clyde Street, addressed the Board. Mr. Fisher is the architect for the Schrader project. Fisher summarized the proposed improvements to the property, and gave specifics about each individual step. The first step would be the truck wash addition, the second step would be to remove the shop, and lastly to demolition the existing office building, and build a new one. Mr. Fisher's presentation was interrupted by adjacent property owner, John Proudy, who wanted to give public input, but had to leave the meeting. There was a discussion held regarding if the Board wanted to impose time limits on public presentations. The Board decided not to set time limits. In support of the appeal: John Proudy addressed the Board. Mr. Proudy was an adjacent property owner and stated he is working on the Giddings project. Proudy stated he felt the contamination was a hardship as well as the condemnation. Proudy was in favor of the appeal. Back to Mr. Fisher's presentation: Fisher stated the Board was being presented with two visions --one from staff and one from the Schraders. Fisher explained that staffs vision was consistent with the RDR zone, and to extend Old Town to the river. Fisher felt staff did not want to allow this use due to the truck component not fulfilling the vision of the RDR zoning district. Fisher stated the Schraders did look into relocating their business due to staff's opposition, but they were unable to find a comparable location, unless they wanted to move outside of the city. Stockover asked Fisher if he had any traffic flow sketches for the proposed site. Fisher stated that he did not, although there was a site plan. The proposal is to use existing driveways that have access off of Willow Street. In support of the appeal: Bill Sears, 351 Linden Street, addressed the Board. Mr. Sears owns the Sears Trostel Building. Mr. Sears was in favor of the appeal, and felt it would have a positive impact on the area. Mr. Sears gave a summary of the history of the area. Ernie Garner, 808 East Elizabeth Street, addressed the Board. Mr. Gamer owns the property at 400 North College Avenue. Mr. Gamer was in favor of the appeal. Mr. Gamer complimented ZBA Ja._.ary 9, 2003 Page 10 the Schraders for previous improvements of the property. Garner stated that the relocation of the railroad tracks was a positive improvement. Peter Cottier, 350 Linden Street, addressed the Board. Mr. Cottier owns the property at 350 Linden Street. Cottier was in favor of the appeal, and stated it was a big improvement over current conditions. Barnes offered the Board some clarification statements. Barnes pointed out that it is only staff recommendation for the property to be rezoned RDR. Barnes explained that the designation of the T zone does establish and expedite the process for rezoning. Barnes stated the proposal for the office could occur whether or not it is in the T zone or the RDR zone, but the project would have to go through a review process. Barnes noted the truck wash addition would not be allowed in the RDR zoning district due to the increase in the proposed size. Barnes informed the Board of the purpose of the T zoning district. Remington asked staff how properties in the T zoning district get resolved or if a property could remain in the T zoning district indefinitely. Eckman replied that the T zoning district was actually considered a holding zone. It was created for properties with no specific or immediate plans for development at the time the Land Use Code was adopted. Eckman read the Code section relating to T zoning districts. Remington asked if there was a definition for what constitutes development. Eckman replied that the Land Use Code had a lengthy definition for what constitutes development. Eckman stated he felt the definition would not be helpful in the interpretation of the purpose statement because development can be anything. Eckman stated the purpose of the T district was intended for properties for which there are no specific and immediate plans for development. Barnes stated a property could also come out of the T district if the City initiated rezoning. Remington asked about the development at Ranchway Feeds, and asked if the store was in the RDR zoning district. Barnes stated the Ranchway development was approved under the Land Development Guidance System (prior zoning ordinance). Stockover asked if there would be any avenue for the Applicant to get the request approved for the addition on the truck wash. Barnes replied no because of the 25% maximum limitation for non -conforming uses. The Land Use Code, states, "The Zoning board of Appeals and the Planning and Zoning Board only have jurisdiction to grant modifications or variances to standards that are in Articles 3 and 4." Barnes stated the 25% limitation is in Article 1, the only opportunity would be for the City to change the Code. Hall asked why the requests were not to be considered as one appeal. Barnes stated that Appeal 2403 was for the new office building, and the proposal for the new office building would require removal and relocation of the truck wash facility building. Stockover asked staff what would be different if the property (just the piece with office building) would be rezoned and processed as proposed. Barnes replied that the process would be different, but the development standards would still apply to the final product. Stockover questioned that ZBA ianuary 9, 2003 Page 11 if the outcome was the same, why was there opposition to letting the Applicant build it now versus building the project, and then rezoning the property. Gloss responded that partly because that is not the intention of the transition zoning district to have development occurring with a T designation. Waido explained that the T zoning district was intended to be a long term - designation. Donahue stated he has failed to see how the Applicant is using time as a hardship. Barnes stated that if property owners elected to come out of the T zone into another zone the City offered incentives, such as waived fees. Most hot spot properties were out of the T zoning district within the first twelve months of rezoning. Remington asked if the property were zoned RDR, would the truck wash be allowed somewhere else on the property. Barnes stated that would not be a permitted use in the zone. Remington felt the hardship was that the Applicant would not be allowed to continuing using the property as he is currently using it. There was a discussion held regarding why the appeals were a hardship variance rather than an equal to or better than variance. Stockover stated he liked the vision for the river corridor, but said that sometimes vision is not a reality. Stockover felt that employment needed to be maintained downtown, and stated he was in favor of the office building. Stockover asked staff how they would propose to the Applicant to be able to maintain the truck wash facility. i Barnes replied that the variance would have to be conditioned to require part of the property to be rezoned RDR, and the other portion of the property to remain in the T zone, to allow the truck wash addition to be constructed on the warehouse building. Stockover asked the Applicant if the appeals were to be approved, how long would the property be left in the T zone. March replied that the Schraders would more than likely take the property out of the T zone fairly quickly. Steve Schrader addressed the Board, and explained that they did not want to spend a lot of money developing the east -side of the property. The Schraders are trying to accommodate the vision of various other property owners in the area. Stockover asked staff if the Board were to approve the request, would the Board be allowed to put a condition on the approval that the Applicant take the property out of the T zoning district within a certain amount of time. Eckman stated that an amendment to