Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/13/2000A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, April 13, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Miscio, William Stockover, Diane Shannon, Thad Pawlikowski BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Ayraud, Martin Breth, Steve Remington STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Sandy Lindell, Staff Support to Board Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call taken. 2. APROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Board Member Shannon to approve the minutes from the January 13, 2000 meeting. Stockover seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. APPEAL 2289: -- Approved Address: 606 W. Mountain Ave. Petitioner: Kim Normandin, Architecht Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Back rg ound: The variance would reduce the required side yard (west) setback from 9' to 6' in order to allow a 2 story addition to the north side of the existing home. F ZBA April 13, 2000 Page 3 Remington asked the Applicant about the possible building code problems mentioned in his Statement of Hardship. Litschert responded that there would not really be a Code problem, but was more of a problem of the two vertically high walls that would cause the area to be dark and icy. Public Participation: Janet Orr, addressed the Board. Orr is an assistant professor of history at CSU, teaches architectural history and is a member of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Orr stated that she is in support of granting this variance for a number of reasons. Orr commented that this house is of particular interest to historians and is a rare example of an Art Modern house within the City. Orr listed several aspects of the house that were of architectural historic significance. Orr commented that the addition the Applicant was proposing was a very good example of compatible design to a historic building. Orr mentioned that the addition was well designed and will be primarily made to the back of the home and will not alter the appearance of the front of the home. Board Discussion: Shannon made a motion to approve Appeal #2285 for the hardship stated. Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Remington, Stockover, Pawlikowski, Miscio, Shannon Nays: None Appeal #2285 was approved. 4. APPEAL 2286: -- Approved Address: 132 W. Willox Lane Petitioner: Don Shields, Architect Zone: CN Section: 3.2.1(D)(1)(c), 3.2.2(J), and 3.2.2(M)(1) Background: The variance would eliminate the requirement to provide "full tree stocking" along the south and west sides of the building, eliminate the requirement to provide a 5' wide landscape strip along the north and east lot lines, eliminate the required 10' wide landscape strip along Willox Ct., and eliminate the required 15' wide landscape strip along most of the lot frontage on Willox Lane. The variance would also reduce the amount of required interior parking lot landscaping from 6% to 2.9%. The variance is requested in order to allow a portion of the ZBA April 13, 2000 Page 5 utilized for parking. Nuckols showed the area of the west elevation of the building and where Code would require a 10' wide landscape area that the Applicant is requesting be eliminated. Bames commented that there are three different auto repair businesses housed in the Applicant's building with three different curb cuts on Willow Ct. Bames mentioned that the Applicant is making an attempt to try to organize the parking area. Breth asked Bames about possibly reducing the size of the landscape areas instead of totally eliminating them. Barnes replied that they would then be too narrow and maintaining landscaping in a healthy condition would be difficult. Shannon asked Bames what was the required number of parking spaces. Barnes replied that there was not a minimum amount of commercial parking spaces required in the Code. Applicant Particination: Dan Eckles, addressed the Board. Eckles is the managing partner of the Applicant's property. Eckles noted that the property is currently zoned for auto body use and engine repair. Eckles commented that the current usage has caused some problems regarding the amount of cars on the site and he desires to change to a wholesale or retail type use to eliminate the problems with the excessive amount of cars, and unsightliness. Eckles stated he would need the approval of this variance to accomplish that goal. Eckles commented that he has proposed to use the heaviest amount of landscaping at the front corners of the property and removed the 8 parking spaces from the front. Eckles commented that if he added more landscaping to Willox Ct., he would be leaving the tenants for that portion of the building only 2 parking spaces and tenants would need more than that amount. Remington asked Eckles who was currently occupying the space that would be the potential paint wholesale tenant. Eckles responded that the previous tenant was an auto body shop and that tenant is no longer there, the space is now empty. Eckles confirmed that there are still remaining auto body type tenants and that they will be removing those tenants, particularly the tenant on the upper left corner of the building occupying 2500 square feet that has many vehicles parked outside. Don Shields, addressed the Board. Shields is the architect that designed the proposed changes to the building. Shields commented that by adding the landscaping and after addressing pedestrian access and parking, there is not enough area left for an attached sidewalk along Willox Lane, so by bringing people up close to the building, they would still have access to the building. Shields mentioned that a cedar stockade fence would be installed to mitigate impact to the street just past the Mini Mart and block the view from the street. Shields stated that they have proposed parking lot striping to be done on the west side of the building to designate parking spaces for the tenants and alleviate some of the parking dissaray. Pi ZBA April 13, 2000 Page 7 John Fossie, addressed the Board. Fossie is a property owner at 1713 Willox. Fossie commented that he had contacted Eckles regarding problems with the tenant on the comer of Eckles building. Fossie stated that Eckles said he could