Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSCHRADER PROPERTY REZONING, 320 N. COLLEGE - 7-05 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - MINUTES/NOTESOCT=IT=2004-TUE 0�:48 AM - P.012 r . zBA January 9, 2003 Page 13 from T the RDR the existing stn==e. RemiT gton said the transition the zone to zone would ' create a non -conforming use. Wiscio seconded the motion. Vote: I . Yeas: Mt�cro, Remington, , Stockover, and Donahu ' Nays: Noe. Remington felt the Board should place a condition on a approval for appeal 2404 that future and forth cxpansion. of the ck was not be allowed. tockover agreed with Remington. March essed the Board d asked what pieces of the property the Board wanted to be placed in the zoning district. took stated he prefe ed that the whole property be placed in the the RDR oni.ng district, but a has early been appro ed, so that means everything east of railroad ks. Stockover no that t) e Applicant would have six months after the certificate of occup M Barnes repli that the Applicant would received a temporary certificate of .. occupan with a condition t they have to apply for rezoning within six months. _There a discussion held arding Pvhat uses Schrader would be able to maintain by approval of the f ance. Remin(gt made a motion to prove Tpeal 2404. Remington cited the same findings used for ' ^ appeal 2 03 (not detriment the p iblic good and the same hardship findings). Remington i 1 placed following con di ' ns on approval: (1) that the entire parcel as represented in Appeal 3 and 2404 that �ppli t apply to rezone to the RDR zone within six months of obtain n a certificate of o pancy the office building, (2) no additional expansion be allowed n the truck wash/ arehou facility, except what might be approved by a normal process a variance. Misci ecoh the motion. Vot' I Yeas: Mi cio, Remington, , and Sickover. Nays: Do Ile. 6. P NO.2405 — Appro d wi editions. Address: 259 South Co Ave ue Zone:r__ Section: B ack o i The v�ti . reduce trequuf d five-fg to 0 feet, and.reduce 3.2.2(1) 1 number off-street parking spaces from 46 to 32, parking lot 1 caping from 6% to 0%, reduce the strip along the wes of line adjacent to the alley from 1 width of the landscape parking lot setback behind the OCT-19-2004-TUE 0I9:47 AM P. 011 ZBA January 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 relied no. Donahue asked if the proposal had gone before the Planning and Zoning Board B"es stated that it was not required to go to the Planning and Zoning Board, although .the rezoninglitself 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 wgst-side RDR). Steve Schrader responded that they would not be opposed to do that, but they have a lot of time worldng through the property. issues. Schrader stated they would prefer Bo approval, and bring the property into compliance at a later date. Remingt i staff if they objected to bringing part of the property into compliance:. Gloss respon t the City can initiate the rezoning at any time. Hall asked if the RDR designation was •the option for the entire property. Gloss replied yes. There was a discussion held regarding hardship. Eckman told the Board that they should not grant a variance based on the hardship eing the process or length of time.the.proccss would take. Fisher ad nisi comments regarding the hardship. Fisher stated the hardship was that the railroad c9ndemned the property, and access to the east -side of the building was lost. Stockover siated'he felt the whale property should be required to be rezoned to RDR, once the additions a completed. Stoe er was in favor of putting a time limitation as a condition of approval Stockover stated that approvall would allow the Applicant to clean-up the property. Remingtop asked staff if there was any difference in the process if the City initiated rezoning or if the ow�ler initiated iezoning. Gloss responded no because the property is in the T zoning district, andyoot subject to the bi-annual rezonings. Hall asked ' the iwarehouse use would be allowed in the RDR zone. Barnes stated that once a. non -COD f g use has been established, the ,use can continue on forever regardless of the zoning, the building is abandoned for twelve consecutive months. Donahue d ghat the intent was behind the 2501b limitation. Barnes stated that a non- confomai>}g a takes on that designation when circumstances change,'nsually'it happens when the zoni4 trict changes or when. the zoning code is changed to no longer allow that particular use as a p tted use in that particular zone. Staff has deteamined those uses are not appropriate in those amid ordinances should be put in place that do not encourage those uses to go on forever. way of doing this is to limit expansion. Stockov9 s d that he did not think any of this was detrimental to the public good. Remington made a mo n to approve appeal 2403 for the following reasons: (1) based on the findings the granting f e variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The Board has heard the input Lg undtng neighbors in favor of the appeal;. (2) approval is based on the hardship standard. ! R ' gton brought up the condemnation that took place and the impact that it had on i Ij OCT-19-2004-TUR 09:46 AM P. 