Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/11/1996ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING July 11, 1996 8:30 AM 11 Council Liaison: Ann Azari 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 11 Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr. 229-1629 (w) 226-5101(h) The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 11 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Shannon, Gustafson, Stockover, Breth, Feiner, Keating, Lieser. Members absent: None. Staff members present: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Jennifer Nuckols, Building & Zoning The meeting was called to order by Chairman Breth. The minutes were approved with corrections. Appeal 2175 713 S. Lemay Avenue by Joe Frye Vaught Frye Architects approved Section 29-478(b) --- The variance would allow the use of the building to change from "Amigos Restaurant" to "Farmers Bank" without requiring that the existing rooftop mechanical equipment be totally screened from view. The existing parapet wall screens about 80% of the equipment. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: To totally screen the equipment would require that the existing parapet wall be raised about another 2 feet. This would increase the snow drift potential within the screened area and create structural loading problems. Also, increasing the height would cause the building to architecturally look out of balance or proportion. --- Staff comments: None. Zoning Administrator Barnes showed slides of the existing Amigos Restaurant building and explained that it is being proposed to change that building to a bank. He showed the existing rooftop mechanical unit and he stated that the code section that deals with this instance is a fairly new section that was added effective March 1, 1996. It is a code that is applied City wide that requires rooftop mechanical units be screened from view. He further continued that the ordinance applies to existing buildings when the use of the building is proposed to be changed from one use to another, and before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued the property needs to be brought up to current code compliance. Zoning Board of Appeals July 11, 1996 Page 2 Board member Shannon asked if the code is for aesthetic purposes. Barnes replied yes. He continued that there were two screening requirements put in the code, one being to screen rooftop mechanical units and the other to require trash dumpsters be enclosed with a solid enclosure. Joe Frye, Architect, appeared before the Board. He explained that he is working with the owners of Farmer's Bank to convert this building into a bank and to make it more aesthetically pleasing by changing the color and doing additional exterior alterations. Mr. Frye stated that he and the owners feel that adding an additional 2 feet to the existing parapet will make the building look taller and more boxy, as well as adding lateral force problems which would then require removing a portion of the roof and existing finishes. .Shannon asked if a drawing were available? Barnes stated that it was included in Board member packets. Stockover questioned the new color of the building? Mr Frye replied that it would be the same color as the existing Albertson's building which is beige. Shannon stated that she did not see what the building would look like if the additional two feet were added. She questioned if that had been drawn? Mr. Frye replied to effectively screen that unit, the parapet would have to go up about two and half to three feet and that he had not done a drawing showing that. Breth asked if it would be possible to use a different heating unit? Mr. Frye stated that there is not enough room to go with two smaller units on that roof. Breth stated that he was having a difficult time finding the hardship. He continued that the code is clear as to what needs to be done. Shannon stated that she disagreed and that the hardship is that you will make an ordinary building an ugly building for the purpose of supposedly improving the looks. Gustafson stated that he does find a hardship in that Mr. Frye is working with an existing building and that there are structural issues that come into play which would significantly increase the costs. Stephen Slezak addressed the Board in favor of granting the appeal No one was present in opposition of the appeal. Gustafson moved to approve Appeal 2175 based on the hardship stated. Keating seconded the motion. Yeas: Shannon, Gustafson, Stockover, Breth, Feiner, Keating, Lieser. Nays: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2176 614 W. Magnolia St by Mark Moses Owner, approved Section 29-119(3), 29-119(4) Zoning Board of Appeals July 11, 1996 Page 3 --- The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet in order to allow the existing front porch to be rebuilt in the same location. The variance would also allow the new porch roof to be flat, instead of having a roof pitch of at least 2:12. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing porch has no foundation, is rotting, and needs to be rebuilt. The porch will be the same size and at the same location as the existing. Most of the front porches on the block are at about the same setback as the proposed. The owner obtained a permit earlier this year to install a door from the second floor onto the porch roof of the planned new porch. (The new roof was planned to be a deck). The code changed prior to obtaining the porch permit. The new code requires a 2:12 pitch roof. Such a roof pitch would not be practical for a deck, and the doors are already done. Flat roofed porches are not uncommon in the older part of town, and the flat pitch doesn't deviate much from the existing pitch of the roof. --- Staff comments: None Barnes explained that this issue encompasses a new code provision. This proposal is to rebuild the front porch of the home. Slides were shown of the home and the existing upper level door that was recently added to provide entrance onto the proposed deck. Barnes stated that the home owner obtained a permit to add the french doors before the code changed and that it was their intent to later add the flat pitched deck. Gustafson questioned if flat pitch roofs are uncommon? Barnes stated that there are not too many flat pitched roofs, and it is uncommon to see a flat pitched roof although there are some but most are similar to this existing roof. Shannon asked if the purpose of the slope is to maintain character? Barnes stated that there was a need to put minimum design standards in the code. East side, West side design standards are concerned with how houses will fit in a neighborhood. Keating questioned as to when the first permit was issued if the owners intended to do a flat roof over the porch? Barnes stated that the home owner was present and could better answer that question. Mark Moses ,owner, appeared before the Board. Mr. Moses stated that when the first permit was applied for, they were working on the design for the deck and that the design was not yet finalized. He stated that it would be impractical to repair the existing deck due to structural problems. Mr. Moses continued that there are other flat pitch roof porches in area. He stated that upper deck would not be one of redwood but would be an architecturally correct painted porch that would retain the character of the home. Further, the footprint would remain the same as is existing. Gustafson questioned if the porch is to be enclosed or open. Mr. Moses stated that the porch will be glassed in. Feiner questioned if the upper deck will be fenced in? Barnes stated that there were drawings of the proposed deck in their packets. Zoning Board of Appeals July 11, 1996 Page 4 No one was present in favor or against this appeal. Breth stated that he had no problem with the setbacks and that he was in favor of supporting a motion. Gustafson moved to approve appeal 2175 based on the hardship stated. Shannon seconded the motion. Yeas: Shannon, Gustafson, Stockover, Breth, Feiner, Keating, Lieser. Nays: None. The motion passed. Appeal 2177, 223 S. Howes St., Steve Slezak. petitioner. Section 29-493(1) --- The variance would reduce the required 5 ft. parking lot landscape strip along the north property line to 0 ft. for the length of the 105 ft. driveway located along the north side of the lot. The variance is necessary due to the proposed use change from residential to office. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing driveway is already at this location. The 5 ft. adjacent to the building is to be removed due to the excessive slope. The slope creates a dangerous situation, especially on the north side of the building. This 5 foot section will be removed and replaced with landscaping. This topographic problem makes it impractical to move the driveway over enough to comply with the code. The driveway provides the only access to the parking. The property to the north is a drive -up bank facility. --- Staff comments: None Barnes showed slides of the existing house and the adjacent bank on the north side. He stated that due to the change of use from residential to office, it is required that a 5 foot wide landscape strip be along the side lot line adjacent to a parking area, which includes the driveway serving the parking lot that will be located in the back of the building. He stated further that the back yard of the building is all concrete and then showed the topographic areas where on the north side of the building the ground slopes down. Barnes explained that the 5 foot landscape strip will be put on the south property line as required by code. Lieser questioned if it is currently being used as a residence? Barnes replied that he believed the property to currently be unoccupied and that is has always been residential. Breth questioned the south side of the property that shows concrete along the building? Barnes explained that the drawings received in the Board member packets, show the existing and proposed landscaping on the south lot line and that the parking code does not require landscaping right up next to the house, just adjacent to the parking area. Stephen Slezak appeared before the Board. He stated that the house is 75 years old and has been used as residential but at one point was used as a daycare. It has currently