Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/13/1986ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 13, 1986 Regular Meeting, 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 13, 1986 at 8t30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Leis, Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Walker and Dodder. Boardmembers Absent (excused): Lawton Staff Present : Barnes, Roy and Brayfield Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13, 1986. Approved as Published The minutes of the February 13, 1986 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Please note that due to a malfunction in the audio equipment, only a portion of the March 13, 1986 meeting was recorded on tape. Appeal No. 1715 Section 118-41 (D), by Russ Hall, owner, 1408 Briarwood Road - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required front yard setback for a 2-car garage addition to a single family home from 20 feet to 15 feet. The home is located in the RL zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The only other place to build the garage would be in the backyard, with access off of Lake Street. This is not a feasible location because there is a power line running through the middle of the yard. Existing mature trees would also need to be removed and the backyard would not be too usable. The petitioner currently has a workshop in the basement, but he needs to convert that to a bedroom, and would like to move the workshop into the existing garage and add a new one. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the lot in question was a corner lot and that the proposed location was the only Zoning Board of A41als Minutes March 13, 1986 Page 2 0 feasible one because of a power line running through the middle of the yard. Petitioner Russ Hall, of 1408 Briarwood Road, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that his family was overcrowded in their 1200 square foot house and that they needed to convert workshop space in the basement into a bedroom. The workshop would then be moved into the existing garage, and a new garage would be built. Mr. Hall stated that visibility would be improved on the corner because his truck would be parked in the garage, and that the project would improve the property's value and the value of neighboring properties. Mr. Hall submitted a letter supporting the project that was signed by six neighbors. Boardmember Walker asked if the new garage addition would be combined with the existing garage to make one large room. Mr. Hall stated that it would. Mr. Walker then asked why he could not make the new garage 5 feet smaller thereby staying within the zoning requirements. Mr. Hall stated that his family needed all of the added space. Boardmember Thede asked the petitioner if he had plans to expand the width of the garage. Mr. Hall said yes. Boardmember Leis was concerned that the garage addition would make the entrance to the driveway too steep. Mr. Hall stated that he would repair the existing driveway and use it for the floor of the new garage, therefore the driveway would be no steeper than it already was. Boardmember Walker was concerned that there would be no room to park in the drive without blocking the sidewalk after the garage addition was built. Mr. Barnes stated that there would be 20 feet from the new garage addition to the sidewalk. Boardmember Lieser asked if the workshop area was being used for a business. Mr. Hail replied no, that it was being used only for hobbies and work on his own home. The Board found that the hardship was the fact that the power line restricted the use of the back yard, making the proposed location the best one. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the appeal. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Walker, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal 1716: Withdrawn Appeal No. 1717: Section 118-42 (B), by Victor Santini, owner, 1603 Edora Court - Denied. "---The variance would reduce the minimum lot area from 30,996 square feet to 27,427 square feet for a triplex in the RLM zone. The code requires that the total lot area be 3 times the total floor area of the building. Two fourplexes exist on these lots and the owner desires to build a new triplex on the lot. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 13, 1986 Page 3 ---Hardship pleaded: The owner applied for a variance in December to build a fourplex, but the Board denied it because they felt it was too much. In response to this, the owner has revised his plans to only a triplex, which is not as tall as the previous 4-plex and requires less parking. Due to the recent development of a multi -family PUD directly adjacent to this lot, the density has increased, changing the character of the neighborhood so much that the requirements of the RLM zone may no longer be applicable. Even before the PUD, several variances were granted in the neighborhood to reduce the required lot area or setbacks. ---Staff recommendation: None. However, the following information regarding the PUD and the previous variances may be helpful to the Board. 1. 1708 Erin Court - variance granted 11-8-84 to reduce the lot area from 9000 square feet to 7840 square feet for a triplex. 2. 1712 Erin Court - variance granted 5-11-78 to reduce the lot area from 9000 square feet to 8807 square feet for a 4-plex. 3. 1716 Erin Court - variance granted 3-8-79 to reduce the lot area from 9000 square feet to 7940 square feet for a triplex. 4. 1600 Edora Court - variance granted 4-14-77 to reduce rear yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet, and one side yard setback from 11 feet to 7 feet and the other side from 11 feet to 10 feet. 5. Edora Acres PUD (adjacent property) - 38 unit multi -family development approved in February, 1981 - 44,528 square feet of floor area on 117,133 square feet of lot area ( 16,451 square feet short of the 3 to I lot area/floor area ratio.)" No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that Mr. Santini had petitioned the Board in December 1985 with a similar appeal. The new proposal would require less of a variance - 3,500 square feet instead of the original 6,000 square feet. The new proposal was for a 3 story triplex instead of a 3 1/2 story fourplex. Mr. Barnes showed slides of the surrounding neighborhood including the PUD directly adjacent to Mr. Santini's property. Petitioner Victor Santini, of 1413 W Lake, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that he petitioned the Board three months previously for a variance to build a fourplex and the new variance request was for a smaller building, a three story triplex. Mr. Santini stated further that the RLM zoning requirements were no longer appropriate for the neighborhood because the neighboring PUD and previously granted zoning variances had allowed more intensive land use. Mr. Santini stated further that he had planted trees and landscaped his property to be in character with the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 13, 1986 Page 4 The adjacent PUD had not been required to plant trees and had totally blocked the view from his property. The height of the proposed triplex would be 3 feet taller than neighboring buildings. Mr. Santini distributed a site plan of a building that could be built without a variance, pointing out that his proposed triplex was a much better design, although it required a variance. Boardmember Dodder asked which plan Mr. Santini preferred to build. Mr. Santini replied that he would prefer to build the previously proposed fourplex. Mr. Barnes stated that Mr. Santini could build a duplex, triplex, or fourplex with efficiency units without a variance as long as the building did not exceed the allowed 1700 square foot floor area. Mr. Santini was asking for a variaace so that he could build larger units. Boardmember Leis asked if Mr. Santini had begun the PUD process for the previously proposed fourplex as he had said he would at the December meeting. Mr. Santini stated that he had begun the process but was discouraged by the amount of paperwork involved. Boardmember Thede stated that this project would be more appropriately developed by the PUD process, and that it was a complicated and time-consuming process for good reason. Ms. Thede stated futher that she did not consider the previously cited zoning variances to be relevant because most of them had been granted over 7 years ago. Mr. Santini stated that he felt that the previously granted variances were relevant, and that the City had allowed the increase in intensity of land use - the same government - whether it was the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Planning 5 Zoning Board. He stated that he did not want to worsen the neighborhood, only to build on his property what was appropriate to the neighborhood. No one spoke in favor of the appeal. Mr. Brad Bischoff, representing the owner of 1600 Edora Court, spoke in opposition to the appeal stating that the density of the neighborhood had increased and that parking was a major problem. He stated further that he did not follow Mr. Santini's logic that the density of the neighborhood had increased causing problems, therefore he should further the process. Mr. Bischoff stated that Mr. Santini had other options, that his hardship was self-imposed and caused by poor planning of land use. Boardmember Dodder asked Mr. Bischoff how he felt about the alternate (legal) fourplex with efficiency size apartments. Mr. Bischoff stated that he was not in favor of such a project, but felt that it would not be cost effective anyway. The building costs per square foot vs. rental income would probably make the project economically unfeasible. Boardmember Walker stated that the hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember Thede agreed and stated further that she appreciated the idea of a triplex rather than a fourplex but felt that the PUD process was more appropriate. Boardmember Leis agreed with the above opinions. Mr. Walker commended Mr. Santini's motivation and plans and stated that he was wrestling with the Zoning Board of A9als Minutes March 13. 1986 Page 5 is fact that a less desireable building could be built without a variance. He also felt that the PUD process was more appropriate and that the hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to deny the variance for the above stated reasons. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Walker, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1718: Section 118-97 (H), by Chip Steiner, Old Town Square - Approved with Conditions. "---The variance would allow banners hung from lamp posts in the Old Town Square to be up for more than twenty days per year. Specifically, interchangeable colored banners for specific seasons and special events would be up permanently. The Board approved this variance on June 14, 1984 for a period of 18 months, at which time they wanted to review the variance to determine whether or not the banners should be allowed to be up permanently. The petitioner is now asking for the permanent variance. --Staff recommendation: Approval" No notices were returned: one letter was received. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the variance had been approved in June of 1984 with the stipulation that it be reviewed in 18 months. He showed slides of existing banners, stating that they were changed with the seasons and for special events. Petitioner, Chip Steiner, of the DDA, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that although he did not have anything to add to Mr. Barnes presentation, he would like to answer any questions the Board might have. Boardmember Walker asked Mr. Barnes if the City had received any input on the subject of the banners. Mr. Barnes stated that he had not received anything formally, but any comments that he had received were favorable. Boardmember Walker asked if the rotation of the banners was quarterly; Mr. Steiner replied yes. Boardmember Thede stated that she was on the Board when the original variance had been granted and that she had been watching the banners to see if they became tattered or if the size got too large. She felt that the banners had been very well taken care of, the scale had been kept appropriate for the area, and that the banners were a positive addition to the public space. Boardmember Leis stated that he was not on the Board to hear the original appeal, and that he questioned whether the banners were really signs and therefore covered by the sign code. Mr. Barnes stated that there had been considerable discussion regarding that particular question. Mr. Barnes M 0 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 13 1986 Page 6 then reviewed sections of the code that established the banners as wind driven signs for the benefit of those who had not been present for the previous discussion. Boardmember Thede stated that she was in favor of granting the variance permanently, but wanted to see a restriction on size because very large banners could give the space a circus -like effect. Boardmember Dodder wanted to be sure that if the variance was granted that it would not be considered a precedent for other businesses in town - what was appropriate for the space in Old Town would not necessarily be appropriate anywhere else. Mr. Barnes stated that any decision by the Board could be considered a precedent (as demonstrated by the previous appeal), but each case should be considered on its own merits. Mr. Barnes stated futher that one way to prevent too many banners from springing up in other sections of town would be to allow only one pole per 3,500 square feet of space, like in the Old Town Square. Boardmember Dodder stated that he was not clear on the hardship. Boardmember Johnson stated that he felt that the hardship was that the banners were not clearly signs (by intent) and that the code did not adequately address banners such as these. Mr. Johnson thought that this particular use did not violate the intent of the code. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance with the conditions that the banners be no larger than 2' x 6' and that the density of poles be no more than one per every 3500 square feet. Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Walker, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1719: Section 118-51 (A)(2), 118-43 (B), by Gerald Trevena, potential owner, 117 Grape Street.- Approved.. "---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 18,000 square feet to 17,768 square feet for 3 mobile homes to be placed on a lot in the MM zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The potential owner is interested in enhancing this area by demolishing an old house and installing 3 trailers. He would not be able to do this if only 2 were allowed to be installed. 6000 square feet per trailer is required, and only a few hundred feet are lacking. but there is no additional land available to buy. ---Staff recommendation Approval. If the Board desires to grant this variance, perhaps some conditions governing the trailers would be appropriate such as size, etc." No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the owner would like to demolish an old house and put 3 mobile homes on permanent foundations on the property. Zoning Board of March 13, 1986 Page 7 0 is Appeals Minutes Petitioner, Gerald Trevena, of 1300 Stover, spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that he felt that the proposed plans would be an improvement to the neighborhood; he would be demolishing a very old house and replace it with three late model mobile homes on permanent foundations. Mr. Trevena stated further that the hardship was that he lost 30 feet on the back of his property because he would not be allowed to build near an existing high power utility line. The Board asked about the requirements for lot area, parking, and landscaping for the mobile homes in this zone. Mr. Barnes stated that in this zone all the requirements would be the same as for a single family residence. Boardmember Leiser asked about access to the properties. Mr. Trevena stated that access would be off Grape Street and that it was an existing gravel drive. Boardmember Dodder asked Mr. Barnes if the code addressed the demolition of the existing house - if the foundation would be allowed to remain. Mr. Barnes stated that the code would allow a slab to remain, but if the home was on a foundation, it would have to be removed. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Walker stated that he felt that the hardship was the fact that mobile homes came in standard sizes and could not be easily modified to conform to the lot area requirements. Boardmember Johnson stated that he felt that the variance in lot area was minimal and that he would not have a problem granting the variance. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to approve the variance. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Walker, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1720: Section 118-81 (D)(2)(a), 118-81 (D)(2)(b)[6) by John Casteel, owner's agent, 1820 S. College Avenue - Approved with Conditions. "---The variance would eliminate the requirement to provide a 5 foot landscaped parking lot setback along the north and east lot lines, and reduce the amount of interior parking lot landscaping from 6% to 4 4% for a retail store in the HB zone. The variance is required because this is a change of use from the previous restaurant use. ---Hardship pleaded The petitioner is already eliminating one row of parking, and having to provide the setbacks would require cutting down even further. There will be a new 6-foot wood fence along the east lot line which will help buffer the lot beyond what is currently in place. Additional landscaping will be installed along College Avenue to offset the lack of interior landscaping. This is an existing building and parking lot, and it is difficult to retrofit to comply with the new Code. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 13. 1986 Page 8 ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the existing landscape islands be cleaned up and new rock installed. All of the Code requirements can probably be met. The important elements on this site are the landscaping along College Avenue and the fence along the east lot line. Both of these areas of concern are being addressed by the owner on the landscape plan submitted (which should also be made a condition of this variance). No notices were returned: no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the existing parking lot did not conform to code and the owner was willing to clean up the existing landscaping and make other improvements. Boardmember Walker asked if a variance had been granted for the existing parking lot. Mr. Barnes stated that a variance was not needed at the time because it was constructed prior to the parking code. Petioner John Casteel, of 5209 Fossil Ridge Drive, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that an optical company would be occupying the building. Several parking spaces had to be eliminated to the north of the building to make room for a drive through. Mr. Casteel described his plans to add new gravel to the existing islands, to install gravel, pinion pines and landscaping logs to the College Avenue frontage, and to build a 6 foot fence to the east of the parking lot. Boardmember Dodder asked about the use of the building - would it be retail sales only, or would there be some manufacturing of glasses. Mr. CasteeL stated that an optometrist would be on the premises for eye examinations and glasses fitting, and also, some grinding of lenses would be done. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Thede stated that she had no objection to the appeal, that an existing parking lot would be cleaned up and improved. The Board felt that the hardship was working with an existing lot that did not conform to the current parking lot requirements. Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance with the conditions that the new parking lot conform to the submitted plans (new rock installed in the old islands, the fence be intalled, pinions, shrubbery and landscape timbers be installed as planned.) Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Wlaker, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1721: Section 118-81(D)(1)(b), by Mike Daley for the Neenan Co., 411 S. Whitcomb - Denied. "---The variance would allow a parking lot to be designed with internal landscaping which does not comply with the vertical relief elements required by City specifications. Specifically, the lot is required to contain 359 square feet of interior landscaping in islands, but the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 13, 1986 Page 9 11 proposal provides only 160 square feet which contains vertical landscaping. The remainder of the parking lot is surfaced with "grasscrete". Grass is a landscape element, but not a vertical one. The parking lot is for a new 16 unit apartment building in the RH zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The proposed parking lot layout is the most efficient design for this lot. All that is missing in terms of vertical elements is one tree. To put one more tree in the lot would require an 8 foot wide island. This would necessitate replacing one interior parking space with a landscape island and result in having to reconfigure the parking to regain the lost parking space. The only way this can be done is to have some parking coming directly off of the alley, which is not as desirable or functional. The owner will use grasscrete surface to soften the impact of the parking lot. All other requirements are being met. ---Staff recommendation Approval. The only request before the Board is basically to allow one less tree on the interior of the parking lot. The petitioner has offset the loss of this tree by using grasscrete and by proposing extra trees in the parking lot setback areas. Requiring compliance would result in parking coming directly off the alley, which is not as desirable as the proposed parking design. It should be pointed out though, that compliance can also be met by having one less unit, thus requiring one less parking space. This one parking space could probably be turned into a landscape island without requiring reconfiguration of the parking lot." One notice was returned two letters were received. Zoning Adminstrator Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that this was only the first step in the review process for the project. If this site plan was approved by the ZBA, it will go on to the Planning & Zoning Board for review. If denied, the plan must be redrawn. Boardmember Walker stated that if the plan needed 359 square feet more of landscaping, he did not understand how having one more tree would satisfy the requirement. Boardmember Walker asked how the code addressed the use of "grasscrete" as a landscape element. Mr. Barnes read sections of the code that established "grasscrete" as an acceptable paving surface for a parking lot, and grass as a landscape element. Petitioner Mike Daley, of the Neenan Co., spoke in favor of the appeal stating that he was seeking a variance to design the parking lot landscaping to provide only 2 trees instead of the required 3 trees. The hardship was that providing the three trees would require changing the parking configuration to allow parking off the alley, which was a less desirable plan. Mr. Daley stated that this was only the first step in the review process - that there would be a neighborhood meeting the first of April and a Planning & Zoning Board meeting later. Mr. Daley asked that Zoning Board of A49ppeals Minutes March 13, 1986 Page 10 0 the variance be approved and be viewed as minimal requirements. Mr. Daley also asked that the variance be extended from 6 months to 12 months. Mr. Daley then distributed the alternate plan (which meets zoning requirements) with parking Off the alley. Boardmember Lieser stated that he was having difficulty seeing the hardship, that he felt that it was self-imposed because a smaller building could be designed that would not require a variance for the parking lot. Mr. Daley replied that the zoning requirements could be met by reconfiguring the parking lot. Boardmember Lieser asked if on -street parking could be used. Mr. Barnes stated that it was public parking, and and could be used as long as the required 24 off-street parking places were provided. Boardmember Lieser asked how many of the neighbors were already using the alley for parking. Mr. Barnes stated that he did not have any evidence of how many people were parking in the alley. Boardmember Dodder stated that one possible solution would be to drop off one unit and then there would be one less required parking space. Mr. Daley replied that the alternate parking plan would satisfy the parking requirements, and that a 16-unit building was compatible with the neighborhood and was not an unreasonable request. Boardmember Johnson asked if "grasscrete" was watered, and if so, how? Mr. Daley replied that it would be watered with an underground sprinkler system that had sprinkler heads at the front of the parking stalls. Boardmember Walker asked how it could be maintained when the cars were parked on it - what if it dies? Mr. Daley replied that it would be watered during the day when the cars were gone. Mr. Barnes showed slides of two parking lots utilizing "grasscrete" - one a low use area along a bike trail, and one a high traffic lot. Boardmember Leis stated that he was in favor of the use of "grasscrete". He also asked what market the owners were looking for as tenants. Mr. Glen Stevens, developer of the proposed project, stated that luxury units were being built, with upgrades such as fireplaces and dishwashers, to appeal primarily to professional and retired people, rather than students. Older tenants might not own cars, and tenants who worked downtown would park their cars and walk, thereby creating little traffic. Boardmember Leis stated one of his main concerns with "grasscrete" was that it was usually used in commercial locations where the parking lot was empty at night. In a residential situation, cars might not be moved and maintenance would be a problem. Mr. Stevens replied that the project would be large enough to support a manager who could maintain the property. Boardmember Leis observed that the 16' stalls were small. Mr. Daley stated that 18' stalls would require curbs and pose further maintenance problems. Mr. Barnes explained the code provisions that allowed for the smaller stalls. Zoning Board of A• als Minutes March 13, 1986 Page 11 • Boardmember Walker stated that amenities such as active open space would be needed to attract the desired older and professional clientele. The proposed plans did not show any open space and Mr. Walker questioned the developers- motives. Mr. Daley replied that they were relying on the fact that this was an urban project and that tenants could use city open space. Boardmember Thede observed that the plans showed that the property was to be enclosed with a 6-foot fence and that she did not feel that that was in character with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Daley stated that the proposed plan met with zoning codes and that other issues, such as the fence, would be dealt with at the Planning & Zoning meeting at a later date. City Attorney Steve Roy stated that it might be useful to review the criteria that each Board would be dealing with. First, the issue at hand at the Zoning Board of Appeals was the parking issue. (Mr. Roy later added that the Board could deny a variance if "it was detrimental to the public good.") Later, the Planning & Zoning Board would be reviewing the project using the following three criteria: 1. Does the multi —family use fit in with the City-s comprehensive plan? 2. How will the project impact the adjacent land use? 3. Will the building itself be compatible and sympathetic with those existing in the neighborhood with respect to scale, bulk, landscaping, etc? Mr. Roy stated further that he did not wish to discourage input from adjacent property owners, but most of the larger issues would be dealt with at the Planning & Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Daley stated that he was asking for a vote on the parking lot only - whether or not the proposed plan was a better design than the alternate plan with parking on the alley. Mr. Van Der Schouw, of 523 W. Magnolia, spoke in opposition to the appeal stating that there would be inadequate parking facilities for the number of units proposed. He stated further that snow removal was a problem on his property, and he would like to know how the owners proposed to dispose of the snow off such a large parking lot with no yard to put it on. Mr. Van Der Schouw felt that proposed apartment building would destroy the appearance of the neighborhood because it had been traditionally single family residential. He felt that the project would lower the value of the adjacent properties. Mr. Steve McGinnis, of 403 S. Whitcomb, spoke in opposition to the appeal stating that the alternate parking plan (with parking off the alley) would not work out in reality. Mr. Barnes drew the plan out on the board to explain the alternate plan to Mr. McGinnis. Mr. Floyd Holsinger, of 415 S. Whitcomb, spoke in opposition to the appeal stating that traffic from the apartment building would be driving down a Zoning Board of March 13, 1986 Page 12 Appeals Minutes gravel alley, stirring up a lot of dust and turning the alley into a busy street with all the increased