010 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, andlthen 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- designati�gn. II Donahue (stated he has failed to j see how the Applicant is using time as a hardship. Barnes stated. that if property owners electedi to come out of the T zone into another zone the City offered incentive, such as waived fees., Most hot spot properties were out of the T zoning district witbin the first. elve months of rezoning. Remin asked if the property were zoned RDR, would the truck wash be allowed somewhere else o e property. Barnes stared that would not be a permitted use in the zone. Remington felt tb hip was that the A plicant would not be allowed- to continuing using the property as . he is ndy using it. Thew a discussion held re arding why the appeals were a hardship variance rather than an equal better than variance Stock stated he liked the ion for the river corridor, but said that sometimes vision is not a realifon over felt that em oyment needed to be maintained downtown, and stated he was in favorice building. S . kover asked staff how they would propose to the Applicant to be abltwin the truck w h facility. Bari,that the variant would have.to be conditioned to require'part of the property to be rexR, and the other ortion of the property to remain in the T zone, to allow the truck. washo be construc on the warehouse building. Stoc v the Applicant ' the appeals were to be approved, how long would the property be le e T zone. March lied that the Schmders would more than likely take the property out of zone fairly quicklySteve Schrader addressed the Board, and explained that.they. did.' id. . not wi�n spend a lot of mTy developing the. east -side of the property. The Schradem are trvin¢Ito mmodate the vision of various other property owners in the area Stockcv t asked staff if the Board were to approve the request, would the Board be allowed to put a lion on the approval that the Applicant take the property out of the T zoning district withri a . amount of time. Eckman stated that an amendment to the zoning map may be . propo, y the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, the director or owners of the property be rezoned Eckman stated the City itself can propose. to take the property out of the T zo. felt it probably was not necessary to condition the. approval. Barnes also noted that the erty from the railroad tracks to College Avenue be rezoned to RDR and leave the other o in the T, and allow the Applicant to construct the truck wash addition- The City could initiate a rezo ' on the back portion of the property to RDR. i ?� OCT-19-2004-TUE 09:45 AM P. 009 2BA Sanuary 9, 2003 Page 10 the Schraders for previous improvements of the property. Garner stated that the relocation of the railroad tracks was a positive i7ro i ement. I aidressed. the Board. Mr. Cottier owns the property at 350 Peter Cotner, 350 Linden Street, C{ appeal, g rovement over Linden St* Cattier was in av r of the eal, and stated it was a big imp current concf}tions. Barnes offered the Board some clarification statements. Barnes pointed out that it is only staff recommendation for the pmpety to be rezoned RDR. Barnes explained that the designation of the T zone does establish osal for and pedite the process for rezoning. Barnes stated ihpP �t would the office c 'uld occur whether r not it is in the T zone or the RDR zone, but the project have to go ugh a review pro sq. Barnes noted the truck wash addition would not be allowed in the Wing district due tk a increase in the proposed size. Barnes infotmed'the Board of the P of the T zoning s 'ct. Re min ked staff p e 'es in the T zoning district get resolved or if a property could ff rmemain e T zoning distri definitely. Eckman replied that the T zoning district was actually Fo 'dered a holding It was created for properties with'no specific or immediate plans for velopnlent at theme the Land Use Code was adopted..Eckman. read the Code section ' l g to T zoning districts. Retain ked if there was a dpfinrilon for what constitutes developmenL Eckman replied that e d Use Code had a lengthy definition for what constitutes development Eckman the statement stated hg t the definition would not be helpful in the interpretation thof the purposewas minded because( elopment can be anything. Eckman stated the purpose for pro s for which there are no .specific and immediate plans for development Barnes stated a pr erry could also come out of the T district if the City. initiated rezoning. in the Rensingit asked about the. development at Ranchway Feeds, and asked rothe dstino> the Land RDR z4 g district. Barnes ;stated the Rannchway development was approved Develo t Guidance Syst or zoning ordinance). Stocko d if there wo b any avenue for the Applicant to get the request approved for the on the truck was amen replied no because of the 25% maximum limitation for non- oc . g uses. The Use• Code, states, "The ,Zoning board of Appeals and the I PI d Zoning Bo o y have jurisdiction to grant modifications or variances to at are in Articles 4." Barnes stated the 25% limitation is in Article 1, the only oppo would be for the City to change the Code. Hall as why the requests were not to be considered as. one appeal. Barnes stated that Appesi 2403 or the new office building, and the proposal for the new office building would require remov relocation of the truck wash facility building. i Stock kne staff what would be o osed. Baines reerent if the perty Oust the piece lied that the process would be different, would , Wed and processed as Prof P but th elopment standards would st apply to the final product• Stockover questioned that I I OCT-19-2004-TUE 09:45 AM P,008 I ZBA January 9, 2003 Page 9 .._ building, ut not for lost land. Donahue then asked if the Applicant was wanting to trade the maintenank building for the addition to the truck wash. March stated that was correct. Eckman A+td 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 tre was an understanding that the Zoning Board of Appeals could be approached. Greg Fisher, 3115 CIyde Street, addressed the Board. Mr. Fisher is the architect for the Schrader project.sher summarized the proposed improvements to the property, and gave specifics about each indi dual step. The first step would be the trick wash addition, the second step would be to removfthe shop, and lastly ;o demolition the existing office building, and build a new one. Mr. F' 's presentation was terrupted by adjacent property owner, John Proudy; who wanted to giveublic input, but had leave the meeting. There a discussion hel garding if the Board wanted to impose time limits on public pmseatat as. The Board dec d not to set time limits. John I addressed the B Mr. Proudy was an adjacent property owner and stated he is wo . g th Giddings pro Proudy stated he felt the contamination was a hardship as well as the o ation. Proud as in favor of the appeal. Back o Fisher's esenta on: i� Fish s t I e Board was em presented with two visions --one from staff and one from the Sc Fisher explained staffs vision, was consistent with the RDR zone, and to extend Old to the aver. Fis fglt staff did not want to allow this use due to the truck component not g the vision of RDR zoning district. Fisher stated the Schraders did look into reloe their business du to staffs opposition, but they were unable to find a comparable Ioc ess they wanted to move outside of the city. Stoc asked Fishe{ if he had any traffic flow sketches for the proposed site. Fisher stated that not, although there was a site plan. The proposal is to use existing driveways that have ss off of Willow Street. Bill , 35I Linden SIthstory ddr ed the Board. Mr. Sears owns the Sears Trostel Building. Mr. was in favor oappeal and felt it would have a positive impact on the area. Mr. Sears e a summary of thg area.. Ernit er,. 808 East E 4, Str�et, addressed the Board. Mr. Garner owns the property at 400 College Avenue. Garner was in favor of the appeal. Mr. Gamer complimented OCT-19-2004-TUE 09:44 AM P. 007 ZSA Jaauary 9, 2W3 Page a .-Applicant Participation: Brad March, representative for Schrader Oil, addressed the Board. Match 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 hand business. Schrader stated his family has been in the petroleum business in Port. Collins since,1937. Schrader stated his. tics 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 i • need for more office space is necessary a.s the business has grown. Schrader gave his opinion on the condemnation and the railro' rzZcc 'on. Schrader stated he has waited for approximately five years.to receive the deeds t the p erty from the railroad. Schrader stated his proposal would be an upgrade to the property as w as maintain the Old Town character. Remur" ked Schrader what his position was to having the property zoned RDR. Schrader d he would let Mr. IMarch ai dress that issue. . March extol ned why the con on kras a hardship. March stated the Schraders had three `r primary c�t�cerns: (1) that the f g ernment required that all their tanks be -upgraded for envirvnznnral reasons; (2) the grade o the office building; and (3) that the utility of the truck wash fa was lost due to the ride lion. March then discussed the issu or contamination (coal -gasification) on the. site due' to the _ operation public services cc es at the tarn -of -the -century. March stated the issue with the con ation caused a s s tiai delay in the process of the condemnation, and in exchange properties that the chtaders were going to be paid or compensated with. due to the relocation o the railroad lines. h stated the Schraders did not receive tines to the property until 200(�. Match also tirade o that the City had planned on building a. new library, and approachefd a Schraders about possibility of acquiring the property for the new facility. ba turn the S held off on velopment plans due to this possibility. March a summary of a 199 v .ante request made by the Schraders. r Barnes as a I March to state wh the Schraders were opposed to the rezoning. March responded 1 that the s would like tq avoid the lengthy process, and that the RDR zone would limit the size o e addition to 223 ow. Street to a size that would not be large enough for trucks. Re ked if all the deed title issues were resolved. March replied yes. Mrscio asked `* Mr. the new wareho Iding was going to be substantially lamer. March replied that the ouse building is a xact same building. Miscio asked March if the truck wash would be osed.. March respond yes. March noted that without Planning and Zoning Board atroroval. th use would not be allowed. Donahue ed Mr.' March abut the compensation for relocating the maintenance building. March s the schraders were compensated for the relocation and value of a maintenance 1 I OCT-19-2004-TUE 0 :43 AM IN ZBA Jammy 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 ask staff why the property was placed in the "T' zoning district. Barnes replied that he would let Ken Waido address the question. Waido si atnd that historically 1; the T zone was used to zone annexation properties where a property weer was not certain what the ultiurate use of the property would be. The T zone allowed .ty staff to meet the Mate statutory annexation requirements, which require the City to zone within a certain period of time after annexation, but not commit the property owner specific zoning desiffnition. Waido gave a brief history regarding the property and the us zoning districts at were"assigned to I The'property was zoned.-T.. (transition) durin adoption of the Lan Use Code in 1997. Waido stated the staff recommended zoning desi on for the property w RDR. Waido explained there has never been an initiation by the perty .owner or staff to uest rezoning of the property. Miscr� what the overall ge the City had for North College Avenue. Waido responded that thF a was part of the downtown plan area, and the focus of the area is to maintain a mixed use. 'o questioned if the Schrader s proposed use would be compatible with staff's vision of North ege Avenue. Wai replied that the use (warehouse and vehicle maintenance facility) is not ed in the RDR zo , it is not deemed compatible with the long-range vision for the `" downt are& asked how different the process would be if the Applicant were willing to go through a rezo ' process. Barnes responded that the process for the new office building would not be sub y different The new office building would have to meet all the applicable devel t standards. Barnes stated that the process for Appeal 2.404 would be different becaue a building would contain a non -•conforming use. The expansion of the building would be to 25%. I• Gloss his presentation.. Gloss stated that the property should be zoned"RDR just as the surro ding properties are zoned RDR. Gloss stated the City its planning significant redev9pment in this arm loss noted ,that the City has entertained a lot of discussion with pm owners in the area re arding redevelopment. Gloss stated that the, industrial use of the PTO not necessarily into thg plan of the Downtown River Colxidor project. Glos his analysis on the variance review criteria. Gloss felt the Applicant's issue regarding the c ation action that took place to relocate the railroad line was overstated. Gloss stated that staffs perspective according to the previous rail line location the Applicant did not suffer ifrcant hardship. Tloss noted that the issue of contamination was not relevant to the v uest. Gloss stated ghat staff did not believe the request met any of the criteria for the Boar t t the variance request n- OCT-19-2004-TUE 0 :43 AM P.005 ZBA January 9, 2003 Page 6 i 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. Barned stated the entire property is in the `17' (transition) zoning district. Barnes remarked that once a property is placed in the ` 7 zone the owner of the . property cannot construct an addition to in existing building or construct a,, brand new building _ withont 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 t e time City Council placed the property in ` r zone, gave a variance at that tl=to ow for onstruction of an addition or a new building. Barnes said the "T is a holding zone f prop ety to be annexed Historically, the "T" zone has been reserved for annexation prop ery which ere large parcels of ground (example a farm) prior to the adoption of the Land Use Co in 19 , that's how the "r' zone was applied In 1997 when the Land Use Code was ado the City was rezoned, and the "T" zone was applied to properties that were already.de loped, ut there might not have been agreement between the property owner and the City as o� how a should be zoned when the Land Use Code was adopted. Barnes stated that due this, erevere a number of hot spot zonings. Barnes. noted that both the properties were co idered hot sspot zonings. Barnes referred board. members to their packets. Barnes presented slides for 323jNorth ollege Avenue: Barnes stated the office building is Iocated behind the e�nvenience store fronts on College Avenue. The building is an older -� building, and it has ) een 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 leparate the property. When the railroad tracks were relocated the functional access to the back of the building was eliminated. Barnes presented slides for 2231 Willow Street The building at 223 Willow ,Street - was considered a non -conforming use prior to the property being placed in the `17' 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-confonningiuse. As a non -conforming use in the RDR zone the building can be expanded by no m �Q25%. The proposed addition would exceed the 25%. The addition to the building will beine back - Remington asked staff if a Wl ' g is in the `T' zone, and the board grants a variance, are the development standards the j'ame. arnes stated the applicable standards of Articles 3 and 4, with respect to development would a ly to a property in the `� 'zoning district. If the property received a variance to allow this meal to occur in the `Or' district, the new office building ,., OCT-19-2004-TUE 01:42 AM P. 004 The owns Land Ust existing c the variar the rear t construct granted b and Petiti This prop, consi Boan track applii 1 build ZBA January 9, 2003 Page 5 L. and petitioner req st a variance as provided by Sections 2.10 and 4.9(B)(1)(b) of the ode to allow insiallation Iof a permanent. structure that contains a use which was the property at theltime thelproRerty was placed in the T zoning district. Specifically, would allow the construc�ion of a 1950. square foot enclosed truck wash addition to the existing warehouselshop building. There are two ways to receive approval to i addition to a building on this property in the T zone. One way is for a variance to be the Zoning Board of Appeals; the other is to rezone this property to RDR. The owner ier are seeldng approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals instead of a rezoning. nached petitioner's letter ten i lar to Appel #2403. Sin for to the property beirig m of the apl licanVs use ral ring numerqus unique circ ations, zontpg c4anges argument for supporting . ks is the case with App it would require that the rezoned, it's possible th min a nonconforg fuse". and would need to be a uld reauire, that the en' applic�b standards, Ozaning that jl improY is would probably need toji these vements wtauld not be req a taco dation to the Board ontliui be allgw to proceed without reZonin *These appeals were heard tol recust� elf from the Board due Ken w, provide the 'T' Jed out more intomurtr ed Cameron -Gloss, di and Mr. Gloss prepared , representative for the kOround information on district. thf proposed truck wash bay is a use that existed on the lacfd in the T zone, the variance provisions that allow uesF do apply. The applicant has submitted. a -letter to the tances applicable to this property as a result of railroad d 9ther relevant information. The letter outlines the request to construct an addition to the back side of the #2403, the addition can still. be constructed without a party be rezoned. However, in this particular case, if the the building would then be classified as a "building that event, the addition would be limited to about 1275 ved by the Planning and Zoning Board. This resulting parcel of ground be brought into 'compliance with the andscaping, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk and other . be made. If the property stays in th9T zone, then most of Staff of the Planning Department will be.submitting I air position as to whether or not the proposal should gproperty to the appropriate zoning district. e they are interrelated. Board member Dickson conflict of interest was received by the Applicant to board members. if the Current Planning Department, was also in recommendation on the appeals. Barnes stated that ad Planning Department, was also in attendance to zoning district, and how the property was placed in OCT-19-2004-TUE 09:41 AM P. 003 ZBA 7anauy 9, 2003 Page 4 replaced with anew 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 seeldng approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals instead of a rezoning. please see attached petitioner's letter A. Staff Comore ts: The purpose statement of Section i.9 of the Land Use Code states that: "The Transition District is inten for properties for which there are no specific and immediate pleas for development The only permitted uses are those existing at the date the property was placed into this District Since the proposed office buildirg 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 q'e circumstances applicable to this property .as a result of railroad track relocations,�zonitg changes and other relevant information. The letter outlines the applicant's argument f r s porting the development request to allow the constructionto occur in the T zone. HQw ver it is important tq note that Section 4.9(B)(1)(b) states that "...the Zoning Board of A grant a variatrc1e in accordance with Division 2.1 permitting installation or. PP enlarg of permanent structure• • • The key words in this section are thew "may fit° m ans that it is not mandatory that the Board grant a variance• The applicant can still cons a office building without a vaiiance, but it would require that the property be St®R c d.I ce . e development can be accomplished with or without a variance and be required rezto comply th a same development standards regardless of the process, staff of the PI anning be submitting a recommendation to the Board outlining their Position as t0 to the whether of proposal should be allowed to proceed without rezoning the property o.mmnriAf 7.0 E district. ' (See Appe N ` ber 2404 for specific minutes for this appeal:) 5. APP1 O• — Approved with conditions Addresj. Willow Street ` petitioner g Fisher Zone: t Section.! 10 and 4.9(B)(1)(b)