been empty for 18 months and the new owners want to convert it to office space. He stated that the existing driveway was already there and is not a matter of whether you do or don't landscape, but that it 0 Zoning Board of Appeals July 11, 1996 Page 5 didn't seem feasible to lower the slope immediately adjacent to the building and pave that landscape next to the property line, because that would wipe out landscaping in the front yard and it would change the curb cut location. Keating questioned whose property the north side fence is located on? Slezak replied that it belongs to the property in question. Keating questioned what will happen with that fence? Slezak stated that the plan is to just leave the fence as it is and that there is no reason to take it down. Keating stated that if no landscaping , his thought was that the "ugly" fence should come down. Slezak stated that he did not know the owners intentions for the fence but that there should not be any particular adverse reaction to that proposal. Mr. Woodward, the home owner of the property to south, appeared before the Board. He stated that he lived next door to the house in question for 40 years and that the original owner put the concrete in as well as the wall fence. He explained that the concrete was put in so that the original owner would not have to mow the grass. He stated that he has no objection to the passing of the variance. No one was present in opposition to the appeal. Shannon stated that there is a hardship based on topography and the existing driveway and it would be an improvement over what is existing. Breth stated that he sees a hardship with the topography of the lot on the north side and can see why it wouldn't make sense to move the driveway over. He further stated that he would support the addition of requiring the fence come down as part of the variance and that he would be in favor of passing it. Keating moved to approve appeal 2177 with the condition that the north side fence come down or be replaced if it is found that the home owners own that fence. Discussion followed on the appropriate wording of the motion and Barnes explained the fence code. Slezak stated that it would not be problem for the owners to take down the fence . Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Shannon, Gustafson, Stockover, Breth, Keating, Lieser. Nays: None. Abstentions: Felner. The motion passed. Other Business East side/west side code changes. Barnes discussed the changes that were adopted by Council in March after two years of staff review and input from the east side/west side neighborhoods. He stated that the ESWS neighborhoods were rezoned in 1991 and originally the ESWS neighborhood plans called for 0 • Zoning Board of Appeals July 11, 1996 Page 6 ordinances implementing certain policies of those plans. Part of that dealt with architectural review and guidelines and design standards. There were 6-7 design standards added to the code. He continued to explain those guidelines and presented to the Board that they may be seeing more of these issues brought before them as variance appeals. Barnes explained to the Board that staff will go back to Council in January with a status report and review of these changes, and that Council may then opt to make revisions. He stated that input from the Zoning Board of Appeals may be important information for Council to consider. City Attorney Eckman stated on the question of hardship, that just because something may look nice, doesn't mean that the variance should be granted. The purpose of the Board is not to circumvent Council, but to only grant variances when a legitimate hardship is found. Barnes stated that because Council put the provision in the ordinance that they want to review it after a year, is indication that they are going to want feedback, not just from the community, but also from boards and commissions that will be dealing with the issue, as well as staff. The meeting was adjourned. Marty Breth, Chairman Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator N-QI\Vtl�!, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 1, 1996 Roll call. 2. Appeal 2175. The variance would allow the use of the building to change from "Amigos Restaurant' to "Farmers Bank" without requiring that the existing rooftop mechanical equipment be totally screened from view. The existing parapet wall screens about 80% of the equipment. Section 29-478(b) by Vaught Frye Architects, 713 S. Lemay Avenue. 3. Appeal 2176. The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet in order to allow the existing front porch to be rebuilt in the same location. The variance would also allow the new porch roof to be flat, instead of having a roof pitch of at least 2:12. Section 29-119(3), 29-119(4) by Mark Moses, 614 W. Magnolia St.. 4. Appeal 2177. The variance would reduce the required 5 ft. parking lot landscape strip along the north property line to 0 ft. for the length of the 105 ft. driveway located along the north side of the lot. The variance is necessary due to the proposed use change from residential to office. Section 29-493(1) by Steve Slezak, 223 S. Howes St.. 5. Other business.