the zoning map may be proposed by the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, the director or owners of the property to be rezoned. Eckman stated the City itself can propose to take the property out of the T zone. Eckman felt it probably was not necessary to condition the approval. Barnes also noted that the property from the railroad tracks to College Avenue be rezoned to RDR and leave the other portion in the T, and allow the Applicant to construct the truck wash addition. The City could then initiate a rezoning on the back portion of the property to RDR. ZBA Ja_,iq 9, 2003 Page 12 Stockover asked if anyone on the Board was opposed to the office building. The board members replied no. Stockover asked if anyone on the Board was opposed to the truck wash. The board members replied no. Donahue asked if the proposal had gone before the Planning and Zoning Board. Barnes stated that it was not required to go to the Planning and Zoning Board, although the rezoning itself would be required to go to the Planning and Zoning Board. The Board took a five minute break. Stockover asked the Applicant how they felt about bringing part of the property into compliance (make the west -side RDR). Steve Schrader responded that they would not be opposed to do that, but they have a lot of time working through the property issues. Schrader stated they would prefer Board approval, and bring the property into compliance at a later date. Remington asked staff if they objected to bringing part of the property into compliance. Gloss responded that the City can initiate the rezoning at any time. Hall asked if the RDR designation was the only option for the entire property. Gloss replied yes. There was a discussion held regarding the hardship. Eckman told the Board that they should not grant a variance based on the hardship being the process or length of time the process would take. Fisher added his comments regarding the hardship. Fisher stated the hardship was that the railroad condemned the property, and access to the east -side of the building was lost. Stockover stated he felt the whole property should be required to be rezoned to RDR, once the additions are completed. Stockover was in favor of putting a time limitation as a condition of approval. Stockover stated that approval would allow the Applicant to clean-up the property. Remington asked staff if there was any difference in the process if the City initiated rezoning or if the owner initiated rezoning. Gloss responded no because the property is in the T zoning district, and not subject to the bi-annual rezonings. Hall asked if the warehouse use would be allowed in the RDR zone. Barnes stated that once a non -conforming use has been established, the use can continue on forever regardless of the zoning, unless the building is abandoned for twelve consecutive months. Donahue asked what the intent was behind the 25% limitation. Barnes stated that a non- conforming use takes on that designation when circumstances change, usually it happens when the zoning district changes or when the zoning code is changed to no longer allow that particular use as a permitted use in that particular zone. Staff has determined those uses are not appropriate in those zones and ordinances should be put in place that do not encourage those uses to go on forever. One way of doing this is to limit expansion. Stockover stated that he did not think any of this was detrimental to the public good. Remington made a motion to approve appeal 2403 for the following reasons: (1) based on the findings the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The Board has heard the input from surrounding neighbors in favor of the appeal; (2) approval is based on the hardship standard. Remington brought up the condemnation that took place and the impact that it had on ZBA January 9, 2003 Page 13 the existing structure. Remington said the transition from the T zone to the RDR zone would create a non -conforming use. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, Hall, Stockover, and Donahue. Nays: None. Remington felt the Board should place a condition on the approval for appeal 2404 that future and further expansion of the truck wash not be allowed. Stockover agreed with Remington. March addressed the Board and asked what pieces of the property the Board wanted to be placed in the RDR zoning district. Stockover stated he preferred that the whole property be placed in the RDR zoning district, but one has already been approved, so that means everything east of the railroad tracks. Stockover noted that the Applicant would have six months after the certificate of occupancy. Barnes replied that the Applicant would received a temporary certificate of occupancy with a condition that they have to apply for rezoning within six months. There was a discussion held regarding what uses Schrader would be able to maintain by approval of the variance. Remington made a motion to approve appeal 2404. Remington cited the same findings used for appeal 2403 (not detrimental to the public good and the same hardship findings). Remington placed the following conditions on the approval: (1) that the entire parcel as represented in Appeal 2403 and 2404 that the Applicant apply to rezone to the RDR zone within six months of obtaining a certificate of occupancy on the office building; (2) no additional expansion be allowed on the truck wash/warehouse facility, except what might be approved by a normal process of a variance. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, Hall, and Stockover. Nays: Donahue. 6. APPEAL NO.2405 — Approved with conditions. Address: 259 South College Avenue Petitioner: Steve Levinger Zone: D Section: 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), 3.2.2(M)(1), 3.2.2(J) Background: The variance would reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces from 46 to 32, reduce the required amount of interior parking lot landscaping from 6% to 0%, reduce the required five-foot parking lot landscape strip along the west lot line adjacent to the alley from five -feet to 0 feet, and reduce the required width of the landscape parking lot setback behind the ZBA Ja....ary 9, 2003 Page 14 Olive Street sidewalk from 10 feet to 4 feet. The variances are needed in order to allow the top two floors of the former Empire Hotel to be converted from 68 hotel rooms to 28, one bedroom/studio apartments and two, two bedroom apartments. Each of the apartments will be occupied by only one tenant per bedroom through lease controls. (17 of the proposed 32 parking spaces are located in the existing parking lot on the west side of the building, the remaining 15 spaces are proposed to be located off -site in an under-utilized, existing parking lot within close proximity of the property). Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See attached petitioner's letter C regarding hardships and explanation of how project promotes the purpose of the standards. Staff Comments Required off-street parking spaces are normally supposed to be located on the same lot as the building for which they are required. However the Code does give City staff authority to approve off -site locations that can be used to satisfy the number of parking spaces required. Therefore, the Board is not being asked to approve the off -site location of 15 parking spaces. It is being asked to approve a reduction in the number of spaces provided. In this case, the requirement is to provide 46 parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms in each apartment. The applicant is proposing that only 1 parking space be required for each of the 1 bedroom units instead of the required 1.5 spaces. This would result in only 32 parking spaces being required to satisfy the needs of the tenants. If the existing parking lot is utilized to its fullest extent, then there will be fewer negative impacts to other businesses and the public. Therefore, the applicant is requesting to eliminate much of the required landscaping. Otherwise, about 5 parking spaces would need to be eliminated from the rear lot. The purpose of the standard that requires 1.5 parking spaces for each one bedroom apartment is to ensure that there is adequate parking for the tenants. The Board must determine if the purpose of the standard to provide adequate tenant parking is promoted equally well or better by requiring only 1 parking space per one bedroom unit accompanied by strict lease controls that restrict occupancy to only one tenant per apartment. The purpose of the perimeter landscape requirement is to screen and buffer parking lots and to screen car headlights from adjacent uses. The Board must determine if there is a hardship that prevents compliance, or if the purpose of the standard is promoted equally well since 1) the existing parking lot is not screened from adjacent uses, 2) the adjacent uses are commercial uses, and 3) the proposed 4' landscape buffer behind the sidewalk on Olive Street is an improvement over what is currently provided. Of course if the Board finds that either a hardship exists or the proposal promotes the purpose of the standards, then the Board must also determine that there is no detriment to the public good. Staff Slide Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the property was on the corner of College Avenue and Olive Street (the Old Empire Hotel). Barnes stated the proposal is to ZBA January 9, 2003 Page 15 convert the top two floors into apartments, which triggers a change of use and the property will have to be brought into compliance with the Land Use Code. Barnes stated that parking is based on the number of bedrooms in each unit. Barnes stated that this property does have a parking lot, that is to the rear of the building. Barnes stated the parking lot would have to be brought into compliance with the standards, which would mean some perimeter landscaping. The proposal would be to add a four -foot wide strip on landscaping to buffer the parking lot from Olive Street. The code would also require a five-foot landscape strip along the alley. The proposal would be to delete the five-foot landscape' strip. The Applicant also wants to reduce the number of off- street parking spaces from 46 to 32, 17 spaces would be included in the Olive Street parking lot. The other parking spaces would be in the underground parking garage by Safeway. The City has the authority to approve off -site parking spaces, and City staff has already made that decision. Barnes noted the Applicant also owns the Scott Street Apartments, and has been able to regulate the number of occupants to single occupants. Barnes read the letter from the Transportation Department that was submitted. The letter stated that the Transportation Department supported the Applicant's request. Barnes also read the letter from the Cumberland Companies (owners of the Safeway Building). The letter stated the Cumberland Companies was in support of the appeal. _ Applicant Participation: Steve Levinger, 511 Mathews Street, addressed the Board. Levinger gave a brief background about himself. He, his wife and father own the building. Levinger stated he enjoys rehabilitating old buildings. Levinger explained his vision for the building. Levinger stated that approximately 30 apartments would be created on the second and third floors, and the first floor would be for retail and commercial use. Levinger stated that the parking issue is a challenge. Levinger stated he felt the property was unique. Levinger reviewed the items he felt constituted a hardship, specifically since the building is existing and it is difficult to apply present day standards to the property. Levinger explained that it is already difficult for the dump trucks to maneuver around in the parking lot. Levinger stated his plans for studio apartments. Levinger stated he is proposing to have one parking space per one -bedroom apartment. Levinger stated he plans on using lease control. Levinger stated he would be willing to supply the zoning department an annual lease report. Miscio asked Levinger if he has considered assigning parking spaces as opposed to limiting his tenants. Levinger explained that each tenant would have an assigned parking space via a permit. Remington asked about visitor parking. Levinger stated a visitor would be able to park on street. Barnes stated the code does not require visitor parking. Donahue asked about the trash trucks trying to access the parking lot, and if the trucks were side -load. Levinger replied that he was informed by the trash company that they would be able to access the dumpster. Board Discussion: Dickson was in favor of the appeal. Donahue was concerned about visitor parking and the impact on surrounding properties. Remington stated the Board previously saw a similar appeal with the Northern Hotel, and asked staff what conditions were placed on the approval. Barnes ZBA Ja.._ery 9, 2003 Page 16 replied that the Board placed a condition on the approval that the Zoning Department received a copy of their annual leases and how many had cars. Remington stated that he was in favor of a parking review process. Miscio would rather have the assigned parking spaces based on the amount of vehicles, not tenants. Donahue asked if the landscaping on Olive Street were minimum landscaping requirements for the street frontage. Barnes replied yes. Miscio asked if the overhead wires were going to be placed underground. Levinger responded yes. There was a discussion held regarding landscaping. Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2405 based on the hardship of the existing physical space. Dickson stated the Applicant's proposal controls the vehicle situation. Dickson placed a condition on the appeal that the Applicant submit to the Zoning Department an annual copy of the leases, and quantity of vehicles showing one parking space per vehicle owned and operated by tenants of the building. Dickson stated that there is no detriment to the public good. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Dickson, Remington, Hall, Stockover, and Donahue. Nays: None. 7. APPEAL NO. 2406--Approved. Address: 405 Smith Street Petitioner: Tim and Debra Small Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the south lot line from 12 feet to 9 feet in order to allow a second floor addition to be constructed on top of the existing first floor. Specifically, the required setback is based on the height of the building. The height of the new wall will be 31 feet, requiring a 12-foot setback. Without a variance, the wall height cannot exceed 26 feet. The existing south wall is currently at a 9-foot setback, and the addition will line up with the existing walls. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The second story addition needs to be constructed on top of the existing south wall, which is currently only 9 feet from the lot line. The gable roof on the side could be changed by creating an "eyebrow" roof, but the aesthetics of the home would not be as appealing. There is only a small portion of the wall that exceeds the allowed height of 26 feet at the proposed setback. The majority of the wall will be in compliance. Staff Comments: ZBA January 9, 2003 Page 17 It may be difficult to consider this as a hardship variance request because the existing 9-foot setback complies with the minimum 5 feet required for the existing 1 story home. Therefore, it could be viewed as a self-imposed hardship since the applicant is designing an addition with a wall height that is too tall. They could redesign it to comply with the existing 9-foot setback. However, the Board may want to consider whether or not the request complies with the "equal to or better than" standard. The general purpose of the setback standard is to ensure that as wall height increases, the required setback also increases in order to ensure that the impact on shading, privacy, etc. is minimized. In order to apply the "equal to or better than" standard, the Board would need to determine that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard as well as or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. In this case, it is only a very small portion of the wall on the gable end that causes the need for a variance, and the Board may determine that given the size and shape of the excess wall height there is no additional impact to shading or privacy. Staff Slide Presentation: Barnes referred board members to the information in their packets. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the house to the right of the 405 Smith Street does have a two-story element to it. Barnes noted the proposal would be to convert this house to a two-story house. The south wall of the home is currently at a nine -foot setback from the property line. Barnes stated that the Code requires that a minimum of a five-foot setback is for the first 18 feet of wall height. As the wall gets taller additional setbacks are needed, specifically for each additional two feet of wall height, another additional one -foot of setback is required. Barnes stated that a 31-foot wall height requires a 12-foot setback as opposed to the Applicant's existing nine -foot setback. Applicant Participation: Tim Small, 405 Smith Street, addressed the Board. Small stated that his wife did most of the background work on the project. Small stated the they are in need of more room. The Applicant stated that he did not feel five feet of required setbacks were substantial, especially considering what has been done in the neighborhood by other homeowners. Remington asked Mr. Small if he has given any thought to a gable roof. Small stated he did, and the gable roof was not as aesthetically pleasing. Board Discussion: Stockover was in favor of the appeal because the proposal would maintain the character of the neighborhood. Donahue disagreed with Stockover. Donahue stated that the second version was less massive, and would make the property significantly larger than neighboring properties. Hall asked if staff could describe the house to the north. Barnes stated that it was actually the house to the south that would be affected. The property to the south was a 1 1/2 story duplex. 91 ZBA Ja.__,uy 9, 2003 Page 18 Stockover asked how many feet the peak of the roof would be raised. Barnes replied that the proposed peak would be approximately 31 feet. Dickson felt it was a matter of the neighbors being concerned, and since no objections were made, it was assumed there was not any objections to the Applicant's appeal. Barnes stated that the Historic Preservation office will also be conducting a review. Mr. Small stated that Historic Preservation has already started their review of the project. Stockover made a motion to approve appeal number 2406 on the equal to or better than standard with the findings that the proposed roof structure maintains the character of the neighborhood. Stockover found that it was a minimal amount of height that the Board is approving, and the proposal would not be detrimental to the public good. Barnes noted that Stockover needed to state the purpose of the standard. Barnes reviewed the purpose of the standard. Stockover amended his motion to state that the effected property is on the south -side, and would not be negatively affected by shading, and the roofline has a minimal linear foot. Dickson seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Dickson, Hall and Stockover. Nays: Remington and Donahue. Other Business Barnes stated that the election of officers will be continued until the February meeting. Meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Steve Re gfin, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator November 26, 2002' Mr. Peter Barnes ' Zoning Department The City of Fort Collins 281 North College Ave: Fort Collins; CO 80524 Petitioner'A ER, ARCHITECT Re: Shrader Oil Company,.Variance for. -new office facility in the Transition (T) District Dear Peter, This letter is to. serve as a request for a variance by Schrader Lands, LLI P; Schrader.Oi1 Co., iSchrader Transport, Inc., Schrader Propane, LLC and Wayne K. Schrader (the "Schraders") who are the owners and occupants of properties in Blocks 13 and 14 of the Cityof Fort Collins. (the "Property"). The variance is requested per the ---------oriteriaof-Division-4.9(B)1{b)of the .-Cit3 of -Fort -Collins -Land Use Code to -allow -for a 0 new office facility for the Schraders located at 320 North College Avenue:' This division ' states, "the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance in accordance with Division 2.10 permitting installation or enlargement of a permanent structure containing a use , which was existing at the time the property was placed in this District, or containing'a use which is ancillary- to such existing use." An. existing office -facility of approximately 3,530 square feet, a shop/truck wash -facility of approximately. 1,5 16, square feet, a fuel pumping structure; it small pump house and a fenced -in truck yard are currently located on the portion of the Property west of -the Burlington Northern railroad tracks extending north/south at the center Property and joining with the existing Union Pacific tracks at the southern boundary of the site. These new tracks were installed and other tracks were removed by the City between 1996 and 1998. At the time the relocation/condemnation was announced by the City Schraders had plans in place to expand the existing :office facility;. The Ciy formally commenced its' action to condemn portions of the Property to allow the relocation of tracks off of College Avenue and to re-route the tracks. over the area to the west of the City's Az1an Center (on the north side of Willow) and through the Schrader Property in 1995. Schraders - remodeling/expansion plans were set aside until Schraders could determine the impact that the condemnation and track relocation would have on the utility of the Property. The . condemnation, which remains pending, not only frustrated the contemplated office plans but also impacted the ability to use various buildings on. -the Property including a cafe and ' truck repair facility (see companion "Truck Wash" variance request filed simultaneously with this letter) The City's work associated with the relocation disturbed pre-existing environmental sites dating from the early1900's and impacted•gasol'me cleanup efforts by Schraders that had been ongoing, at the time the condemnation action was commenced, resulting in complications associated with the City's project. Additionally, as the tracks 3115 CLYDE ST. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO. 80524 • PHONE 970.484.8433 • FAX 970.484.2229 - - - Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Department City of Fort Collins Re: Schrader Oil Company Office Variance Request 1 l/t/2002 Page 2 were being relocated the City re -caned the Property twice.' It was recognized from the outset of the condemnation that uses and structures on the Property, including Schraders offices and the convenience store, needed to be modified. Additionally, the ability to utilize the shop building north of the existing office was negatively impacted when the new tracks were extended across 'the shop's northeasterly entrance and the grade to that entrance was altered. Recognizing Schraders need to reconfigure the Property, both as a result of the condemnation and for pre-existing business reasons, the City at the time of the second rezoning recommended that the Property be place in the "T" transition.districf.. The office use had been in existence for over 25 years before the Property was placed in the "T ' district. Schraders initially postponed the need to expand the office facility when the condemnation proceedings were filed and the need was further postponed when the City approached Schrader and suggested the possible purchase of the site for a library and to accomplish downtown renovations. The ZBA granted a variance allowing Schraders remodel the station on the north-east comer of Willow and College in 1999-2000 and at the time Schraders appeared before the Board for that variance the Board was advised of the need to address the office and shop facilities. When the City selected the alternate Poudre Valley Creamery site for the Library expansion Schraders began meeting with the City Manager's office to discuss the need for the office expansion, ultimately leading to the filing of this variance request: Because of the way the Property has been reconfigured and in order to address various site limitations caused by the tracks, environmental considerations and the need to carry on other uses from the site, Schrader proposes razing the office, shop/truck wash and the fuel pumping structure to accommodate a new office facility of approximately 7,300 square feet. The temporary pump house, which exists to address environmental issues would remain for the foreseeable future in its current location but the exterior would be remodeled to match the office building character. While Scbraders would hike to retain the existing fueling station located north of the office building it was recognized that . retaining -the truck yard in the area west of the newly relocated tracks and using the new office building to screen the yard would benefit the neighborhood, particularly the users of the Azlan Center located across Willow and North of the site. Locating the building to provide screening requires that the office be placed at the northerly boundary of the Property necessitating removal of the shop building and fueling racks. Rather then relocating the fueling operation to another area of this environmentally sensitive site Scbraders envision discontinuing fueling from the office site and using an alternate site for fueling their large trucks in the future. As described in more detail in the "Truck Wash variance" the utility of the shop building was severely impacted by the condemnation and all truck repair and washing operations are to be relocated to the warehouselshop to the east of the tracks, allowing removal of the shop building, Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Department City of Fort Collins Re: Schrader Oil Company Office Variance Request 11/27/2002 Page 3 The new office structure is required to replace facilities, which as Schraders operations have cominuO to expand, have become increasingly cramped. The existing facilities do not meet current handicap accessibility requirements and are outdated Furthermore, the character ofthe current facilities and site as a whole are not compatible the future plans for the surrounding area. Since this variance request relates to the T District criteria referenced above and is not really a request to deviate from a particular standard, as is normally the case, one cannot respond to the criteria of Division2.10.2(11) in a typical fasbion. However, it certainly can be stated that .the granting -of the proposed variance would not be detrimental to the publicgood It also could be stated that the condemnation and rezoning of the site, by others, caused the current hardship. While the owners cooperated in being placed in the T District this selection was recommended by the City to address issues arising out,of the condemnation -with -the representation that theS_District would be_capable_of accommodating the anticipated changes to the facilities on the Property through the _ variance process currently occurring.. If the proposed variance is granted and the project moves forward this site would be greatly enhanced. The new office would replace the existing -cinder block building and would be of a character compatible with the remodeled station at the northwest comer of 1 ' the Property and surrounding buildings in the area, which have been renovated to be more in line with the "Old Town" cSaracter. Undesirable existing structures and uses would be removed or discontinued. Paved and landscaped parking areas would replace several very visible existing #irrpaved parking areas, which currently have no landscape buffering. The building would screen the existing truck yard and additional fencing and pedestrian • ' connections, in keeping with current City criteria would be provided to the office facility and along the Willow Street frontage. These improvements would meet current building requirements designed to benefit the public as well as requests made by City staff during previous site visits. - For these reasons outlined Schraders respectfiilly request that a variance be ' granted for this Property. Drawings are enclosed .illustrating the -redesign of the site and buildings on the site. IP.you-have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me. - SincereAerArchitectt GregD. XC: John Howe/Stele Schrader - Schrader "Oil. Co. Brad March — March, Liley & Olive, P.C. November 26, 2002 Mr. Peter Barnes . Zoning Department The *City of Fort Collins 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Petit er s et er B ,a-q ay ' ER, ARCHITECT Re:. Shrader Oil Company Variance for a truck wash addition to an existing warehouse/shop in the Transition (T) District Dear Mr. Barnes, . This letter is to serve as a request for a variance by Schrader Lands, LLLP, --- - ----- Schrader Oil Co.; Schrader Transport, Inc_, Schrader Propane; LLC-and Wayne iC -- -- Schrader (the "Schraders") who are the owners and occupants of properties in Blocks 13 and 14 of the City of Fort Collins (the "Properin- The variance is requested per the criteria of Division 4 9(B)l (b) of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code to allow for a - new truck wash addition to, an existing warehouse/shop for the Schrader uses located at 223 Willow Street. This division•states, "the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance in accordance with Division 2.10 permitting installation or enlargement of a permanent structure containing a use which was existing at the time the property was placed ui this District, or containing a use which is ancillary to such existing use." The existing warehouse/shop facility consists of approximately 5,100 square feet. Schraders have utilized, the Property for indoor and outdoor storage, office, truck repair and maintenance uses, for 20+ years. The Schrader. uses were in existence at the time the property was placed into the current zoning district. In 1995 the City commenced an action to condemn a portion of the Property to allow the relocation of railroad tracks off of College Avenue and to re -route -the tracks over the area to the west of the City's Azlan Center (on the north side of Willow) and through the Schrader Property. This condemnation, which still remains pending, impacted the utility of various buildings on the Property including a cafd, which had been adjacent to tracks, which were removed,and, more severely, the primary truckaepair building located immediately adjacent to the newly installed tracks. 'During the time. the tracks were being relocated the City re -zoned the property twice. • , It was recognized from the outset of the condemnatiori that various uses on the Property needed to be modified including a convenience store operated north-west of the corner of the Property and Schrader offices. Additionally, the ability to utilize the shop building next to the existing office was dramatically impacted when the new railroad . tracks were extended across the shop's northeasterly entrance and the grade to that entrance was altered. Recognizing Schraders' needs to reconfigure the Property, both as' a result of the condemnation and for business reasons, the City at the time ofthe second rezoning placed the Property in the "T" transition district. i TISrtvnc Cf rnpTf(mwI rnInQ Anil AAgU P"I)NP.AM4AA'AAI I. PAX 9704A4.7779 Mr. Peter Barnes Zoning Department City of Fort Collins Re: Schrader Oil Company Truck Wash Variance Request 11 /27/2002 Page 2 Immediately following the completion of the track relocation Schraders appeared 'before the ZBA and requested a variance to address the cafe and convenience store use. At the time of that appearance the ZBA was apprised of Schraders need to expand the offices on the site and to address issues with the shop building. Thereafter discussions ensued with the City surrounding the possible acquisition of the Property as a library site and for downtown revitalization. Ultimately the City purchased an alternate property for the library. Throughout this process the reconfiguration of the site was complicated by contamination of the site in the early 1900's by a prior user. Schrader is now desperate to the office and shop site as contemplated throughout the condemnation and rezoning process. A second variance request asking the ZBA to allow the office expansion is filed — - -- — with this request._ The truck wash is an existing use on the Property, attached to the exterior ofthe "shop building" which is located west of the relocated tracks. The truck wash is ancillary to the existing long-term uses on the Property. Schrader intends to relocate all truck repair and truck washing activities to the warehouse/shop facility. This relocation would allow the expansion of the office building and would address safety concerns at the shop building which was impacted by the condemnation and track relocation. The addition to the warehouse/shop facility would replace the existing shop building facilities which, would be razed. Since this variance request relates to the T District criteria referenced above and is not really a request to deviate from a particular standard, as is normally the case, one cannot respond to the criteria of Division 2.10.2(H) in a typical fashion. However, it certainly can be stated that the granting of the proposed variance would not be detrimental to the public good. It also could be stated that the condemnation and rezoning of the site, by others, caused the current hardship. While the owners cooperated in being placed in the T District this selection was recommended by the City to address issues arising out of the condemnation with the representation that the T District would be capable of accommodating the anticipated changes to the facilities on the Property through the variance process currently occurring. In order to consider the RM benefit' of granting this proposed variance, one must also consider the consequences to the adjacent property to the west. A. companion variance request has been submitted, for that property, to allow a new office facility to be constructed. There are numerous benefits in the redevelopment of that portion of the Property, as outlined in that request. In order for that redevelopment to occur the truck wash needs to be relocated from that property. The truck wash addition would be place on the south side of the warehouse/shop building and would be concealed from the view of the public due to its location. The facility, as proposed, would fully enclose the trucks while they are being washed. Thereby l Mr. Peter Barnes - Zoning Department City of Fort Collins Re: Schrader Oil Company Truck Wash Variance Request 11/27/2002 Page 3 screening the trucks from view. Enclosing the facility would be preferable in inclement weather, would provide a convenience for Schrader Transport's drivers and would avoid risks associated with ice and water build-ups associated with the existing outdoor truck wash For these reasons it is respectfully requested that a variance be granted for this property. Drawings are enclosed illustrating the conditions mentioned above. If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me. Greg D. F XC: John Brad sr, Architect we/Steve Schrader - Schrader Ott Co. rch — March, Liley & Olive, Petitioner's Letter C kayos Parking Variance Outline Request: To reduce the number of required spaces from 1.5/bedroom (46 total) to 1/bedroom (32 total) To waive the requirement for interior landscaping of the existing parking lot. To waive the requirement for perimeter landscaping along the western edge (alley side) of the property. To reduce the setback between the edge of the side walk and the edge of the parking stalls from 10 feet to 4 feet. Extraordinary physical conditions or situations unique to this property: 1) The age of the structure. The structure was built in 1923. 2) The location of the structure. The property is located in the Downtown District (Old City Center Sub -district). The proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard in the following ways: 1) Occupancy Control 1 2) Scott Apartments comparison 3) Sample Lease Extraordinary physical conditions or situations unique to this property History: The historic Armstrong Hotel, situated on the southern edge of the Old City Center sub -district, was built in 1923. It has been operated as a Hotel for most of its life except for a brief period during World War II when the building was requisitioned for use as a barracks by the US Army. It has been designated as a Local Landmark by the Landmark Preservation Committee. The building and site have remained relatively unchanged since 1923. However, downtown Fort Collins, modern dependence on automobiles, and city parking standards have changed drastically since 1923. This presents a unique challenge for the city and building owner_ Steve Levinger, and necessitates this variance request. Proposal: "The Flats" at the New Empire Building proposes to convert the 68 existing hotel rooms into 12 studio or efficiency apartments, 16 one bedroom apartments, and 2 two bedroom apartments for a total of 30 residential apartments representing 32 bedrooms. This proposed use is encourage by the City of Fort Collins as referenced in the Downtown Plan housing policy pg 77: 4d "Encourage redevelopment of upper stories of existing buildings in the Downtown area for apartments." 4e "Encourage high density multi -family residences and hotels in the Old City Center and Canyon Avenue districts to add diversity and activity beyond the working day." Furthermore, City Plan states: Policy DD-1.5 Housing "The City shall encourage apartments, loft units, Single room occupancy (SRO) units, and uses of similar character, on upper floors of buildings in the Old City Center sub -district." Unique Location: The location of the property, in the Old City Center sub -district, and the proposed re -development of the existing building is uniquely different from that of a new apartment building for which the standard was written. This difference is recognized in City Plan. Policy DD5.4 Parking states: "Parking is a critical factor in the future of Downtown. Parking will be convenient, economical, affordable and accessible to meet diversified parking demands. Reduced parking standards will be applied to Downtown in recognition of its proximity to high -frequency transit service, walkable environment, and mix of uses. In addition: a. On -street vehicular parking and off-street bicycle parking will continue to be incorporated into the street design. b. Shared parking allowances will be encouraged for nearby uses with staggered peak periods of demand, such as for retail, office and entertainment uses. A portion of any proiect's parking requirements will be considered satisfied by on -street parking. Alternative Transportation: The proximity of numerous forms of alternative transportation is unique to the property and will reduce the need for tenant parking. The property is situated within walking or biking distance to many essential public and private establishments: Supermarket 1 'h blocks Bank 1 block CSU Campus 4 blocks Old Town Square 2 blocks Downtown offices 2-4 blocks The property is located on a major bus route and 5 blocks from the Downtown Transit Center. Furthermore, it is '/z block from the proposed Mason Street Transportation Corridor. "The Flats" will encourage bicycle use by providing convenient, secure, indoor, ground floor bicycle storage for all tenants. Unit Size: Many of the residential units will be studios or efficiency apartments which are smaller, than a traditional one bedroom apartment. However, the current standard does not differentiate between studio and 1 bedroom apartments. Other municipalities do recognize the difference. For example, in Madison Wisconsin the standard is 1.25 parking spaces per 1 bedroom unit and 50 spaces per efficiency or studio unit - - - - — - - - - - — — Landscaping: The current standard requires interior landscaping (tree islands) in the parking lot as well as perimeter landscaping along the southern and western edge of the lot (5 feet on the western edge and 10 feet on the southern edge). The proposed lot configuration will provide roughly half the number of spaces needed. Providing interior landscaping will further reduce the number of on site spaces in an urban area where on site parking is at a premium. Perimeter landscaping will be included on the southern edge of the parking lot. However, a setback of 4 instead of 10 feet is requested. Once again, providing a setback of 10 feet will reduce the number of on site spaces in an urban area where on site parking is at a premium. The distance between the edge of Olive street and the parking stalls will be 24 feet A low hedge will create a "soft" fence between the sidewalk and parking lot and create an urban landscape that fits with the downtown location. Trees will be placed in the sidewalk area in tree grates similar to other downtown locations. This will keep the landscaping uniform with rest of the City Center District creating a sense of continuity that will link the property with the rest of Downtown. The City of Fort Collins Engineering and Transportation departments have requested that there be no perimeter landscaping on the property's western edge (please see attached letter) to reduce the traffic congestion in this urban lot. This proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard by providing adequate tenant parking in the following ways: Off Site Parking: Off site parking will be provided to make up the difference between the number of on site spaces and the total amount of spaces required. These spaces will be in convenient walking distance to the site. Negotiations are currently under way to lease these spaces at the private parking structure (Safeway) at College and Mulberry. Occupancy Control: The occupancy of each residential unit will be limited to one tenant per bedroom. Each tenant will receive one dedicated permitted space either on site or off site. Use of this space will be part of their rent. More traditional one bedroom apartments may have occupancies greater than one person. Therefore, there may be a need for more than one parking space per unit. However, controlling the occupancy of each unit at "The Flats" will effectively keep the needed parking to one space per bedroom. The occupancy will be controlled through a tenant lease agreement and a hands on management style similar to that of the "Scott Apartments". The Scott Apartments Comparison The Scott Apartments, located at 900 South College Avenue, was built in 1927 as an apartment building. It has remained in continuous operation since that time. The building is approximately 12,000 square feet and has 12 one bedroom apartments as well as one studio apartment. The building was purchased in January 2002 by Stephen and Mary Levinger. It was designated as a Local Landmark by the Landmark Preservation Committee in February of 2002. Building Vision: The Levingers vision for the building is to continue its operation as an apartment building. Due to the size of the apartments, the building's parking limitations, and a desire to provide tenants with a quiet building, the Levingers have, limited apartment occupancy to one person per apartment. Since purchasing the building almost a year ago the Levingers have maintained this policy when leasing to new tenants. Currently 12 of the 13 apartments in the building have single occupants. One of the larger units (950sj) currently is occupied by 2 tenants. However, this is due to an arrangement these tenants had with the former building owner to lease this specific apartment. When the current tenants move out the apartments will be leased to a single occupant. Building Management: Steve Levinger manages the day-to-day operations of the Scott Apartments. He is responsible for all aspects of the building management. He has a hands-on approach to the building management. He maintains friendly relations with all the building tenants and visits the site on a regular basis. He maintains his single occupancy rule through lease control and regularly inspects the premises to ensure compliance. Implications to The Fiats at The New Empire: Operation of "The Flats" will be similar to that of "The Scott Apartments". Occupancy will be limited to one resident per bedroom. Steve Levinger will manage the day to -day operation in much the same way as he is currently managing "The Scott Apartments". Steve Levinger has shown his ability to successfully control unit occupancies through lease control and a hands-on management style at "The Scott Apartments". Furthermore, he will provide The City of Fort Collins Zoning Department with copies of signed leases on an annual basis as proof that he is maintaining occupancy of one person per bedroom at "The Flats". Sample Lease: The Flats Lease 259 S. College Ave. #301 Sample This Lease, dated on 7/5/02, is between Steve Levinger (owner/manager), as the Landlord, and 3CXDCX= as the Tenant. The Landlord, in consideration of the covenants of the Tenants hereinafter set forth, hereby leases to the Tenant 259 S. College Ave., Apartment #301 in Fort Collins, CO. The apartment will be leased to the Tenant from X/3 X to X/XX/ = The Tenant, in consideration of leasing of the premises as set forth above, covenants and agrees to pay the Landlord as rent the sum of $625 per month, payable as personal check, money order, or cash to: Steve Levinger 900 S. College Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80524 The Tenants further covenants with the Landlord, that at the expiration of the time mentioned in this lease, peaceable possession of said premises shall be given to the Landlord, in as good condition as they are now, the usual wear and loss by fire excepted. It is agreed that if the Tenants shall be in arrears in the payment of any installment of rent, or portion thereof, or in default of any of the covenants or agreements herein contained to be performed by the Tenants, which default shall be uncorrected for a period of three days after the Landlord has given written notice thereof, Landlord may at his option; without liability for trespass or for damages; enter into and upon said premises, or portion thereof: declare the term of this lease; repossess the said premises as of the Landlords former estate; peacefully expel and remove the Tenants, those claiming under him, or any person or persons occupying the same and their effects; at will without prejudice to any other remedies available to the Landlord for arrears of rent or breach of contract. - - -IT IS FURTHER COVENANTED AND AGREED, Between the - — - parties aforesaid that: 1) Rent shall be paid by the first day of every month, if not paid by the 6a' day of the month a 10-dollar per day late fee will be charged. 2) This is a private residence and is to be occupied only by the Tenant named on this lease All house guests staying more than one week must be approved by the Landlord. 3) Tenant will be permitted use of one parking space in either the on site lot or the Safeway parking structure Tenant agrees to park only in the designated assigned space Furthermore Tenant agrees to sign and abide by "The Flats" parking permit agreement. 4) The Landlord will pay for the following utilities: Gas, Water, Sewer, Trash The Tenant will pay for all other utilities such as: Electricity, telephone (if desired), cable TV (if desired), etc... 4) No pets are allowed on the premises. 5) A Security Deposit of $625 is due at the signing of this lease. Deposit will be returned within 45 days of the termination of this Lease. It is agreed that the security deposit shall be applied to the cost of repairing any damage (except ordinary wear and tear) caused by the Tenant or anyone acting under the Tenants control, the cost of putting the premises in as clean a condition as when the were rented, and any rent, utilities, or charges due. Deposit shall not be used in lieu of rent. 6) Rent for the months of August 2002 and July 2003 are due 8/l/2002). Pre paid rent shall apply only to the months it is assigned. 7) The Tenant understands and agrees this is a non-smoking residence, and will not smoke in the building. 8) The Landlord is responsible for maintaining the site around the building. As well as cleaning the halls other public spaces. 9) The Tenant shall make no changes in the premises without prior approval from the Landlord. 10) The Tenant shall not sub -lease under any circumstances. 11) The Tenant shall maintain premise in reasonable order and cleanliness to prevent unnecessary damage and deterioration. 12) The Landlord has the right to enter the premise to make repairs. The Landlord agrees to give tenants 12 hours prior notification before entering. 13) The Tenant agrees to hold the Landlord harmless from any loss, damage or liability or claims thereof arising out of the use of Leased Premises by Tenants, or Tenants guests. The Tenants shall be responsible for insuring all personal property. 14) The Tenant agrees to conduct themselves in an orderly and respectable manner. They will show kind consideration to other building tenants, the neighbors, and neighborhood. Loud music, large parties, and general disorderly conduct are unacceptable. 15) The Tenant agrees to rent the premise in as is condition. With the following exceptions: Should any provision of this lease violate any federal, state or local law ordinance, the provision shall be deemed amended to so comply with such law or ordinance, and shall be construed in a manner so as to comply. The covenants herein shall extent to and are binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties to this Lease. Where used herein, the singular shall include the plural and the use of and gender shall include both genders. Steve Levinger Landlord Tenant �d ypJ- Steve Levinger The Scott Apartments 511 Mathews Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 The Cumberland Companies, Inc. 6300 South Syracuse way. Suite 293 • Engiewootl. CO 80111 303/779-9009 . Fax 303/220-1818 December 10, 2002 Re: Parking for future tenants of the proposed "Flats at the New Empire Building" apartments Dear Mr. Levinger: The owners of Robinson — Piersal Plaza have received the package describing your proposal to lease 15 parking spaces from the lower level parking structure of our Robinson — Piersal Plaza building (a.k.a. the Safeway Shopping Center) located at the northeast corner of College and Mulberry. We understand these 15 parking spaces would be for the sole and limited use of the future residents of the "Flats at the New Empire Building" apartments. We have reviewed your proposed parking lease proposal package and are supportive of your proposal. I have attached a copy of the list of Exhibits detailing all items we have reviewed as part of your proposal. We still need to obtain the approval of all existing commercial tenants of Robinson — Piersal Plaza. We estimate this process to take 30 — 45 days to complete. Please feel free to use this letter as verification to various government agencies that the owners of Robinson — Piersal Plaza are supportive of your parking lease proposal, pending the approval of all existing tenants. Please feel free to contact me at (303) 741- 1113 should you have any questions. Brock Chapm Vice President Cc: Steve Maguire 4a4Or- Transportat..on Services Transportation Planning Cate of Fort Collins December 5, 2002 Mr. Steve Levinger 511 Mathews Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Re: Mountain Empire Hotel Reuse Dear Mr. Levinger, Transportation Services has examined your proposal, and we support the variance request for the landscaping buffer along the west side of the parking lot and alley. Since the urban site is developed and has many existing constraints, we feel it is important to keep those constraints at a minimum and allow for pedestrians and vehicles to circulate easily through the site. This includes trash and delivery trucks for nearby businesses. Without the landscaping, the parking stalls and drive aisle can be moved slightly to the west to allow for increased walkway widths and easier access to the rear of the building. It would also allow for deeper parking stalls, while still maintaining sufficient drive aisle widths for motor vehicles. In addition, we support your request for a parking variance to reduce the number of parking spaces required from 46 to 32. Your project supports the goals and vision of City Plan and the Downtown Plan by providing high -density residential units, thus adding diversity to the downtown district. We also feel your business plan will encourage clientele who will use alternative modes of transportation, and your occupancy plan minimizes the number of vehicles that will need to be accommodated. We feel that the lease agreement you are arranging with a neighboring business will insure that adequate long term vehicle storage is available in sufficient quantity to serve the renters in your building. Sincerely, / IrI Randy Hensley Tom Reiff ` Transportation Planning and Transportation Planner Parking Services Manager cc: Peter Bames, Zoning Code Administrator 215 N. Mason St. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 90522-0580 • (970) 224-6058 • Fax (970) 221-6239 • Website: fcgov.com 12/10/2002 08:57 9704R42069 DDA/DBA PAGE 02 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY December 10, 2002 Mr. Steve Remington, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mr. Remington and Members of the ZBA: I am writing to express the Downtown Devclopmem Authority's strong support for Steve Levinger's request for a variance to the parking ratios required to permit the renovation of the Empire Hotel into apartment units. Bringing residential development into the heart of Font Collins has been a long-standing objective of the DDA and the City. Returning the Empire Hotel to a functioning, inhabited property helps both the appearance of downtown and its economy. The Levinger's plan for the Empire will appeal to people who probably work in and enjoy a downtown environment Because jobs, services, and entertainment, are all within easy walking distance, the need for frequent use of a car will be minimal. This kind of infill development and reduced automobile usage clearly fit the larger objectives of City Plan. On behalf of the DDA, I hope the Zoning Board of Appeals will agree that granting a variance to the parking requirements for this project will result in real benefit for downtown and all of Fort Collins. Thank you for your considomfion. Sia ly, Chip St ' er Executive Director 19 Old Town Square • Suite 230 • Fort Cotlins. Colondo $0524 • tel: 970.484.2020 • fax: 970AA4.2069