Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/2002 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - CANCELLATION NOTICE - Regular Meeting Community Planning and Environmental Services N Building and Zoning Department t 106KA�ni immum City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals Members FROM: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator RE: January 9, 2003 ZBA Meeting Due to the cancelation of the December 12, 2002 meeting because of a lack of a quorum (3 members attending funerals of family members), the December agenda items will be carried forward to our January 9, 2003 meeting. It is not known at this time if other variance requests will be received before the January application deadline, so there is the possibility that the agenda will be lengthier. In addition, we had set the January meeting as a breakfast meeting. Therefore, please note on your calendars for January 9, 2003 that we will convene for breakfast at 8:00 a.m. and then begin the meeting at 8:45 a.m. Make sure to bring the items that you received in your packet for the December 12th meeting to the next meeting. We will be sending out a new packet as usual in advance of the January meeting, but we will not include materials that you just received. The later meeting start time and the length of the agenda will probably result in the meeting lasting till about 11:00 or 11:30. Therefore, please try and arrange your schedules to allow for most of the morning. Our two new boardmembers will be appointed by Council on December 19, 2002, so I'm sure the new members will be joining us in January. Please call me at 416-2355 if you have any questions regarding this matter. 281 North C011ege A-venue • PO. Box 380 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0380 • (970)221-6760 • FAX (970)224-6134 Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Regular Meeting — Thursday, December 12, 2002 Appeal 2401 Address 1 303 STANTON CREEK DR Petitioner Matthew Clarke Zoning District LMN Section 3.5.2(D)(3) Description The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 4 feet, 6 inches for the new single family home that is under construction on this lot. Hardship The owner is acting as the contractor on this new home, which will be his personal residence. The staking out of the lot and the foundation hole were done correctly. However, the caissons and foundation were incorrectly placed within the hole. This resulted in a 6-inch error. There is no additional land available to buy since there is already a house at the minimum setback on the adjacent lot. Staff Comments None. Appeal 2402 Address 1334 W Oak st Petitioner Fred and Ardith Kerst Zoning District NCL Section 4.6(D)(1) Description The variance would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1, to 2.7 to 1 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 can not exceed 181 square feet. 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 then 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. Appeal 2403 Address 320 N College Ave Petitioner Greg Fisher Zoning District T Section 4.9(B)(1)(b) Description 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 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 See petitioner's letter. 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 mean 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. Appeal 2404 Address 223 Willow St Petitioner Greg Fisher Zoning District T Section 2.10 and 4.9(B)(1)(b) Description 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 See petitioner's letter. 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. 4ppeal 2405 Address 259 S College Ave Petitioner Steve Levinger Zoning District Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), 3.2.2(M)(1), 3.2.2(J) Description 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 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 bedroomistudio 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). Hardship See petitioner's letter 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 we 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.