HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/12/2008FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — June 12, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760)
Chairperson: Dwight Hall
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday,
a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 30
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Bello
Ronald Daggett
Alison Dickson
Dwight Hall
Jim Pisula
David Shands
EXCUSED ABSENCES:
Dana McBride
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Lynn Suess, Staff Support to the Board
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken.
0
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Pisula made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 8, 2008 meeting. Dickson
seconded the motion. Motion approved.
Vote:
Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Pisula, Shands
Nays: None
Abstain:
3. APPEAL NO.
2613 - DENIED
Address:
400 Jackson Street
Petitioner:
Joe Sullivan for Archer Homes, Inc.
Zone:
NCL
Section:
4.7(D)(5) & (E)(3)
Background: This request was tabled at the May 8, 2008 ZBA hearing, and has now been placed
on the agenda for the June 12, 2008 meeting. The variance will allow the rear 50% of the property
to contain a Floor Area Ratio of .66 instead of the maximum .25 permitted (3,546 s.f. instead of
1,341 s.f.) and will reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5'4" in order to allow a 2-
ZBA June 12, 2008— Page 2
story addition on the rear of the existing home. The first floor of the addition will be a 646 s.f.
garage and the second floor will be a 523 s.f. rec room.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship; The lot is part of a lot line adjustment of 3 lots correcting the
existing house from straddling the original side lot line but continuing the entire existing house to
remain on the back half of the new lot. The additions will add to the size of the house on the rear
portion of the lot. The attached garage location is best suited behind the house and to the
southeast corner of the lot as not to place the garage between the house and either of the two
streets. Historic Preservation has approved the garage in this location.
Staff Comments: The lot line adjustment was done just a few years ago, mainly for the purpose of
allowing for the construction of 2 new homes. Previous to the lot line adjustment, this particular
house was the only house on the property. The lot line adjustment resulted in a new home being
constructed on what was previously the rear portion of the lot at 400 Jackson. The original lot
abutted the alley, so the existing home originally had access off the alley for parking. The lot split
resulted in creating a shallower lot and no alley access. If the Board believes that a garage should
be allowed, perhaps the Board should consider a variance for only a 1-story garage addition, and
not allow the second floor.
Staff Presentation: This appeal was continued from the May 8, 2008 meeting. Several neighbors
opposed the application. It was tabled with the understanding that parties would meet. They did
meet and were unable to arrive at a solution that was agreeable to everyone. The applicant
wishes to pursue the original request. A letter was received from Dan Epstein and Judy Dorsey,
the property owners to the east at 1327 East Magnolia. That letter was emailed to all board
members.
Hall asked what the process to approve is when the house became noncompliant due to the lot line
adjustment. Barnes responded that lot line adjustments are considered a non -regulated land
transfer. As long as a new lot is not being created, lot lines can be shifted and parts of one lot can
be sold to someone else's lot. Additionally, the floor area ratio requirement is fairly new.
Dickson asked if the house is currently nonconforming. Barnes stated that with regards to the
existing setback, it is in compliance. The noncompliant issue is the floor area ratio in the rear half
of the property.
Applicant's Participation: Joe Sullivan, 4020 Bingham Hill Road, Fort Collins. Mr. Sullivan stated
that his resubmission was identical to the original submission because he found, after talking to the
neighbors, that he couldn't keep everyone happy with the outcome. Some neighbors are unhappy
with the garage being off the 5' setback and others are concerned about the visual impact. He
feels impact is best reduced by keeping the garage contained to the pocket that's on the back side.
He also stated that they were not aware of the 50% rule when the lot line adjustments were made.
Bello asked if he was aware of the 15' setback on the rear of the lot. Sullivan replied no, that the
company hired to do the lot line adjustments said the setbacks would come from the Magnolia
Street side and Jackson Street side. Bello asked Barnes if the 15' setback regulation was in place
then. Barnes responded the setbacks have been in place since 1991; the code requires a 5'
setback if the property abuts an alley; otherwise a 15' setback is required. Bello said the staff
report mentioned a one story garage with no rec room and asked the applicant if he had
considered that approach. Sullivan stated that he wanted the space for the rec room because the
home is currently very chopped up. Sullivan did state that he would consider an amendment that
allowed only the garage without the upper floor.
ZBA June 12, 2008— Page 3
Hall asked if the applicant had considered a one car garage. Sullivan stated it would affect the
marketability of the project. Sullivan stated the garage could be put on the north side of the house
but that would affect the Epstein/Dorsey view to City Park from their porch.