not do anything with his tenants. Fossie mentioned that he also has an auto repair tenant in his building and put a limit on the amount of vehicles his tenant can have on the property overnight and had suggested Eckles do the same for his tenants, but Eckles responded that he could not dictate to his tenants. Fossie commented that in 1997 and 1998, he called the Police Department every two or three weeks to have them come out to issue citations for vehicles resulting in numerous cars towed by the City that were in violation. Fossie mentioned that some of the cars have also been parked above the only storm drain in the area that drains into the Poudre River and the possibility of oil and contaminates getting into that drainage system is great. Fossie stated that other property owners in the area had to get the Post Office to paint the curb red in front of the mailboxes to keep them from being continually blocked by parked cars. Miscio commented that if the Board were to approve this variance request, it seems that any changes made as a result would be a positive improvement for Eckle's property as well as the neighboring properties. Dale Shipley, addressed the Board. Shipley resides at 218 W. Willox. Shipley stated that he has lived at that residence for 27 years and the current state of Eckle's property is the worst it has ever been. Shipley reiterated that access to the mailboxes is an issue and some of his concerns are that unlicensed cars be removed and the area cleaned up. Shipley commented that in the summer months paint fumes from the building invade his airspace. Shipley mentioned that he believes a landlord should have control of his tenants first before the Board approves his variance. Chuck Ramsey, addressed the Board. Ramsey is a tenant on Willox Ct. Ramsey commented that he is somewhat concerned about having the sidewalk up next to the building, as people travel to and from the Mini Mart and McDonald's and believes that it would be much better to have a sidewalk there. Ramsey said with the current parking problem, he has difficulty getting his delivery trucks to his tenant space. Ramsey believes that approving this variance would not change the situation with enforcing the parking problems etc. and that if Eckle's has not taken the initiative to take care of the current problems, he would not enforce the new requirements brought about by the variance approval. Gary Cummings, addressed the Board. Cummings is the owner of the building at 1717 Willox Ct. Cummings stated that he is in favor of the variance because he believes that by installing the proposed landscaping and making the proposed changes, that it would eliminate much of the parking problem. Cummings commented that as long as parking restrictions are enforced, the current problems should be taken care of. Board Discussion: Breth questioned Don Shields if the existing sidewalk in front of the building was a raised sidewalk. Shields replied that it is not raised, but is level with the parking lot, although it is made of concrete and not asphalt. Breth asked if on the east side of the building where the two pedestrian walkways will be located, would a vehicle be able to drive through that area. ZBA April 13, 2000 Page 9 stated that as for the sidewalk issue, the sidewalk areas were designed after consulting with City engineers. Eckles mentioned that he would be installing night lighting and the landscaping was designed to direct traffic efficiently. Eckles commented that the front corner landscape islands are larger than what is required and that is where he has tried to focus the most impact. Eckles stated that he could have replaced the problem tenant with another tenant, but his only option would have been another auto repair business and his intention was to try to change the tenant mix to retail. Eckles mentioned that he could have removed the auto repair business as a tenant, but did not want to have an empty space with loss of revenue. Eckles stated that it is the nature of the auto repair business that demands a lot of parking area and there would continue to be many cars parked there unless the change of use is granted so that the tenant make-up can be changed. Eckles commented that as per current Zoning requirements, vehicle repair businesses are allowed up to 5 cars per 1,000 square foot of occupancy and for retail space, a maximum of 4 cars per 1,000 square foot is allowed, therefore, with another retail occupancy in the building, there would be a maximum of 48 parking spaces that could be on site and hopefully would mitigate concerns of the neighbors. There was some Board discussion on once a change of use was established for the property that it would apply to the entire property and building, even though it is only one tenant space that would actually have immediate occupancy. If any of the current auto repair businesses remained there and were replaced with other auto repair businesses, then there would actually be two Certificates of Occupancy issued, one for the retail/wholesale and the other for the auto body usage. If all of the auto repair tenants were to vacate and be replaced by retail occupants, then it would require another variance to change the use back to auto repair. Shannon made a motion to approve Appeal #2286 with the condition that parking is striped and designated as shown on the submitted plans and parking requirements be enforced by the Applicant. Approval would also include the provision that any parking next to sidewalks would have wheel blocks installed. Breth seconded the motion. There was Board discussion on the possibility of conditioning the variance approval to include restrictions on the number of parking spaces dedicated to auto body or auto repair tenants. Barnes commented that City Zoning could not enforce parking in those areas of public right-of-way, those cases would be regulated by other departments. There was some concern voiced if overflow parking would then place a burden on public right-of-way parking. A comment was made that a wholesale/retail store would not have overnight or long-term parking as would an auto repair business. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Stockover, Pawlikowski, Miscio, Shannon Nays: Remington Appeal #2286 was approved.