Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/13/2000Minutes approved by the Board at the August 10, 2000 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — duly 13, 2000 9.00 a.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) II Chairperson: William Stockover II Phone: 482-4895 (H) A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday July 13, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Ayraud Martin Breth Andy Miscio Thad Pawlikowski Steve Remington Diane Shannon William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Q=_ STAFF MEMEBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call was taken. ZBA July 13, 2000 Page 2 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Chairperson Stockover to approve the minutes from the June 8, 2000, meeting. Board Member Breth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, with Shannon and Ayraud abstaining. 3. APPEAL NO.: 2304--Approved Address: 516 South Meldrum Street Petitioner: Don Shields, Wickham Gustafson Architects, Architect Zone: NCB Section: 4.8(D)(3)(d) Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from six feet to eleven inches in order to allow the construction of a ramp for the handicap accessibility along the north side of the building. The building is currently a five-plex apartment building with no handicap access, and the owner desires to convert the building to an office building with a basement apartment. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The change of use requires bringing the building up to building code requirements for accessibility. The most feasible way to accomplish this is to construct a long ramp from the parking lot to the front entry along the side of the building. In order to comply with the required ramp slope, the ramp ends up being thirty-four inches above grade. Since it is over thirty inches above grade, the setback requirements must be met. If the ramp did not exceed thirty inches, it would not be regulated, but the lower height would result in a small step at the front door. This would not comply with the building code. Staff Comments: Gary Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. Peter Barnes noted that the change of use required the applicant to bring the entire property in compliance with the Code. The applicant has been working with historic preservation regarding the front porch and the back of the property. The proposed parking lot is to be used for the office building and the basement apartment, and is required to be upgraded ZBA July 13, 2000 Page 3 by zoning requirements. The applicant has not requested any other variances for the change of use. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Don Shields, addressed the Board. Mr. Shields asked for a four -inch variance because of the setback in height requirement due to the existing grade differences. The Applicant wanted to maintain the current parking condition. Currently the property only has ten parking spaces to the rear. The Applicant's intention is to have four office units and one basement apartment. The Applicant is required by Code to have 34 linear feet of ramp between the parking lot and front porch in order to reach the maximum 1 to 12 slope. There is not enough room for the ramp in the back to get up to the back porch. A front porch is more logical, and will have less of an impact on the neighbors. Board Discussion: Miscio asked if there were any alternatives to the ramp. Applicant Shields responded that a lift was considered, but a ramp is more economical and user friendly. Ayraud asked if the building was being expanded or if the ramp was just going to come off the building. Applicant Shields responded the top landing of the ramp will dead end into the porch. Board member Shannon asked if the additional four inches would impact someone using the ramp in terms of slope. Peter Barnes stated that due to code one could not have a slope greater than 1 to 12. The Applicant has lowered the ramp as much as possible to comply with code, and it fits the 1 to 12 slope exactly. Shannon asked the Applicant if there was enough turn radius on the porch for a wheelchair. The Applicant answered Shannon that there was. Board member Ayraud did not see anything negative regarding the variance. Board member Remington asked that if the variance would be specific to the ramp. So that the next owner could not come back and have a variance at eleven inches or whatever the case may be. Peter Barnes stated the way the variance request is worded it would be specific to this ramp because the Applicant has asked to reduce the sideyard setback in order to allow construction of a handicap accessible ramp. If an addition were to be added, it would not be covered under this request. Barnes told the Board a condition would not be necessary. Board member Breth made a motion to approve appeal number 2304 with the condition that it only covered the ramp based on the hardship stated. Board member Ayraud seconded the motion. ZBA July 13, 2000 Page 4 Vote: Yeas: Remington, Shannon, Breth, Stockover, Ayraud, Miscio, and Pawlikowski. Nays: None. Appeal number 2304 was approved. 4. APPEAL NO.: 2305 — Tabled until end of meeting due to the Applicant's absence. 5. APPEAL NO.: 2306 — Approved Address: 1220 West Elizabeth Petitioner: Scott Lamaster and Kathy Nicol, Tenant and Owner Zone: RL Section: 3.8.3(1) Backaround: The variance would reduce the required amount of interior parking lot landscaping from six percent to three percent; reduce the amount of full -tree stocking required within 50 feet of the west and east walls of the building; reduce the required five foot wide landscape strip along the east lot line to zero feet; and eliminate the required five foot wide foundation planting requirement along the west wall and along a portion of the east wall. The variances are necessary in order to allow the north half of the building to be changed from a nightclub to a healthclub. The petitioners are proposing to upgrade the site as much as possible by removing the existing parking between the pizza restaurant and the street, and replacing it with landscaping and sidewalk. Additional landscaping is also proposed where it is feasible. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: A healthclub is proposed for the north half of the building. That portion of the building has historically been a bar/nightclub. The change of use to a healthclub requires that the entire property needs to be brought into compliance with the code. The petitioners believe that the improvements proposed will greatly enhance the streetscape and provide better and safer pedestrian movement. Any additional improvements that are required are not feasible to comply with since the property is already developed. It would be necessary to reconfigure the building and lose a ZBA July 13, 2000 Page 5 good portion of the existing parking spaces. (Six of the existing parking spaces will be lost to accommodate the proposed improvements). Staff Comments: Gary Lopez presented slides relevant to this appeal. The Applicants proposed to eliminate an area of foundation plantings, a five-foot wide strip of landscaping along the east property line, and a number of landscaped islands. The applicant requested to eliminate one parking space rather than the three spaces, which is required by engineering. If foundation plantings were put where required, part of the sidewalk would need to be taken out. Thus, part of the variance request would be not to require planting along the east wall. Foundation plantings would be along the west wall, the alley, and that most visible from the street. Applicant Participation: Kathy Nicol, represented the Collins Campus West owners, and addressed the Board. Nicol did not realize a change of use was needed, and believed the use to remain commercial retail. Collins Campus West realizes the area needs some work, but no plan is currently in place. This in turn makes it difficult to make a long range economical decision; however, the owners agree the sidewalk is necessary in front of Panhandlers and are willing to incorporate it. A. Area surrounding Panhandlers When the buildings were built back in the early 60s, Elizabeth was a two-lane road. There was not the impact on the pedestrians with the volume of cars, and the setback was very minimal. In lieu of grass, the owners would like to have a patio and/or deck seating, followed by a landscaped buffer, then the sidewalk. Board member Ayraud asked if the proposal leaned more toward outside seating rather than omitting landscaping. Peter Barnes commented that the code does not require the area to be entirely landscaped, and an outdoor eating area would be encouraged. Barnes asked the Board to consider the drawings as conceptual and stated some flexibility would be necessary to work on the details for the front of the building. B. East side of the parking lot ZBA July 13, 2000 Page 6 Several years ago the church was having trouble with the bar patrons cutting through their property. The owners of the shopping center worked with the church and planted shrubs and trees on the church property to create a natural barrier. The owners of the shopping center would like it if the variance did not require an additional strip of landscaping. The mature trees and shrubs do an excellent job as a barrier to bar patrons. Another concern is the parking —there is not enough parking for the church patrons. The owners as "good neighbors" have allowed and encouraged church patrons to use the shopping center parking. A formal agreement has never been made, but the owners would like the Board to allow the existing landscaping buffer to substitute for what is required. A discussion was held regarding the effectiveness of the natural barrier during the winter. Board member Shannon brought up the issue of parking on Sunday mornings between the healthclub and the Church, and how a potential problem could exist. Scott Lamaster addressed the Board and assured the Board there would not be any conflicting hours. Lamaster stated that Sundays are a slow day for healthclubs, and the healthclub does not open until 10:00 a.m. Therefore, the Church would still have full access to the parking lot. Board member Ayraud questioned Applicant Nicol regarding the plans for the northeast corner. The Applicant responded that the area is enclosed by a fence and no plans are being made to develop the area. C. Southeast corner In regards to the southeast corner, some parking spaces must be eliminated due to engineering department standards. The Applicant is aware of the code requiring landscaped dividers, but would hate to lose more parking due to the dividers. The Applicant asked the Board to consider allowing the trees to be placed on the church's property instead. It was stated that the church would be willing to accept this improvement. At this time Peter Barnes offered some clarification. The engineering department has a standard in their regulations that would require several more parking spaces ZBA July 13, 2000 Page 7 to be eliminated so that one is able to negotiate in and out of the space without backing up the traffic on Elizabeth. Applicant Nicol added that if the Board eliminated the northern planter, she would not have to make an appeal with engineering. If the northern planter were eliminated, the Applicant would make the southeast corner planter larger. A discussion regarding the parking was held. Peter Barnes mentioned that the Land -Use Code does not require parking for non-residential uses, although there is a requirement that every 15 spaces be broken up with an island. D. West side of building This part of the property was designated as a service alley and storm drainage. The Applicant argued against adding landscaping to this area due to volume of delivery trucks. Discussion: It was agreed by the Board to discuss one corner at a time. Board member Breth began on the west side of the building (the alley). He did not have a problem with not providing landscaping there due to the high volume of service trucks. Miscio agreed with Breth, as did