Bello asked about the porch that is drawn on the plan. Sullivan stated it was a small addition to the
existing porch on the house. Hall asked if the garage were put on the north side, would any
variances be needed. Barnes replied that it was complicated. The front lot line can be changed to
Magnolia by putting the front door on the Magnolia side or by changing the address to a Magnolia
address. That would solve the need for a floor area ratio variance. But, then the code requires
that attached or detached garages have to be set back at least 10' beyond the front wall of the
house.
Audience Participation:
Jim Brokish: Mr. Brokish lives at 330 Jackson and addressed the board last month. Since that
meeting, he has been at the lot and reviewed possible solutions. It is his opinion that some
preplanning would have prevented this variance request, and he thinks the best solution is to tear
the existing house down. Although Mr. Sullivan feels that would cost too much, Mr. Brokish feels it
is the applicant's problem if he can't build within the standards.
Board Discussion:
Bello stated that he was struggling with the application due to the neighbors' strong objections.
Hall stated that he understands the builder's economic concerns, but that is not a justification for
the variance. He feels that the house could have a one -car garage and a single story and almost
comply. Dickson stated that there are not any arguments for unique circumstances that could
justify approving the variance, and that she is more concerned with the setback than the lot area
ratio. Pisula agreed with the setback concerns.
Hall made to motion to deny Appeal No. 2613. We find that the granting of the variance
would be detrimental to the public good. The applicant has not satisfied the criteria
necessary to Justify a hardship, equal to or better than, or nominal and inconsequential
justification. The applicant also has not provided a proposal that will promote the
general purpose of the standard, specifically with regard to the setbacks. It would
diverge from the Land Use Code in a significant way. Dickson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved.
Vote:
Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Pisula, Shands
Nays:
4. APPEAL NO
Address:
Petitioner:
Zone:
Section:
2614 - APPROVED
531 E. Laurel St.
Steve Josephs
NCM
4.8(E)(4)
Background: The variance will reduce the required street side setback along Smith Street from 15'
to 8.58' in order to allow the existing front porch to be replaced with a new porch which will extend
ZBA June 12, 2008— Page 4
all the way to the existing east wall of the house, which is already at an 8,58' setback. The
variance will also reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 9' to 5.67' in
order to allow a second story addition to be built on top of the existing west wall. The 2nd floor
addition will contain a gable end with an overall wall height of 255, requiring the additional
setback.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing home is a 2 bedroom house. The owners desire
to add a 3`d bedroom, and believe the best way to accomplish this is to construct a second floor
addition and locate all the bedrooms on one floor. The gable end, even at 25.5' tall, meets the
standard equally well as would a 2"d floor addition which has a height of 18' for the full length of the
home. The larger porch allows for a more useable outdoor patio area and will line up with the
existing wall, which is already at a nonconforming setback.
Staff Comments: None
Staff Presentation: The side yard setback is required to be 9' from the west lot line based on the
25.5' height of the wall along that lot line. Wall heights over 18' require an additional foot of setback
for every 2' of additional wall height. The triangular gable end of the wall has approximately 30
square feet that is in excess of the 18' height. Barnes reminded the board that a different type of
roof with an 18' height along the entire length of the house could be built without a variance. Thus,
the equal to or better than justification could be considered when using a gable roof as opposed to
the 18' height along the entire roof. The applicant is proposing to extend the porch all the way to
the existing east edge of the house, which is already at the 8.5' setback. The porch addition will
line up with the existing wall. That wall is already at a nonconforming setback.
Applicant's Participation. Steve Josephs with Craftsmen's Builders representing Mike and Jennifer
Barna. Josephs said they are taking the entire roof off and doing a reframe. The roof replacement
is another 12 pitch roof so the overall height of the building is not increasing very much.
Hail asked how much higher the new height will be from the existing. Josephs responded that
with the thicker floor system and the increase in rafter size from 2" x 4" to 2" by 12", the building will
be 20" to 24" taller. Hall asked for an overview of the porch. Josephs responded it will run the
length of the house and will tie into what appears to be a porch roof on the side. It will hip out to
the front and wrap around.
Bello asked if the house had a historical designation. Josephs responded that it did not, but they
are working with historical preservation right now. Bello asked if they feel the added porch is all
right. Josephs said the porch hasn't been an issue although historical preservation would like the
house preserved. He added that the homeowners' needs to expand to meet the needs of their
growing family outweigh their wish to preserve the house.