traffic. Mr. Barnes stated that part of the requirements for the project would be to pave all or part of the alley. Mr. Holsinger then presented a petittion to the Board with over 170 signatures (not all from the neighborhood) stating opposition to the project. Mr. Ted Oaks, of 429 S.Whitcomb, spoke in opposition to the variance stating that the corner of Mulberry and Whitcomb was already very busy because of the location of Aggie Liquor. He felt that the Neenan company was underestimating the amount of traffic that would be generated by such a project. Mr. Oakes stated his opinion that the project was close to the CSU campus and that the apartments would be rented out to students, who would share the apartments with roommates and visiting friends, generating a large amount of traffic. Much of the off-steet parking was already taken by CSU students who parked their cars and walked to campus. Mr. Carmien, of 604 W. Magnolia, spoke in opposition to the variance making the point that the corner of Mulberry and Canyon was a high accident prone corner and did not need the increased traffic generated by the proposed project. Mr. Carmine also questioned the use of "grasscrete" as a landscape element. Boardmember Thede stated that the Board was not there to determine the acceptablity of "grasscrete" as a landscape element. Mr. Barnes stated that the Board could rule on the subject if it chose to. Boardmember Walker asked if the "grasscrete" had been given credit as a landscape element - and stated further that even if the lot was paved in asphalt, the same variance would be needed for the tree. Mr. Barnes stated that there was some credit given for the grasscrete. Boardmember Walker asked why credit shoud be given for both landscaping and parking lot area. Boardmember Dodder stated the issue was what the primary use of the surface would be - parking or landscaping. He stated further that if double credit was allowd for grasscrete, it would discourage the use of traditional landscaping in future projects. The Board felt that "grasscrete" could be given some credit for landscaping, but a percentage would be more appopriate. Boardmember Walker stated that if no credit was given for the grasscrete as a landscape element. 200 square feet more of landscaping would be required to bring the parking lot into conformance. He stated further that he would like to encourage the use of grasscrete as a parking surface, but could not see allowing the project to use it as a 2 for 1 calculation. City Attorney Roy stated that to expedite the decision on the variance it would be a good idea to separate out the two issues at hand, (the grasscrete issue and the variance for the verticle relief), determine which should be decided first, and vote on them separately. Zoning Board of March 13, 1986 Page 13 Appeals Minutes Boardmember Walker made a motion that in the calculation of landscaping in the parking lot, "grasscrete" not be counted as a landscape element. Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. After some discussion by the Board the motion was withdrawn, and public testimony was continued. Mr. Walter Harvey, of 617 W. Magnolia, spoke in opposition to the appeal, restating many of the previous points. Mr. Justice Wilkenson, owner of 429 S. Whitcomb, spoke in opposition to the appeal stating that every property owner in the 400 block of Whitcomb, excepting the owner of Aggie Liquor, had spoken in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Wilkinson stated futher that his ownership of property in the neighborhood dated back 30 years and he valued the historical aspect of the neighborhood. He stated further that all the discussion as to the acceptability of "grasscrete" and trading off a verticle landscape element was "a bunch of bureaucratic gobbledy-gook" and that the real issue was that the project would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He thanked the members of the Board for their time and stated that he hoped that the Board would deny the variance. Boardmember Dodder stated that he did not know how to handle all the issues within the confines of the appeal. City Attorney Roy stated that it was the Board's role to rule on the appeal of Staff's determination - and that the appeal could possibly be tabled pending the determination of the "grasscrete" issue. Boardmember Walker reviewed Section 118-81 (E)(6) of the code dealing with screening, verticle landscape elements, and landscape islands. Mr. Walker stated that landscaping was a separate element of a parking lot, not anything that was parked on. He stated further that using "grasscrete" was a good idea, that perhaps some guidelines could be written into the Code and POD process for receiving credit for its use. He recommended that Staff look into it. Boardmember Johnson stated that he was prepared to vote on the variance without the determination of "grasscrete" issue. He felt that the hardship was self-imposed, there were other alternatives, and the variance should be denied for that reason. Boardmember Walker stated that he felt that the hardship was self-imposed, and also that "grasscrete" should be treated as a parking surface, not a landscape element, although he would like to see some way to encourage its use. Boardmember Dodder recommended that Staff look into the issue of "grasscrete" and determine what percentage of credit, if any would be allowed for landscaping. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 13, 1986 Page 14 C, J Boardmember Walker made a motion to deny the variance because the hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Thede, Lieser, Walker, Dodder. Nays: None. Other Business: The discussion concerning the Board's interpretation of whether a portable sign located in a portico is located outside or inside the building was tabled. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Eva Lieser, Chairman Peter Barnes, Staff Support EL/PB/bb