Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEAST SKYWAY REZONING - 19-07 - CORRESPONDENCE -Our current thought is to rezone the west two-thirds of Randy's property to c, commercial and the east third to RL (to serve as a buffer to the RL parcels to the east). This would enable Randy to operate his primary business (small repair), to conduct storage of equipment and vehicles in enclosed building; but would not permit outside storage of vehcles/boats/rv's, etc. This rezoning scheme is consistent with what he has been told in the past; except, that we have mentioned in the past UE on the east third, but on further examination we believe the RL is more consistent with existing uses and adjacent zoning. If it is rezoned, Randy would have to submit a development plan application. Randy indicated agreement with the zoning violation proposal; and, although he was not happy with the split zoning (he wants all C), at first blush he sounded in agreement with our staff initiated rezoning proposal. He said he would get back to us next week. We are preparing a followup letter to Randy confirming these decisions. Brian Schumm has indicated his interest regarding this property. Once the letter has been recieved by Randy, and we get a response, we intend to let Brian know whats happening. >>> Pete Wray 6/5/2007 3:11 PM >>> Joe, Peter and I just talked with Randy and outlined the following two options for him to consider: 1. Zoning violation Peter will extend the deadline to remove all outside storage of both small engine repair equipment and RV's from 618 to 6/17 midnight. The small equipment can be stored inside the detached garage building. All RV's removed off -site.' He has until 9/30 to move this equipment out of this building and back into the attached garage. This will enable Randy to continue his business operation for the duration of the summer. 2. Rezoning 3 options exist: 1) citizen initiated rezoning (fees involved); 2) staff initiated (no cost);and as part of the S. College Plan process. Pete proposed a staff initiated rezoning process with application due next week for the Fall cycle. This proposal will include rezoning the western 213 of his property from UE to Commercial and the eastern 1/3 (and school site) to RL as a transition to existing residential neighborhood to east and northeast. Staff will be supportive of this rezoning and Structure Plan amendment based on long-standing discussions with the Whitmans and clear understanding of their future business needs, adjacency to existing commercial and opportunity to improve site screening, landscaping and fencing with a new development project. Furthermore, it did not seem appropriate for them to wait 18 months for resolution of a potential zoning change as part of the S. College Plan process. We informed him a letter confirming this discussion will be forwarded to him tomorrow. Randy will call Pete Wray to confirm they want us to proceed with the staff initiated rezoning by next Tuesday. Randy at first blush appears to be pleased with our proposal and actions and is comfortable moving forward in a positive manner. Thanks, Pete and Pete and Repeat... From: Joe Frank To: Atteberry, Darin; Barnes, Peter; Eckman, Paul; Gloss, Cameron; Jones, Diane; Roy, Steve; Wilder, Timothy; Wray, Pete Date: 06/06/2007 10:09:45 AM Subject: Re: Whitman Proposal During the last couple of days there have been a meeting and a follow-up telephone conversation between City staff (Darin, planning and CA), Randy Whitman and his wife, regarding existing and future zoning and rezoning options for his property on Skyway Drive. I believe we have a reasonable compromise which will enable Randy to continue his primary business, protect adjacent property owners, and hopefully bring a quicker resolutioin to the questionslissues that have been bubbling for at least the past 8 years. comments are welcomed The following is a quick summary of these conversations: 1. Zoning violations. Randy was reminded that outside storage of items (rv's, boats, golf carts, lawn mowers, etc) on his property was in violation of the current zoning and he was reminded of the June 8 deadline to comply. Randy was also informed of the legal steps that would be taken if he were not to comply. We had a long discussion as to how this could be accomplished; Randy stated he was having problems moving the remaining 2-3 RV's because they were out of state and he did not have keys. He said he would try his "best" to get them off by June 17. Peter mentioned that the code provides that the "director" (me) has the discretion to grant a time extension (up to 180 days) for good cause shown. In this case, we believed that "good cause" would be if Randy takes reasonable action toward rezoning the property which may make legal the equipment/vehicle storage (see below for more information on the rezoning discussion). Randy said that his intent is to pursue a C or I zoning district either by petition or via the S. College subarea project. Staff agreed that this was sufficient "action" and agreed to allow Randy to store the small equipment (carts and mowers, etc) inside the detached garage building; but that the RV's, boats, etc would have to be removed off -site. Staff believed that these conditions will mitigate the negative visual impact of the outside storage. Staff also agreed to extend the deadline to move the equipment indoors and remove the outside storage until June 17 due to his apparent hardship regarding keys for the RV's. The other time extension will end on 9/30; at that time, Randy would have to move the equipment from the detached garage back into the attached garage or off site; the ban on outside vehicle storage will continue. This will enable Randy to continue his small engine, etc. business operation for the duration of the summer. 2. Zoning Randy and staff discussed three 3 options to rezone the property. 1) Randy initiates by petition; 2) staff initiates the petition and 3) staff initiated as part of the S. College Plan implementation. We also talked about zoning options ... C, I, UE, etc. Randy was concerned about the $5000+ rezoning review fee. After a lot of discussion amongst staff, staff believes the best option was for staff to initiate the rezoning and Structure Plan change as part of the Fall rezoning cycle, which begins next week. We thought this was best for a number of reasons including that much staff discussion has already taken place on the appropriate rezoning for this property; there would not be much value or new information added if it were included in the subarea planning process; a strong desire to avoid the brain damage and uncertainity for all by waiting another 18 months to have the corridor plan completed before resolving this issue; and, avoiding unreasonable/unnecessary cost to the property owner.