Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/08/2001F] Minutes approved by the Board at the December 13, 2001 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — November 8, 2001 8:30 am. Council Liaison: Karen Weitku at I Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) V Chairperson: William Stockover I Phone: 482-4895 (1) V A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday November 8, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Miscio Thad Pawlikowski Steve Remington Diane Shannon William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Ayraud Martin Breth STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call was taken. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Board Member Shannon to approve the minutes from the October 11, 2001, meeting. Board Member Pawlikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed with Board Member Remington abstaining. 3. APPEAL NO. 2360 -- Approved Address: 817 West Oak Street Petitioner: Leslie Echevarria, Owner Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Washington Avenue from 15 feet to 11.5 feet in order to allow the existing front porch to be demolished and a new porch of the same size to be constructed in its place. ZBA November 8, 2001 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Page 2 The existing porch is in need of repair. The best way to do that, based on its age, is to start over with a new foundation. The porch lines up with the existing exterior wall of the home, so it does not encroach into the required setback any further than the existing home. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. The house sits at the corner of Oak Street and Washington Avenue. The porch currently sits at 11.5 feet to the property line, and lines up with the existing wall of the home --thus not encroaching any further into the required setback than the existing home. The porch is approximately 24 feet from the curb along Washington Avenue and 33 feet from the curb along Oak Street. The new porch will be in the exact location as the existing porch. Applicant Participation: Jay Hatfield, 13350 North County Road 15, Wellington, Colorado, addressed the Board. Mr. Hatfield is the carpenter for the project_ Mr. Hatfield and the property owner intend to improve the property without changing the existing dimensions. Boardmember Remington asked if the new porch would have the same footprint as the existing porch. Hatfield stated that the footprint would remain the same. Boardmember Shannon asked Mr. Hatfield if the project was just an upgrade. Mr. Hatfield stated that the porch is currently enclosed and will be upgraded to be a partially enclosed porch. A new foundation will be poured and new decking assembly applied. The homeowner has decided that all the materials will be consistent with period -appropriate materials with the exception of wrought iron railings as opposed to wood. The homeowner is currently discussing with the City's Historic Preservation office over the wrought iron railings. Mr. Hatfield stated that the homeowner would prefer wrought iron railings due to maintenance. Shannon asked staff what would happen if the homeowner did not meet the City's Historic Preservation office requirements. Peter Barnes stated that it was a separate issue in relation to the variance request. Mr. Hatfield stated that the conflict had to do with being awarded a grant to aid the homeowner with financial issues. Remington asked staff if the Historic Preservation office needed to approve the proposed porch. Barnes noted that any time a building is over fifty years old and an exterior alteration is desired, the City's Historic Preservation office has to approve the alteration. Barnes wanted the Board to take note of the site plan and vicinity map of the adjoining properties that were handed out in each boardmember's packet. Barnes stated that the existing porch is approximately 33 feet from the curb along Oak Street, which means that the porch currently does not comply with the front setback requirement. Barnes explained that the applicant needed a variance on the side setback due to it being a 'contextual setback". Barnes further noted that if an individual is proposing a setback that is the same as or more than the adjacent property and as long as the individual complies with the setback of the adjacent property, the adjacent property setback becomes the minimum setback. Barnes stated the proposed porch would not comply with the minimum 15-foot setback, but a variance is not required due to the contextual setback. Barnes explained to the Board that the contextual setback does not apply to the side setback and the Applicant would have to comply with the minimum 15-foot setback requirement. Board Discussion: Remington told the Board that he was in favor of the variance request due to it being the same footprint. Remington felt that since the domicile was established in 1906, prior to zoning codes, it was part of the hardship as well. ZBA November 8, 2001 Page 3 Shannon made a motion to approve appeal number 2360 for the hardship based on a narrow lot in an older neighborhood and the fact that the footprint of the proposed porch will remain the same. Remington seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Stockover, Pawlikowski, Remington, and Shannon. Nays: None. APPEAL NO. 2361 -- Approved on a temporary basis Address: 1310 North College Avenue Petitioner: Andy Grant Zone: CN Section: 2.14.2(B) Background: The variance would allow temporary vendor operations to be conducted on the vacant Plainsman Hotel property without having to bring the property into compliance with the Land Use Code. Specifically, the variance would allow the sale of bedding plants in May and June, pumpkins in October, and Christmas Trees between Thanksgiving and Christmas to occur at this sight. The vendor would not have to install such improvements as perimeter and interior landscaping, curb, gutter and sidewalk, and other such things that are required whenever the use of property changes. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The property is currently abandoned, and the City has required the buildings to be boarded up. Even though temporary vendor sales are not a permanent use, they are considered to be a change of use, and therefore trigger the need to upgrade the property. Any improvements constructed now would probably need to be redone upon redevelopment. Please see petitioner's letter for additional information (Attachment A). Staff Comments: Boardmember Miscio excused himself from the hearing due to a conflict of interest. The Board should be careful about setting a precedent in the event this variance should be approved. The purpose of the standard is to subject temporary vendors to the same regulations that apply to permanent land uses. This means that if they locate on a property where a certificate of occupancy has already been issued for the same type of use, then temporary uses are allowed without the need for site upgrades. Upgrades would not be triggered if a permanent user of the same use were to occupy all or part of the building on the site. Likewise, if a temporary user wants to locate on a lot where a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for that type of use, then site upgrades would be required just as they would if a permanent user were different from the current or previous user. Thus, if the Board is inclined to grant this variance, members should find that there is something unique about this property so as not to be locked in to having to grant similar variances on other properties. In order to use the "equal to or better than' standard, the Board would have to find that (1) the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, and (2) that 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. ZBA November 8, 2001 Page 4 Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. The site is currently dirt and there are not sidewalks along North College Avenue. A drive access exists off of North College Avenue. Nuckols stated retail use is allowed in this zoning district, but the property currently exists as lodging use rather than retail use. Nuckols noted that anytime a change of use is requested, the site would need to be brought into compliance with current codes. Nuckols stated that the entire site would need to be brought into compliance, i.e., sidewalks and landscaping. Barnes said the site plan shows what would be required for the Applicant to bring the site into compliance, but the Applicant was proposing not to do any of the improvements. Shannon asked if the Applicant owned the property, and who would need to make the improvements if the Applicant did not own the property. Nuckols told Shannon that the Applicant does not own the property. Barnes clarified that the City does not mandate who makes the site improvements although someone has to, whether it be owner or tenant. Shannon asked how Grant Farms functions on South College Avenue. Nuckols stated that their vendor operations on South College Avenue occur on a retail site (in front of Wards). Nuckols reiterated that the North College Avenue site (The Plainsman Hotel) is considered lodging, and is not a retail use. The variance request as presented would require a new certificate of occupancy. Applicant Participation: Andy Grant, 1020 West County Road 72, addressed the Board. Applicant Grant stated he would like to try his vendor operations on North College Avenue. Grant felt it would be beneficial to his farm as well as providing a spark on North College Avenue. Grant explained that it would be a test for the vendor operations. Grant has had a successful store in Cheyenne, Wyoming for over 20 years. Grant felt it would be a waste of resources and effort to bring the site into compliance since the property is deteriorated. Grant explained he would clean up the site, make it look more attractive, and aid the police in mitigating a problem with vagrants. Shannon stated that she understood the Applicant's reluctance to do sidewalks, but asked the Applicant why he was reluctant to do the landscaping. Applicant Grant stated it was not logical due to the property's current state. Shannon asked the Applicant if he was going to purchase the property. Applicant Grant told the Board that it has been offered to him, but it is not his initial intention to build a retail store. As of right now, Applicant Grant is strictly a tenant. Remington was concerned that if the variance were granted for a temporary use that the vendor sales could become a permanent ongoing business. Remington asked if a time period could be a condition upon approval of the request. Remington was not in favor of a permanent situation. Barnes stated that lots and any type of condition could be placed on the variance request. Barnes discussed time period limitation possibilities with the Board. Applicant Grant stated that the seasonal items would bring an aesthetic appeal. Remington agreed with the Applicant. Remington felt the request was a hardship request rather than equal to or better than the standard. Remington was also in favor of the vendor operations on a temporary basis to see if the property was viable to bring the property into compliance. Paul Eckman responded to Remington by stating that the Board has the ability to do conditional approvals. Eckman informed Remington that he would need something unique and unusual, and then find whether strict application of the code would impose unusual difficulties or hardships upon the Applicant, not caused by the Applicant to be able to approve the request based on a hardship. Boardmember Stockover explained to the Board that he was opposed to the request. Stockover felt it was unfair to other North College Avenue business owners. Stockover also felt that business ventures should ZBA November 8, 2001 Page 5 also be taken on wholeheartedly. Stockover felt that if the Board approved the variance request that the Board would be prolonging the agony of the property. Stockover was also concerned with setting a precedent. Applicant Grant requested that the Board look at the tradition of how production agriculture products have been sold in the past. Remington felt that North College Avenue was a different economic zone than South College Avenue, for an example. Remington stated he was still in favor of a temporary variance. Stockover named several companies making major investments on North College Avenue. Stockover would agree to the request if it were for only the Christmas season. Applicant Grant reminded the Board that Grant Farms has invested in the Fort Collins community, and that he is a small business owner. Stockover stated he understood, but felt the Board would be rewarding the property owner to allow the property to exist in its current state. Shannon made a motion to deny appeal number 2361 based on the Board not finding a hardship. Stockover seconded the motion. Remington believed a temporary hardship did exist due to the lodging use that is not viable for its location. Boardmember Pawlikowski felt there should be use of the property and agreed with Remington to grant a temporary variance. Stockover stated he failed to see any effort on the property owner's part, and felt the owner was trying to circumvent the system. Applicant Grant stated his motivation was an -independent action, and that Grant had contacted the property owner. Stockover asked Applicant Grant that if a three-month variance request was approved, and it worked out well for Grant Farms would he be more inclined to make improvements to the property. Applicant Grant stated he has not gone that far with his planning. Barnes asked Stockover what items he was looking for in terms of improvements. Stockover stated he would prefer a gravel parking lot as an example. Barnes stated that it might be to the potential buyer's benefit to leave the buildings there until the property is bought due to federal rebates and tax incentives. If the current owner demolishes the buildings, the potential buyer could lose some value. Barnes noted that this might not be fact. Barnes clarified that the City condemned the property and required the property owner to either demolish the structures or board up the buildings to prevent entrance to satisfy the dangerous -building code. Applicant Grant stated that the structures have been broken into repeatedly since being boarded up, and Grant feels his presence would stop these actions. Shannon stated that Grant Farms would have a good operation, although she agreed with Stockover. Shannon believed the request to be a dilemma and was willing to agree to a temporary approval. Stockover called for a roll call on the motion to deny appeal number 2361 based on the fact that there is no hardship. Vote: Yeas: Stockover and Shannon. ZBA November 8, 2001 Page 6 Nays: Pawlikowski and Remington Eckman stated that the motion failed and the bylaws allow the Board to reconsider. Remington made a motion to reconsider appeal 2361. Shannon seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Stockover, Pawlikowski, Remington and Shannon. Nays: None. Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2361 for the time period up until July 1, 2002, based on the existence of a temporary hardship due to the current use of the property being incompatible. Pawlikowski seconded the motion. There was a discussion held regarding the issue of a hardship. Barnes stated the Board needed to find something unique about the property. Remington amended his motion. Remington added the following: given the condition of the property, and that the City has demanded that it is boarded up, and due to current affairs the request be approved on a temporary basis. The motion was also to include the strict application of the code would create practical difficulties or hardship upon the Applicant because of the landscaping and sidewalk. Shannon seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Remington, and Shannon. Nays: Stockover Meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m. al• C William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Attachment A 1020 WCA 72 WELLINGTON CO 80549 To: Peter Barnes v Dear Committee Members: We would like to ask your committee for the possibility and approval to sell Christmas Wreaths and Trees, from our Farm, at 13 10 N. College Ave We would appreciate your consideration of this request for the following reasons: 1.— Our Christmas Tree and wreath operation would add visually to the North College area. (This will be done tastefully, and festive, adding a 'better look' to the area than the existing abandoned motel. It will also show more 'vibrancy' io North College and enhance other neighboring businesses during the Holiday seasmz) 2. — We will clean up the facility and disguise its present abandoned appearance. 3. — We will leave the property more appealing when finished than when we start. 4. — It will be a 'test' on our part in regards to retail sales on North College. (We are potentially interested in a more permanent Horne and Garden Center in Ft Collins and believe North College may have merit. We have run a very successful Home and Garden Center in Cheyenne, Wyoming for 20 years) 5. — It will help, for a short time, the Ft. Collins Police with a reoccurring problem of vagrants breaking into and living in the abandoned facility. 6. — It will provide the citizens of northern Ft. Collins a high quality product from a local family farm that many people recognize, trust, and know. It will also add tax revenue to the City. (As opposed to out ofstate vendors who have little to no stake in our community.) 7. — The property's most probable future is probably not as a `roadside motel'. We hope that our being there will start the process of its conversion to something more appealing and permanent to the North College community. We appreciate ,your consideration of our request. Tl k y u, Andy Grant Grant Family Farms THL 970.568. 7654 - FAX 9 7 0 . 5 6 8 . 7655 Organically Grown • Cntnrado C.re;li.d l