Hall asked about the structure behind the house. Josephs said it is a rental property which
provides additional income to the homeowners. Pisula asked about alternatives that had been
explored to do the addition and maintain the setbacks. Josephs replied that they could have done
a straight box on top with a 7' wall with a hip through it, but they felt the proposed design is less
impactful and the neighbor's daylight is not affected nearly as much as if they had built up to 18' all
the way along the side. Bello asked if the Bamas had discussed the remodel with the neighbors.
Josephs said they have not heard any complaints from the neighbors.
Audience Participation: None
Board Discussion:
ZBA June 12, 2008— Page 5
Hall stated that they had approved variances similar to this in the past using the rationale that
although the wall is not in compliance, it is much smaller and more desirable than the code would
allow. Regarding the porch, there is a city -owned 15' strip at the front of the property so the porch
will not be right up next to the street.
Dickson asked if the justification was nominal and inconsequential. Hall said yes, but perhaps
there should be a condition that the porch remain open.
Dickson moved to approve Appeal No. 2614 for the following reasons: The granting of the
variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The proposal as submitted will not
diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The lot lines are well inside
the street lines so there is a large setback. Additionally, a condition is imposed that the
porch remain open as is drawn on the plans. The decision to approve the variance for the
reduced side yard setback is because of the equal to or better than justification. The general
purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested is to provide adequate privacy,
light and ventilation. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the
standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal
which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. Hall seconded the
motion. The motion was approved.
Vote:
Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Pisula, Shands
Nays:
5. APPEAL NO. 2615 — APPROVED with conditions
Address: 252 E. Mountain Avenue
Petitioner: Bruce Hendee, BHA Design
Zone: D
Section: 4.16(Dx2xa), 4.16(Dx4xa)
Background: The variance consists of two parts. The first will allow a proposed four story mixed -
use commercial building (office with possible first floor retail) to be constructed at a height of 60'
instead of the allowed maximum height of 56'. Second, the variance will allow portions of the
fourth story of the proposed building to be set back from the edge of the building less than the
required distance necessary to comply with the 35 degree angle setback. The majority of the
fourth story will be set back from the vertical plane of the lower floors, but not all of the setback
areas are at the full 15' which would be required to satisfy the standard.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter.
Staff Comments: See separate staff memo.
Starr Presentation: Barnes stated that several letters were received in response to this application.
The Downtown Business Association unanimously supported this application. A letter was also
received from Chip Steiner, the Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority. John
Albright, a member of the Landmark Preservation Commission sent an email expressing his
personal opinion regarding the proposed variance. Barnes also read a letter from Agnes Dix at the
hearing.
ZBA June 12, 2008— Page 6
Earlier this week the applicant resubmitted the application reducing the building to four stories in
height and 60' tall which exceeds the height limit by 4'. (Their original application was to allow a 5
story building at a 73' height). The second part of the variance request is to allow portions of the
4w floor to not be set back at the required 35 degree angle. The property is on two parcels which
will give it a triangular shape. Both of the existing buildings will be demolished. The lot is in the
Old City Center Sub -district and directly abuts the Old Town Historic District. There is a two story
food coop building directly next to the proposed building. Although the proposed building would be
set back from the side property line, that is not a requirement. The applicant is proposing to create
a pedestrian walkway between the new building and the Coop building, allowing the ghost sign to
be visible on the east wall of the food coop. This walkway will run from Mountain over to Walnut
and will result in the loss of some building square footage.
Applicant's Participation: Stu MacMillan with Everitt MacMillan Development, 1928 Undenridge
Drive, Fort Collins. MacMillan stated that the company desired to build a first-class office building.
The Neenan Company is the local architectural group and Bob Hosanna is the lead architect.
Bruce Hendee with his firm, BHA Design, were involved in the Linden Street remodel and the Oak
Street Plaza remodel. The applicant felt they really needed a five story building because one of
the tenants requires about 25,000 square feet. They encountered issues with the Landmark
Preservation Commission with the five -story building because of the location next to a historic
district. Additionally, MacMillan stated that the design has not been completed. Before spending
more money on design, the applicant wanted to complete this process with the City. They also
own the Armadillo site and will eventually build a 90,000 square foot building there.
Bruce Hendee with BHA Design said he would co -present with MacMillan. Hendee showed
illustrations and stated they are trying to incorporate a look that is today but also reflects some of
the characteristics of the historic downtown. He stated this is a gateway into the downtown area,
and they anticipate putting a 35,000 to 40,000 square foot building on the property. Reasons for
the 4' variance request are: (1) the desire to have a 16' first floor level to align belt cornices with
the food coop; (2) to incorporate a better heating and ventilation system using the sustainable
technologies that are available today (these systems require more plenum space); (3) to add a
basement garage which requires beaming over the top and a thicker beam scale; and (4) to
provide 10' floor heights.
Hendee stated that the reasons for the bulk plane setback variance are: (1) they believe they can
provide an equal to or better building than the standard building with the continuous setback; and,
(2) it allows them to work through the challenges of a triangular -shaped site. Hendee presented a
slide showing the previously proposed five story building and the current 4 story building design.
Hendee stated they if the building abutted the coop, they could not have any windows on the west
side. By creating the 10' setback, they believe they have created an equal to or better than
situation. Also, by setting the building back at the third and fourth floors, they've created balcony
spaces for the tenants. Hosanna stated they are also changing the building fagade every 24' to 25'
creating a feel of different storefronts.
Bello asked if the proposed alley has been coordinated with the alley master plan for the city.
Hendee replied not yet, but that will happen. Bello stated that the building design is still in process
and felt it might be problematic in that there isn't a set plan. Hosanna stated that he would propose
that the 15' deck on the Walnut side be 8'8".
Barnes explained the city approval processes. If the variance is approved, the applicant moves to
Basic Development Review, a nonpublic hearing process. The Basic Development Review
equates to a final plan submittal. On the final plans, there are still some things the staff is going to
look at; namely, architectural details like window alignment, cornices, materials, etc. The purpose
ZBA June 12, 2008— Page 7
of the Basic Development Review is to ensure that the finished product is substantially the same
as what you see today.
Shands asked how many vehicles could be parked in the garage and if the garage square footage
is included in the 35,000 square feet. Hosanna responded that right now the building is 33,000
and the garage is another 8,000 square feet. The garage will hold 12 vehicles.
Dickson asked about the reason for the standard for building mass reduction. Barnes responded
that the bulk reduction standard for the Old City Center Sub -district originated with the Adoption of
the Land Use Code in 1997. The intent was to accommodate the need for more intensity in the
central business district but to reduce the appearance of the additional bulk of the building as
perceived by pedestrians.
Hall asked Barnes if the Old City Center Sub -district is the only area with the 4m floor setback
requirement. Barnes responded, yes, that the other two sub -districts of the downtown zone have
varying height limits depending on what block the property is in.
Audience Participation:
Don Eckles, 309 South Grant. Eckles stated he is a partner in six different property groups in the
historic or downtown districts, four of which are historical properties. He was originally in favor of
the 5 story building, so is very impressed that the applicant has agreed to drop to 4 stories. He
feels it is an equal to or better than rationale. He stated that the six different property owner
groups are very much in support of this application and asked for approval of the variance.
Matt Robin, Project Manager with the Downtown Development Authority. Robin stated that his
comments reflect those of the DDA staff; the board of directors has not seen the proposal. DDA
staff feels that this building is far superior to the product that would be seen if they just followed the
zone district standards, it enhances the corner of East Mountain and Walnut, and the pedestrian
alley encourages pedestrian porosity throughout downtown. Additionally, Robin stated that it will
add employees to the downtown area who will make purchases and dine out. Staff feels this is a
new piece of signature architecture —the advantages of which outweigh any of the negative impacts
that granting a variance or deviating from the current development standards might create in the
downtown area.
Carey Hewitt, 1912 Navajo. Hewitt stated that he has owned and operated The Cupboard in
downtown Fort Collins for 35 years. In his opinion, this is a signature project and he feels that the
downtown vitality comes from a balance of retail, office, entertainment, arts, and dining. Hewitt
thinks that this is a great entry point to downtown, that the prime office space has been neglected,
and encouraged the board members to support the application.
David Deal. Deal stated he owns the buildings at 143 and 148 Remington, within a block or so of
the proposed project. The builder is not pushing out to the lot lines to get the square footage they
are seeking. This design is a better alternative, is a neat building with a lot of look and feel and
fun. Deal encouraged the variance be approved.
Mitch Morgan with Veldman Morgan Commercial. Morgan owns several downtown buildings. He
stated it was their redevelopment of the Linden Hotel that was the catalyst for the redevelopment of
Linden Street. It is his opinion this is a splendid development plan, and encouraged the board to
approve the variance.
ZBA June 12, 2008— Page 8
Steve Ackerman owns property at 208-210 Linden Street, very close to the proposed project. He
stated this is a great project that will enhance the neighborhood. He urged the board to approve
the variance.
Rheba Massey, 1400 Freedom Lane. Massey was chairman of the Landmark Preservation
Commission in 1989 when the downtown plan was developed. In the old town district, 3 to 4 story
height limitations were discussed, but would not be allowed in areas that were incompatible with
the small scale structure of the old town area. Massey stated that two story structures are a
wonderful scale for old town, and she believes that old town is incrementally being encased in
taller buildings. She asked the board to re-examine the 4-story scale and not grant the variance.
Myrne Watrous, 723 West Olive Street. Watrous stated that approving the 4 foot variance request
is not a good precedence, especially since the applicant plans to develop the Armadillo property
right across the street and anticipates height issues with that building. While she feels the flatiron
style of architecture is appropriate, the New York City and Denver examples are shaded by much
taller buildings. She feels the applicant's hardship is self-imposed. Watrous stated that the
purpose of the 35 degree setback is to reduce the appearance of building bulk and not for the
purpose of adding interest or intrigue to the site. She also feels the design is not equal to or better
than what would be permitted under the code. She asked the board to deny the applicant's
request for the variances regarding height and setback.
Tom Tisthammer. Tisthammer owns property on East Vine Drive just across the river from old
town. He stated that the appropriateness of the project hasn't been addressed to the extent it
should. A comparison of this building and the Brown Palace is a bit of a reach. His main concern
is the choice of materials: the back side appears to use fairly typical modem construction
techniques which are seen along Harmony and at Centerra. The choice of materials will affect how
long the building lasts. When the site was purchased, it should have been apparent that the
setback and other requirements would have to be met. He doesn't believe the alley will be at all
similar to Trimble Court. With the small number of parking spaces in the building, employees will
probably not live in the downtown area and will need to commute.
Dick Beardmore, 526 South College Avenue. Beardmore stated that the hardship case has not
been proven. He has been quite involved in downtown Ford Collins historic preservation projects
since 1980. He doesn't feel this project is appropriate and that it does set a precedence.
Susan Hoskinson, 121 North Grant. Hoskinson stated she was a previous property owner in the
downtown area in the original historic district that was established in 1977 and a member of the
Landmark Preservation Commission. Her impression is that the 4 story structure shadows and
overpowers and has an adverse effect upon the historic properties in the old town area. She thinks
there needs to be more consideration of the scale, construction materials, and approval when the
final plans are not completed.
End of Audience Participation:
City Staff Participation:
Clark Mapes with Advanced Planning. The previous year has been spent discussing height issues
in the downtown area. There are four distinct perspectives toward downtown height: (1)
development and financial feasibility; (2) historic preservation; (3) concern about overall effect and
quality; and (4) P & Z analysis/planning. There is a middle ground allowed, and that is three to six
story heights in the historic districts that are mitigated by careful design, materials, cornices, and
detailing with consideration for the pedestrian orientation on the ground. Mapes believes that the
ZBA June 12, 2008— Page 9
materials in this building will be fully compatible. The code is intended to balance the
reinvestment, infill, and economic health with the existing charm that everybody loves about
downtown. A review of the staff report states why staff feels this building is as good or better
overall as a building that complies with the standard. Additionally, staff finds the 4' variance
request to be nominal and inconsequential and that it is important that the ground floor be taller
than the other floors to emphasize the pedestrian importance of the ground and lining up with the
food coop. Staff is sympathetic to the fact that HVAC systems have changed requiring more
plenum space. Staff feels this is an important opportunity to get a building of this quality on this
underdeveloped site.
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner with the Advanced Planning Department. She
agreed with Mapes that there is a middle ground. She believes the applicant will continue to work
with the City to ensure that this property does comply with the standards and Section 3.4.7, the
historic preservation section of the Land Use Code.
Dickson asked McWilliams if she had any concerns about the height differential of this building
from the neighboring buildings. McWilliams replied that based on staff review, four stories are
workable in this area. She cited the fact that this is a corner lot, and historically, taller buildings
have always been placed on the corner lots.
Hall asked what the articulation would be at the west wall if they went to the lot line. Barnes replied
the code would not necessarily require that any of the wall be stepped back because the wall
doesn't abut the street. In the Old City Center Sub -district where the 35 degree angle 0 floor
setback is required, it's from the street. They could have it in the same plane. Hall asked if it could
all be one plane with no windows. Barnes replied yes, it would be hard to do windows with the
building code. MacMillan stated the fire code requires the windows must be sprayed if they go
back 5 feet. At ten feet, the windows can be installed without spraying. Hall asked if the setback
and height requirements were met, would the brick wall go straight up for 56'. MacMillan
responded that it would probably be a brick wall.
Dick Beardmore, 526 South College. Beardmore stated that he takes exception to Mr. Mapes'
comments. He has worked in Telluride which has one of the highest per square foot values in
Colorado in a historic district, and he said that enforcement by the planning and zoning, oversight
and preservation zone has markedly increased the values because everybody knows the rule. He
also believes that preservation has and continues to have a very positive effect on downtown Fort
Collins and the City because of the standards we follow.
Bello suggested that the board take another look at the larger image of the elevations along Walnut
and Mountain. Those images have been included in the record. Bello asked if the property was
outside of the historic district. McWilliams replied that it is outside, but immediately adjacent. Bello
asked McWilliams if the applicant's efforts to provide stepbacks mitigate the impact on the
immediate historic district. McWilliams replied yes.
Board Discussion:
Hall stated he felt there were legitimate reasons to consider the additional height. Bello stated the
applicant has taken some additional steps to offset some of what they are asking for; namely,
setting the building off of the side lot line, creating an alley, putting glass in the west -facing wall as
opposed to building to the maximum allowable square footage with a solid wall at no setback from
the side lot line. He believes the 4 foot height difference is minimal and inconsequential. He
stated that he felt the board needed to send a message that working with the city and
ZBA June 12, 2008— Page 10
compromising to do what's right for the community is a positive move. He supports their request
and thinks it should be approved.
Shands stated the height variance is warranted. Their point is well taken that they need additional
space between the floors for energy efficiency. Additionally, having the first floor at 16 feet will
make the building more street friendly and aesthetically pleasing. He supports the variance for the
height.
Hall stated he has some concerns that the board has not gotten the specifics on the building and
doesn't know exactly if they are approving the plan as presented or approving an idea that could
ebb and flow. Barnes responded that Hosanna could possibly change the 15 feet to 8'8", and
perhaps that could be pinned down today. If the applicant comes within 2 feet, that is not
substantial compliance. But 8 feet instead of 8'8", that might be substantial compliance. The
other alternative is to have them come back when they have the final design.
Bello asked if the roof plan they've presented with the dimensions they've shown are correct
except that the one 15' setback is to be reduced to 8'8". Eckman responded that if that was
acceptable to the applicant, that would work. Hosanna said that if the 15' was changed to 8'8",
those could be the setbacks. Bello confirmed with Hosanna that if they are allowed to change the
15' to 8'8" and all other dimensions plus or minus 2", they could live with that. Hosanna responded
they would work with that. Bello also asked if the 60' height is confirmed. Hosanna responded that
they are targeting 58' right now, and the 60' provides a buffer. Hall stated that based on that, he
would approve the application.
Dickson moved to approve Appeal No. 2615 based on the facts and findings in the staff
report for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to
the public good. Relative to the height and setback issues, the board adopts the written
staff findings and their recommendations. In addition, the Board determines that the reason
that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is
requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies is because of the
applicant's valid concerns for light, space and ventilation and the modern technologies
involved, and the applicant is striving to meet the 56' height requirement. Additionally,
regarding the height variance, the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the
standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered
in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land
Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Regarding the setback, there are exceptional
physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property
which is the subject of the appeal as follows: the triangular -shaped lot makes it difficult for
the applicant to achieve the tenant's square footage requirements. Because of the
foregoing unique conditions, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied
would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue
hardship upon the applicant/owner and that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by
the act or omission of the applicant/owner. A condition is imposed on the setback that it
follow the submitted roof plan except that the portion shown at a 15'8" setback is allowed
to go to an 8'8" setback, and all other setbacks depicted on the roof plan must be within 2"
plus or minus of the dimesions shown. Hall seconded the motion. Appeal 2615 was
approved.
Vote:
Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, Pisula, Shands
Nays
ZBA June 12, 2008— Page 11
10. Other Business: Barnes stated that he will send emails to Hall and McBride regarding the July 8"
City Council work session on the ZBA periodic review. Barnes will forward the questionnaire to the
City Clerk's office along with other background information.
Meeting adjourned at 11:29 a.m.
Dwi0f Hall, Chairperson
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator