Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTITCH-TECH WAREHOUSE - EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE - 16-88B - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCEa City of Fort Collins hF De4apment Services di Planning Department MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Peterson, Director of Planning FROM: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Senior City Planner Z�l%=L i! RE: Stitch-Tec, Inc. Non -Conforming Use Expansion (i DATE: August 4, 1988 As Project Planner for the Stitch-Tec, Inc. Non -Conforming Use Expansion, I wanted to provide you with my analysis of the staff review that occurred on this project prior to the Planning and Zoning Board approval on May 23, 1988. I would also like to make several recommendations regarding the manner in which the project was handled, so that similar situations may be avoided in the future. The Stitch -Tee, Inc. proposal was submitted to the Planning Department on or about April 19, 1988, two weeks after the normal submittal deadline. The submittal was incomplete, lacking fees, storm drainage report/plan, legal description and adequate detail on the site plan. The project had not been reviewed by the Conceptual Review team prior to submittal and therefore, did not have the benefit of the team's expertise prior to design and formal submittal. The site plan was routed to the appropriate City departments and outside agencies in the normal manner, although only one week was given for review. I collected comments on the project and forwarded them to my contact person (Dick Rutherford of Stewart and Associates) on April 26, approximately one week behind the normal schedule. As is typical with non -conforming uses, there was some uncertainty on staff's part, as to the extent of requirements that could be placed on a non -conforming use expansion. A meeting was held with the Stitch-Tec owner on April 26 to discuss our review of the project, as well as the process in which the project would be formally reviewed by the Planning and 'Zoning Board. The owner of Stitch - Tee, Inc., Jerry Jones, was given an overview of the necessary City require- ments, including the requirements for on -site detention, storm drainage report/plan and landscape buffering from the adjacent residential uses. Mr. Jones appeared to be unaware of the review procedure that would be required and expressed uncertainty as to the size of the proposed addition, which ultimately doubled from the original proposal. The neighborhood meeting to be held May 5 on the project was also discussed with Mr. Jones, who indicated that he, nor his staff, would attend. Stitch-Tec, Inc. was represented at the neighborhood meeting by Dick Rutherford. 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 N.0 0 0 Page 2 In the two weeks between the neighborhood meeting and the May Planning and Zoning Board meeting, I worked with Dick Rutherford to resolve several items relating to storm drainage and landscaping. During this time, it became apparent that the various parties representing the land owner, building owner and Stitch -Tee (the tenant) were not maintaining communications among them- selves. In fact, for a period of one week, no progress was made on the project, since the tenant was apparently unwilling to give approval to his consultant to do the necessary storm drainage materials. To date, final storm drainage items have not been completed. At the May 20 Planning and Zoning Board work session, a question was raised by board members regarding setbacks for the proposed Stitch-Tec expansion. A subsequent review by planning staff led to the discovery that the I-L zone requires a minimum 30' setback from any adjoining street or zoning district line. The land to the east of the site is in Larimcr County and is in an adjoining zoning district; therefore, the site plan was adjusted to reflect the 30' setback along the proposed expansion. I conducted a follow-up on this item with Anne Fernan, Zoning Inspector, who reviewed the site plan and provided zoning comments. The setback requirement was apparently not detected by Anne because the site plan incorrectly identified the existing zoning on the property. In retrospect, I think many of the difficulties encountered on this project were related to the "fast -track" nature of our review, as well as the lack of a complete submittal on the applicant's part. Had this item followed the normal review process, beginning with Conceptual Review, I believe staff would have been able to clarify the process and any applicable requirements much earlier, so that the subsequent review could have occurred in a much smoother fashion. In short, I think "fast -tracking" is appropriate only when a project can meet City submittal requirements at the time of submittal. Although the applicant indicated that there was an urgent time factor involved in receiving approval from the Planning and Zoning Board, two months have passed since Board approval and to my knowledge, no further work has occurred on this proposal. The City code presently distinguishes two types of non -conforming use propos- als: those that would expand an existing building containing a non -conforming use (as in the Stitch-Tec proposal) and those that would change a non- conforming use to another non -conforming use. There are review criteria defined in the Code to use in evaluating a non -conforming use and its impact on the surrounding neighborhood; however, there are no guidelines or policies to determine the extent of City requirements on such things as street improve- ments or landscape covenents. Clarification of applicable requirements could improve the review process for these items. Under the City Code, all non- conforming use requests must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. The nature of such requests may vary, from a 300 square foot addition to an existing building, to a change of use on a site that requires development of a vacant site. Again, there are no guidelines established to apply on the basis of the scope or magnitude of a proposal. While development of a vacant site as a non -conforming use probably should be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, a small addition to an existing non -conforming building may be appropriate to be reviewed and approved administratively.