HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/10/2000A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 10, 2000, in
the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft.
Collins.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Martin Breth, Steve Remington, William Stockover, Thad Pawlikowski, Andy Miscio, Diane
Shannon
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
David Ayraud
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Sandy Lindell, Staff Support to Board
Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector
AGENDA:
1. ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call taken.
2. APROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made by Board Member Shannon to approve the minutes from the January 13,
2000 meeting. Board Member Breth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
3. APPEAL 2285: -- Approved
Address:
237 West Street
Petitioner:
John Litschert, Owner
Zone:
NCM
Section:
4.7(F)(1)(a)
Backeround:
ZBA
February 10, 2000
Page 2
The variance would allow a portion of the south wall of a proposed addition to the rear of the
home to be curved, instead of being constructed parallel to the south lot line.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
There is an existing detached garage to the rear and side of the home. If the new south wall
continued straight back, instead of curving, the distance between the addition and the garage
would only be 3'. Such a distance will create a dark passage and building code problems.
Additionally, there are 2 existing corner windows on the back wall which the petitioner
wants to keep, thus, the addition would be between the 2 windows, preventing the addition
from being moved further north. The owner is currently applying for landmark designation.
The Historic Preservation office recommends that the addition be built in the same style as
the existing home, but yet distinct from it so that the addition can be clearly discerned from
the original.
Staff Comments:
Sandy Lindell read three letters in support of Appeal #2285.
Jenny Nuckols presented slides relative to this Appeal. The south wall of the existing home
was shown and how it lined up with the north wall of the garage. Nuckols noted that this
home resides in the East Side/West Side Neighborhood, NCM District, requiring that any
walls greater than 6' in length be constructed parallel to, or at right angles to the side lot line.
Slides were shown of the proposed area of the addition. Slides of neighboring properties and
their varied architecture were shown.
Stockover asked Karen McWilliams, City Historic Preservation Planner, to address the Board
and give clarification of the rule requiring that walls be constructed parallel or at right angles
to property lines.
Karen McWilliams, addressed the Board. McWilliams replied that several years ago, the
Historic Preservation Department was looking at options to adopt as part of the East
Side/West Side Guidelines and Standards for new additions. McWilliams commented that
quite a bit of controversy surrounded the options that were being considered. McWilliams
stated that City Council decided to take the majority of those options and incorporate them
into the zoning code, which eliminated many of the gray areas from the Guidelines and
Standards.
Barnes commented that the East Side/West Side Design Guideline issues culminated about
1996 and City Council decided to adopt some guidelines and incorporate them into the Code,
one of which was the requirement that walls of a certain length be parallel, or at right angles
to property lines. Council felt that due to the predominantly rectangular shapes of the lots in
the area with mostly rectangular type shapes of homes, it was desired that new construction
keep that same character.
ZBA
February 10, 2000
Page 3
Shannon asked McWilliams if Historic Preservation approved of the design presented by the
Applicant in this Appeal. McWilliams confirmed that the Landmark Preservation
Commission has considered the property for local landmark designation and approved the
plans with very positive comments.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, John Litschert, addressed the Board. Litschert stated that he had no other
comments to add to the information already presented.
Remington asked the Applicant about the possible building code problems mentioned in his
Statement of Hardship. Litschert responded that there would not really be a Code problem,
but was more of a problem of the two vertically high walls that would cause the area to be
dark and icy.
Public Participation:
Janet Orr, addressed the Board. Orr is an assistant professor of history at CSU, teaches
architectural history and is a member of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Orr stated
that she is in support of granting this variance for a number of reasons. Orr commented that
this house is of particular interest to historians and is a rare example of an Art Modem house
within the City. Orr listed several aspects of the house that were of architectural historic
significance.
Orr commented that the addition the Applicant was proposing was a very good example of
compatible design to a historic building. Orr mentioned that the addition was well designed
and will be primarily made to the back of the home and will not alter the appearance of the
front of the home.
Board Discussion:
Shannon made a motion to approve Appeal #2285 for the hardship stated. Breth seconded
the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Breth, Remington, Stockover, Pawlikowski, Miscio, Shannon
Nays: None
Appeal #2285 was approved.
4. APPEAL 2286: -- Approved
Address:
132 W. Willox Lane
Petitioner:
Don Shields, Architect
Zone:
CN
Section:
3.2.1(13)(1)(c), 3.2.2(J), and 3.2.2(M)(1)
r
Background:
ZBA
February 10, 2000
Page 4
The variance would eliminate the requirement to provide "full tree stocking" along the south
and west sides of the building, eliminate the requirement to provide a 5' wide landscape strip
along the north and east lot lines, eliminate the required 10' wide landscape strip along
Willox Ct., and eliminate the required 15' wide landscape strip along most of the lot frontage
on Willox Lane. The variance would also reduce the amount of required interior parking lot
landscaping from 6% to 2.9%. The variance is requested in order to allow a portion of the
building to be converted from an auto body repair shop to an automotive paint wholesale
store.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The building, parking, and driveways are existing. As a result of an auto body shop vacating
a portion of this multi -tenant building and being replaced by an automotive paint wholesale
business, a change of use is occurring. Such a change requires that the property be brought
into compliance with the current code. The only way total compliance can be obtained is if
the building is demolished or the parking is eliminated. The proposed plan shows the only
site and landscape improvements that are possible, given the existing site constraints and
needs.
Staff Comments:
Barnes commented that when a change of use is proposed to a certain building the Code
requires that a Certificate of Occupancy be issued. Barnes explained that a Certificate of
Occupancy could not be issued for this change of use until the property complies with the
requirements of the Land Use Code. Barnes stated that this is a mechanism the City uses to
slowly upgrade properties that were built years ago because the codes were different then and
they did not have any landscape requirements to comply with.
Nuckols presented slides relative to this Appeal. Referring to the site plan, Nuckols reviewed
areas surrounding the Applicant's building, including the existing parking area and proposed
areas of landscaping and parking.
Barnes commented on the slides showing the area of the proposed pedestrian walkway.
Barnes noted that after meeting with the City Planning and Engineering Departments, they
discussed the Code requirement to provide a sidewalk along Willox. Barnes stated that the
City Engineering Department determined that it was not feasible in this instance, but they did
still want some sort of pedestrian walkway. Barnes noted that just west of Willox Ct., there
would not be a sidewalk, but to the east, the Mini Mart is currently in the process of getting
their sidewalk plan approved. Barnes noted that with the new McDonald's restaurant that is
under construction across Willox Street, some street improvements will occur from that
development. Barnes commented that the proposed pedestrian walkway will tie in with the
new sidewalk that the Mini Mart will be installing and direct pedestrians through this
pedestrian walkway that is being created.
0
ZBA
February 10, 2000
Page 5
Shannon asked Barnes if there currently is no sidewalk, would the pedestrian access be
utilized from the parking areas. Barnes replied that pedestrians that are walking from the east
to the west will be using the new sidewalk from Mini Mart and can access the proposed
pedestrian walkway without being a customer or employee of the building. The existing
parking would remain the same on the south and east sides of the building that are in front of
the existing sidewalk.
Nuckols reviewed slides of the east side of the building where 8 parking stalls and handicap
parking is proposed. Nuckols noted that this is the area where Code requires a 5' landscape
strip, but the Applicant is proposing that this landscape strip be eliminated and the area be
utilized for parking. Nuckols showed the area of the west elevation of the building and
where Code would require a 10' wide landscape area that the Applicant is requesting be
eliminated.
Barnes commented that there are three different auto repair businesses housed in the
Applicant's building with three different curb cuts on Willow Ct. Barnes mentioned that the
Applicant is making an attempt to try to organize the parking area.
Breth asked Barnes about possibly reducing the size of the landscape areas instead of totally
eliminating them. Barnes replied that they would then be too narrow and maintaining
landscaping in a healthy condition would be difficult.
Shannon asked Barnes what was the required number of parking spaces. Barnes replied that
there was not a minimum amount of commercial parking spaces required in the Code.
Applicant Partici ation:
Dan Eckles, addressed the Board. Eckles is the managing partner of the Applicant's
property. Eckles noted that the property is currently zoned for auto body use and engine
repair. Eckles commented that the current usage has caused some problems regarding the
amount of cars on the site and he desires to change to a wholesale or retail type use to
eliminate the problems with the excessive amount of cars, and unsightliness. Eckles stated
he would need the approval of this variance to accomplish that goal. Eckles commented that
he has proposed to use the heaviest amount of landscaping at the front corners of the property
and removed the 8 parking spaces from the front. Eckles commented that if he added more
landscaping to Willox Ct., he would be leaving the tenants for that portion of the building
only 2 parking spaces and tenants would need more than that amount.
Remington asked Eckles who was currently occupying the space that would be the potential
paint wholesale tenant. Eckles responded that the previous tenant was an auto body shop and
that tenant is no longer there, the space is now empty. Eckles confirmed that there are still 3
remaining auto body type tenants and that they will be removing those tenants, particularly
the tenant on the upper left corner of the building occupying 2500 square feet that has many
vehicles parked outside.
Don Shields, addressed the Board. Shields is the architect that designed the proposed
changes to the building. Shields commented that by adding the landscaping and after
•
ZBA
February 10, 2000
Page 6
addressing pedestrian access and parking, there is not enough area left for an attached
sidewalk along Willox Lane, so by bringing people up close to the building, they would still
have access to the building. Shields mentioned that a cedar stockade fence would be
installed to mitigate impact to the street just past the Mini Mart and block the view from the
street. Shields stated that they have proposed parking lot striping to be done on the west side
of the building to designate parking spaces for the tenants and alleviate some of the parking
dissaray.
Breth asked about the dirt area in front of the building. Shields replied that the area would be
paved as part of the street improvements being done as a result of the construction of the
McDonald's restaurant across the street.
Public Participation:
Diane Franz, addressed the Board. Franz owns the property at 1713 Willox Ct. Franz voiced
concerns that if this variance were granted, changes to the property would not be enforced.
Franz commented about the amount of vehicles on the Applicant's property and how long
some of them have been parked there. Franz mentioned that she and other property owners
have repeatedly called the City Police Department to have some of the cars that were parked
for a significant amount of time towed away and believed that tenants of the Applicant's
building retaliated against them for these actions with damage neighboring property. Franz
commented that she would like to see the area surrounding the building cleaned up. Franz
stated that if the Board granted the variance, she would like to see some indication that the
changes would be enforced by the Applicant.
Barnes commented that Eckles has gone on record stating that it is his desire to clean up the
site and change the tenant mix. Barnes mentioned that the Board could place conditions on
the variance, such as requiring the striping plan on the west side of the building be completed
as proposed and parking on the west side of the building only be allowed in designated
parking spaces. Barnes said that if these conditions were placed and tenants used the parking
in areas not approved for parking, it would be a violation of a condition of the variance and
the Zoning Department would visit the site and take measures of enforcement. Barnes
commented that because Zoning would not be driving by the site daily, it would be up to the
neighbors to call the Zoning Department to let them know of any violations occurring.
Barnes mentioned that enforcement of issues such as site obstructions would be handled by
other City departments.
Miscio asked Barnes if the building was currently in violation of any zoning regulations.
Barnes replied that at the time this building was constructed, there was no approved plans or
zoning requirements such as landscaping. Barnes pointed out that the cars being parked on
the site are not parked in the public right-of-way, but on private property. Barnes noted that
if this change of use is approved, the Applicant would be dedicating an additional 2 feet of
right-of-way along Willox Lane, so he would loose that area of his property.
Miscio asked Franz how many cars she estimated were parked at the Applicant's property.
Franz replied that there were 37 cars parked there that morning. Miscio commented that the
ZBA
February 10, 2000
Page 7
proposed plan would allow parking for 24 cars, therefore reducing the overall amount of cars
parked there.
Franz wanted it noted that one of the major sight obstructions resulting from the parking at
the Applicant's building was a truck and camper that had literally been parked at the same
place for years. Franz stated that if Eckles was willing to abide by the conditions placed on
the variance and keep the area cleaned up and free of the junk cars that stay there for years,
then she would be in favor of granting this variance.
John Fossie, addressed the Board. Fossie is a property owner at 1713 Willox. Fossie
commented that he had contacted Eckles regarding problems with the tenant on the corner of
Eckles building. Fossie stated that Eckles said he could not do anything with his tenants.
Fossie mentioned that he also has an auto repair tenant in his building and put a limit on the
amount of vehicles his tenant can have on the property overnight and had suggested Eckles
do the same for his tenants, but Eckles responded that he could not dictate to his tenants.
Fossie commented that in 1997 and 1998, he called the Police Department every two or three
weeks to have them come out to issue citations for vehicles resulting in numerous cars towed
by the City that were in violation. Fossie mentioned that some of the cars have also been
parked above the only storm drain in the area that drains into the Poudre River and the
possibility of oil and contaminates getting into that drainage system is great. Fossie stated
that other property owners in the area had to get the Post Office to paint the curb red in front
of the mailboxes to keep them from being continually blocked by parked cars.
Miscio commented that if the Board were to approve this variance request, it seems that any
changes made as a result would be a positive improvement for Eckle's property as well as the
neighboring properties.
Dale Shipley, addressed the Board. Shipley resides at 218 W. Willox. Shipley stated that he
has lived at that residence for 27 years and the current state of Eckle's property is the worst it
has ever been. Shipley reiterated that access to the mailboxes is an issue and some of his
concerns are that unlicensed cars be removed and the area cleaned up. Shipley commented
that in the summer months paint fumes from the building invade his airspace. Shipley
mentioned that he believes a landlord should have control of his tenants first before the
Board approves his variance.
Chuck Ramsey, addressed the Board. Ramsey is a tenant on Willox Ct. Ramsey commented
that he is somewhat concerned about having the sidewalk up next to the building, as people
travel to and from the Mini Mart and McDonald's and believes that it would be much better
to have a sidewalk there. Ramsey said with the current parking problem, he has difficulty
getting his delivery trucks to his tenant space. Ramsey believes that approving this variance
would not change the situation with enforcing the parking problems etc. and that if Eckle's
has not taken the initiative to take care of the current problems, he would not enforce the new
requirements brought about by the variance approval.
Gary Cummings, addressed the Board. Cummings is the owner of the building at 1717
Willox Ct. Cummings stated that he is in favor of the variance because he believes that by
installing the proposed landscaping and making the proposed changes, that it would eliminate
• ZBA
February 10, 2000
Page 8
much of the parking problem. Cummings commented that as long as parking restrictions are
enforced, the current problems should be taken care of.
Board Discussion:
Breth questioned Don Shields if the existing sidewalk in front of the building was a raised
sidewalk. Shields replied that it is not raised, but is level with the parking lot, although it is
made of concrete and not asphalt. Breth asked if on the east side of the building where the
two pedestrian walkways will be located, would a vehicle be able to drive through that area.
Shields responded that cars would be able to drive over the painted crosswalk areas to get to
the parking in the fenced area. Breth questioned what would stop the cars from parking on
top of the pedestrian pathway. Shields replied that problem could be remedied with the
placement of concrete bumpers. Breth asked why the pedestrian walkway did not continue to
the south. Shields responded that after discussions with the City Engineering Department, it
was determined that the pathway would not continue to the south in order to make
allowances for handicap access. Shields stated that there is not currently any designated
handicap parking on the site, but with the change of use, Code requirements are that one
handicap parking space be made for the first 25 parking spaces.
Shields commented that with the approval of the change of use, it would allow a
wholesale/retail to occupy some of the space now occupied by the auto body businesses.
Shields stated that there is a potential for a tenant upgrade for the entire building with the
change of use approval.
There was some Board discussion regarding the request to eliminate some of the required
landscaping and that it appeared there would still be room for some amount of landscaping in
the areas that were requested eliminated.
The Board discussed if requiring the site to be cleaned up was actually an issue that was on
the Board's venue.
There was a request from an individual in the audience to address the Board.
Tricia Deal, addressed the Board. Deal assists Dan Eckles in the property management of his
building. Deal stated that Eckle's purchased the building approximately 5 years ago and at
that time, he inherited some of the tenants and the same problems that exist today. Deal
commented that the problem tenant for the neighbors has also been a problem tenant for
them. Deal stated that the problem tenant is nearing the end of their lease time and if this
change of use were granted, it would give them the backing to remove the tenant from the
building. Remington asked Deal when the lease would be up for the problem tenant. Deal
responded that currently, that tenant has been on a month to month rent basis since the
beginning of the year. Deal replied that there was a wholesale paint supplier under contract
to occupy the space of the problem tenant, but that it was a contingency of his occupancy that
this change of use variance was granted. Breth asked who would have access to the fenced
area to the north. Deal responded that the fenced area would be for the sole use of the
prospective paint supplier.
• ZBA
February 10, 2000
Page 9
Eckles was asked to respond to previous comments made by those in opposition and by the
Board. Eckles stated that he is in agreement with the neighbors that the site needs to be
cleaned up and that the problem tenant needs to be changed, although he is not sure that they
understand that unless this variance is granted, he will only be able to have the two existing
uses on the site, which is auto body and auto repair. Eckles commented that cleaning the
property up is on his agenda as it has been for the last 5 years. Addressing the parking
problem, Eckles stated that he would agree to adhere to conditions placed on the variance
that people park in designated parking spaces and understands that if he were to be found in
violation of those conditions and could possibility face fines of up to $1,000 a day. Eckles
stated that as for the sidewalk issue, the sidewalk areas were designed after consulting with
City engineers. Eckles mentioned that he would be installing night lighting and the
landscaping was designed to direct traffic efficiently. Eckles commented that the front
corner landscape islands are larger than what is required and that is where he has tried to
focus the most impact. Eckles stated that he could have replaced the problem tenant with
another tenant, but his only option would have been another auto repair business and his
intention was to try to change the tenant mix to retail. Eckles mentioned that he could have
removed the auto repair business as a tenant, but did not want to have an empty space with
loss of revenue.
Eckles stated that it is the nature of the auto repair business that demands a lot of parking
area and there would continue to be many cars parked there unless the change of use is
granted so that the tenant make-up can be changed. Eckles commented that as per current
Zoning requirements, vehicle repair businesses are allowed up to 5 cars per 1,000 square foot
of occupancy and for retail space, a maximum of 4 cars per 1,000 square foot is allowed,
therefore, with another retail occupancy in the building, there would be a maximum of 48
parking spaces that could be on site and hopefully would mitigate concerns of the neighbors.
There was some Board discussion on once a change of use was established for the property
that it would apply to the entire property and building, even though it is only one tenant space
that would actually have immediate occupancy. If any of the current auto repair businesses
remained there and were replaced with other auto repair businesses, then there would actually
be two Certificates of Occupancy issued, one for the retail/wholesale and the other for the
auto body usage. If all of the auto repair tenants were to vacate and be replaced by retail
occupants, then it would require another variance to change the use back to auto repair.
Shannon made a motion to approve Appeal #2286 with the condition that parking is striped
and designated as shown on the submitted plans and parking requirements be enforced by the
Applicant. Approval would also include the provision that any parking next to sidewalks
would have wheel blocks installed. Breth seconded the motion.
There was Board discussion on the possibility of conditioning the variance approval to
include restrictions on the number of parking spaces dedicated to auto body or auto repair
tenants. Barnes commented that City Zoning could not enforce parking in those areas of
public right-of-way, those cases would be regulated by other departments. There was some
concern voiced if overflow parking would then place a burden on public right-of-way
parking. A comment was made that a wholesale/retail store would not have overnight or
long-term parking as would an auto repair business.
0
No
February 10, 2000
Page 10
Vote:
Yeas: Breth, Stockover, Pawlikowski, Miscio, Shannon
Nays: Remington
Appeal #2286 was approved.
Other Business:
Barnes asked the Board to review a publication that was handed out last month that reviewed
a zoning appeal case heard in another state.
Barnes mentioned that the ZBA meeting for March would be held on the third Thursday of
March, March 16, 2000, instead of the second Thursday. This change in meeting date was
made due to the absenteeism normally seen during the time of spring break in the second
week of March.
Meeting adjourned at 10.40 a.m.
William Stockover, Chairperson
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator