HomeMy WebLinkAboutSCHRADER PROPERTY REZONING, 320 N. COLLEGE - 7-05 - REPORTS - MINUTES/NOTESZBA January 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:
Bames presented slides relevant to this appeal. Bames 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 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 buck 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(n .
Back round:
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 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 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 woridng 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 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 trick 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.
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 January 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
?.BA 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 staffs 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. Garner owns the property at
400 North College Avenue. Mr. Garner was in favor of the appeal. Mr. Garner complimented
ZBA January 9, 2003
Page 8
ADDlicant 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 turn -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 truck 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 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 "r' zoning district. Barnes 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. Barnes 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 January 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 `17' (transition)
zoning district. Barnes remarked that once a property is placed in the "r' 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 "r' zone,
gave a variance at that time to allow for construction of an addition or a new building. Barnes
said the "r' is a holding zone for property to be annexed. Historically, the `°I"' 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 "r' zone was applied. In 1997 when
the Land Use Code was adopted the entire City was rezoned, and the "r' 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 "r' zoning district.
The non -conforming status is removed once the property was placed in the 'Or' 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 "r' 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 `r' zoning district. If the property
received a variance to allow this development to occur in the "r' district, the new office building
ZB,k 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 warehouselshop 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 #2401 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. Bames 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 January 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 3
AAWlican� t 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. I . .
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 equal 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(3)(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