rest of the Board. Breth continues to the south area of the property. He would have liked to see the plans for the seating area. Peter Barnes addressed the area in front of the building where a possible deck would go. The Applicants have complied with this area and are not requesting a variance. The front of the building complies with the Code with or without the deck. Barnes stated that if the landscaping in the deck area were to be changed the Applicants would have to seek a variance. Miscio asked what would be in place of the eliminated parking spaces. Peter Barnes said there will be trees and shrubs surrounded by curb and gutter. Barnes wanted to maintain flexibility in the plans in the area on the street side of the building. ZBA July 13, 2000 Page 8 Regarding the current drive Breth stated he did not think the Board could override engineering requirements. Ayraud did not think the Applicant wanted to override the engineering department. Peter Barnes passed out plans given to him by engineering, and all parties were in agreement with these plans. Ayraud wanted to know what the basis of the hardship would be. Shannon stated that due to lack of parking on Elizabeth, this lot is the only parking available. The group discussed parking analysis and what authority the Board has to grant variances in this type of situation. The Board discussed moving the tree onto the church parking lot. The Board discussed the island on the east side in reference to the parking hardship. Ayraud asked for a condition on the upcoming motion limiting the variance to the current owner and use. The Board discussed the condition. The variance will apply to limited indoor recreational use. Breth made a motion to grant the variance on 1220 West Elizabeth to decrease landscaping requirements and what is required by code in the following manner: (1) No five foot foundation landscaping requirement would be required on the west side of the building due to heavy service vehicle traffic; (2) The southeast corner shall comply with drawings given by Barnes, which takes away three parking spaces off of the south entrance to the property; (3) The middle island on the east side of the building would be eliminated and transferred to the northeast corner of the parking lot. This would require the removal of the steel posts and landscaping adjacent to parking space 17; (4) The landscaped island to the east would also be eliminated. The parking spaces will need to be realigned so a four -foot wide striped pedestrian area would be parallel with the sidewalk that goes east toward the church; (5) To allow the Applicants to use the existing landscaped strip on the church property to substitute for a five-foot landscaped strip along the east lot line; (6) To not require a five-foot foundation landscaped strip where the Applicants would have to remove or relocate some of the sidewalk. Breth stated the hardship is due to an existing condition on a small lot for the size of the building and limited parking conditions. Miscio seconds the motion. Remington makes a motion to amend Breth's motion to indicate that the variance be limited to indoor recreational use. Ayraud seconds the amended motion. 6. ZBA July 13, 2000 Page 9 Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Breth, Miscio, Pawlikowski, Remington, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. Appeal number 2306 approved. APPEAL NO.: 2305 — Tabled Address: Petitioner: Zone: Section: Background: 1510 West Oak Street Michael G. Lacy, Owner NCL 4.6(E)(4) The variance would reduce the required west side yard setback from five feet to three feet and one inch in order to allow 12'x16' addition on to the front (south) of the home. The west wall of the existing home currently sits at three feet and one inch from the property line. The addition will line up with the existing west wall. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The home was built in approximately 1918 with the setback at three feet and one inch. The owner wants to maintain the look of the home by complying with the five feet required setback, a two -foot offset would be created. Altering the architectural style would cover an existing bathroom window. Discussion: Breth made a motion that appeal number 2305 be tabled until the August meeting. Shannon seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Breth, Miscio, Pawlikowski, Remington, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. (Note: the Applicant subsequently withdrew the appeal). 7. Other Business 0 ZBA July 13, 2000 Page 10 The June 28, 2000, memorandum from Paul Eckman is discussed. The state enabling statute allows the Zoning Board of Appeals to set the parameter in granting appeals, although criteria would be given to the Board to measure its decisions. Eckman changed the format so that the hardship would be number one and the equal to or better than would be number two. There was an addition made in restructuring the standards. The addition would allow the Board to grant variances if the Board found the proposal as submitted advancing or protecting the public interests and purposes of the standards for which the variance is requested equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standard. Board member Shannon liked the concept and the flexibility, but is a little concerned regarding the subjectivity. Eckman responded that the equal to or better than would discipline the Boards thought process and specific findings would be given. Board member Breth is in agreement with what Mr. Eckman brought, but needed to excuse himself from the meeting at 10:25 a.m. Stockover asked if it was possible to have a trial period for six months or a year. Eckman stated that if the Board did not like the equal to or better than it would be possible to be repealed but would require council action. The Board would need to make a recommendation of the change in September. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. 1 • 6 William Stockover, Chairperson loth, Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator