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