Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/11/1986ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 11. 1986 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, December 11, 1986, at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Thede, Barnett, Walker, Lawton, Lancaster, and Coleman. Boardmembers Absent (Excused): Lieser Staff Present: Barnes, Eckman, Brayfield Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 13, 1986, Approved as PublighAd The minutes of the November 13, 1986 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal # 1770 Section 118-95 (A), by Ty Belcher, 310 S. College Avenue - Approved with Condition. --The variance would reduce the required setback from 15 feet to 0 feet for a freestanding sign which does not have the required free air space when located within 50 feet of a driveway. The sign is 36 square feet per face and is for a Perkins Restaurant in the BG zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The existing sign is about 150 feet away from the building. The owner would like a new sign at the driveway entrance. The right-of-way line is 23 feet from the curb, so no traffic visibility hazards exist since the intent of the code is met. The sign can't be taller because large existing trees would obscure it. If it is moved back, the building and parking spaces would hide it. ---Staff recommendation: Approval for the sign submitted with this application. No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the petitioner wishes to install a freestanding sign for Perkins Restaurant with only 36 inches of free air space. The existing sign is 150 feet from the driveway, and they would like to place the sign in the island that has the flag pole, closer to the entrance. The Code requires that the sign be setback 15 feet from the right-of-way if it does not have 72 inches of free air space due to traffic visibility concerns. Their contention is that if they go too ZBA Minutes - December 11, 1986 Page 2 high, then the visibility will be obscured by the trees. Boardmember Walker expressed his concerns that pedestrian traffic could not see around the sign, making it a hazard. Petitioner Ty Belcher, of Gardner Signs, said that the proposed sign would have a reader board sign for advertising specials, as well as the Perkins logo. He was asking for a 0 foot setback. There was a 3 foot high base, and the sign was set back from the edge of the base. The proposed sign would be slightly smaller than the existing sign. Boardmember Thede asked why they could not conform to the Code requirements for free air space. Mr. Belcher replied that there is a "window" effect caused by the existing trees and shrubs. If the sign is too high, the trees would obscure it, and if it was lower, some existing hedges would obscure it. Mr. Belcher explained that they planned to trim the hedges down to three feet, but that would only help a little. Mr. Lancaster pointed out that the existing street trees were rather unique in that they were the largest Kentucky Coffee trees in town, and the City Forester would not be too anxious to have them cut. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Lancaster asked if there was any way to move the sign to the other side of the driveway. Mr. Belcher replied that there were plans to expand the building and build a patio on that side of the driveway, and moving the sign there would interfere with those plans. Boardmember Barnett stated that he also was concerned with pedestrian safety, and the the proposed location for the sign would block visibility of cars pulling out of the driveway. Two alternatives would be to move the sign to the north of the island or to move the reader board to the right of the logo to give the sign more free air space. Mr. Belcher stated that the reader board sign could not fit to the right of the logo because they had to use at least 6" lettering to be visible from the street, and a sign big enough to accommodate any kind of message that would be extremely long and thin. Boardmember Coleman raised the question as to how much visibility was enough for pedestrian traffic. Boardmember Barnett felt that 15 feet would be adequate for walking traffic, but more would be needed for joggers or skateboards. Boardmember Walker pointed out that cars pulling out of the driveway would be more inclined to watch for street traffic, not pedestrians. Pedestrian safety was the issue, and he felt that the variance as proposed was not acceptable because of this. The Board asked why the new sign could not be located at the same spot as the existing sign. Mr. Belcher replied that traffic going north did not see the sign until they had already passed the driveway. They lost business because of it. The business owner wanted the sign closer to the building. • • ZBA Minutes - December 11, 1986 Page 3 Boardmember Barnett asked why they could not extend the island to the north to take up one existing parking space. That would put the sign significantly closer to the driveway, and ease the site distance problem. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to grant the variance to reduce the required the setback from 15' to 0' with the condition that the sign be located 20 feet north from the north edge of the driveway, and that the design conform to the plan submitted, for the hardship stated. Boardmember Lawton seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Barnett, Lawton. Nays: Walker, Lancaster. The Board expressed its desire to have a standard to work with in determining the required site distance for pedestrian traffic, and decided to discuss it at the end of the meeting. Appeal # 1775 Section 118-97 (D) 6 (E), by Leonard Maes, 140 S. College - ---The variance would allow a barber shop to have a revolving sign. Specifically, the variance would allow an existing, traditional, red, white, and blue barber pole to revolve. The barber shop is located in the BG zone. ---Petitioner°s statement of hardship: The revolving barber pole is part of Americana and shouldn't be prohibited. When the City required the owner to shut the pole off, some of the customers thought the store was not open, or had closed down. This is especially true since the shop is in the basement, so people going by could not look in any windows to see if the shop was open or closed. ---Staff recommendation: Approval No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the Sign Code prohibits revolving signs. A variance was granted to another barber shop at the October 1986 meeting to allow a barber pole to revolve with the following conditions: 1) the pole be attached to the building, 2) it should only revolve during business hours 3) no writing is allowed on the pole, 4) it can only be used in connection with the barber shop, 5) the pole can be no larger than the existing pole, 6) and that the variance for the specific pole presented to the Board. There are similar hardships here with the additional hardship that the business is in the basement and not visible from the sidewalk or the street. Petitioner Leonard Maes spoke in favor of the appeal stating that because his business was in the basement, people could not tell if it was open or closed. He felt he needed to have his barber pole turned on to show that he was open. He said he had no problems with the conditions imposed on the last barber pole variance. Boardmember Lawton said he had no problems with turning the barber pole on. The situation is similar to the last appeal. Boardmember Barnett stated 0 • ZBA Minutes - December 11, 1986 Page 4 that the silhouette of the sign did not change as it revolved, and it was a slightly greater hardship than the last one granted, Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship stated with the same conditions at imposed on Variance # 1764, which are as follows: 1) that the pole be attached to the building, 2) it should only revolve during business hours, 3) no writing is allowed on the pole, 4) it can only be used in connection with the barber shop, 5) the pole can be no larger than the existing pole, 6) and that the variance is for the specific pole that was presented to the Board. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Barnett, Walker, Lawton, Lancaster. Nays: None. Appeal f 1776 Section 118-95 (A), by Mery Eckman, 800 Lemay - Approved. ---The variance would allow a 44 square foot per face groundsign which is located within 50 feet of a driveway, to be setback 0 feet instead of 15 feet. The sign would advertise a tune-up shop and print shop in the C zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: This is a new subdivision. When it was approved by the City, an additional 10 feet of right-of-way was required, resulting in the property line being 20 feet from the curb. A sign 15 feet from the property line would be behind the front of the building and would not be visible. Since the right-of-way line is so far from the curb, the intent of the code is met and the sign does not present any visibility problems. A 44 square foot sign is the minimum size that will work in order to advertise 2 businesses, especially since one of the businesses is at the back of the building, and has no street exposure. ---Staff recommendation: Approval for the hardship stated. On October 9, 1986, the Board also granted a similar variance for the property directly to the south. No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the sign is located within 50 feet of a driveway without the required free air space. The right-of-way is 20 feet behind the curb. The sign is 16 1/2 feet behind the sidewalk, so pedestrian traffic is not an issue. Mr. Barnes stated that the property directly to the south also received a variance for the sign to have a zero setback. Boardmember Walker stated that when the neighboring business was granted the variance, it was with the condition that if Lemay was widened, it would be required to be brought into conformance with the Code or a new variance be granted. Boardmember Thede was concerned that the base of the sign could also be used for signage. She suggested that the variance could be tied to the design submitted to the Board. ZBA Minutes - December 11, 1986 Page 5 Boardmember Thede made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that if Lemay Avenue is widened, they would need to obtain another variance or bring the sign into conformance with the code, and that the sign face be no larger than indicated on the plan submitted to the Board. Boardmember Lancaster seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Barnett, Walker, Lawton, Lancaster. Nays: None. Appeal S 1779 Section 118-61 (C), by Bob Mooney, 1090 E. Elizabeth - Approved. ---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 75 feet to 50 feet for a new dental/medical office building in the BL zone. --Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot is existing.. with 70 feet of lot width. For a new building to be built, the city will require an additional right-of-way dedication of 19 to 20 feet, resulting in a 50 foot lot width. Nothing can be built without a variance. The property is not in an existing subdivision, and a subdivision plat can't be approved if a variance is not granted. ---Staff recommendation: Approval No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the property is located on the northwest corner of Lemay 6 Elizabeth. The lot is approximately 70 feet in width. Although it is a residential structure, it is surrounded by commercial properties. City Code requires that no building permit be issued for a building that is not in a recorded subdivision. This piece of property is not in a recorded subdivision, therefore for the proposal to demolish the existing residence and to construct a new building, it would require an approved subdivision plat by the City. The City would require an additional 19 feet of right-of-way along Lemay before approving the plat. That 19 feet reduces the lot width to 50 feet, and the BL zone requires a 75 foot lot width for any use. So they are applying through the City procedures to do a subdivision, and the first step necessary is to obtain a variance to reduce the lot width. Boardmember Walker asked about the one foot setback from the building to the property line on the east indicated by the preliminary plans. Mr. Barnes replied that the only setbacks required by Code in this zone are 20 feet from an alley or a zoning district line. There are no alleys or zoning district line here, so it could go to a 0' setback. Mr. Barnes stated that the plan gives an approximate idea of how big the building will n ZBA Minutes - December 11, 1986 Page 6 be and the location and amount the Board was to consider the layout of the property. of parking. Boardmember Walker stated that variance on width of lot, not the proposed Mr. Barnes stated that the plan does show compliance with the parking code, and the landscaping setbacks required. The parking lot is not big enough to require interior landscaping, so at this point, based on their proposal, only a variance on the lot width reduction is needed. If the variance is granted, and the subdivision plat is approved, a detailed site plan showing the exact building location, parking layout, and landscape plan will be required. Bob Mooney, project manager for the Architectural Group, spoke in favor of the appeal stating that he was willing to answer any questions the Board might have. Mr. Mooney stated that they planned to tear down the existing building and build a new one. The developer would be required to widen Lemay in front of his property, although there would be some reimbursed costs. Dr. Nelson Bachus, owner of the adjacent property at 1080 E. Elizabeth, spoke in opposition to the variance. He stated that the variance was asking for a reduction of about 1/3 the lot size. This severe a reduction would lead to inadequate parking space. He met with Mr. Mooney, with Larsen & Associate, and Mr. Allison, the builder, to express his concerns and learn present plans. He learned that Dr. Hanwalt, an oral surgeon, planned to build a 2500 - 3000 square foot office building with 6-7 parking spaces. He felt that the building was too large for the lot and that the amount of parking was inadequate for the size of the building. He thought that spill -over traffic would end up parking in his lot. Mr. Bachus also felt that the problem would be compounded if Mr. Hanwalt added an associate, or if the building was sold to someone who had more employees. Boardmember Lawton explained to Dr. Bachus that the proposed zoning variance was for lot width only, not the square footage or the allowable parking spaces. Boardmember Lawton asked if the project would be reviewed again at some point in time. Mr. Barnes replied that this was probably the last public hearing - this is a use by right in this zone and the parking complies with Code, although a few things still need to be worked out. The variance request is for lot width only, and the Board needs to discuss whether or not granting the variance is going to create other hardships which would be detrimental to the public good. Without the variance, no subdivision plat can be approved, and nothing can be built. Boardmember Thede asked if the size of the building was discussed during conceptual review. Mr. Mooney stated that it was not discussed, but since that time they met with Dr. Bachus to find out what his concerns were. Although the earlier proposal was for a 2500 - 3000 square foot building, Dr. Hanwalt has since decided that 2000 square feet would be more realistic. By reducing the building to 2000 square feet, and moving it 10 feet further back toward the back of the lot, they could increase the number of parking spaces to nine. The old city standards required one space for every or every 250 sq. ft., or 4 per 1000 sq. ft. Nine parking spaces for a 2,000 square foot building would more than satisfy the old ZBA Minutes - December 11, 1986 Page 7 requirements that Dr. Bachus was referring to. Furthermore, Dr. Hanwalt is an oral surgeon, so that would generate less patient traffic than a regular dental practice. The Board asked Mr. Barnes to clarify the parking requirements. Mr. Barnes stated that the new parking Code was adopted in March of 1980. For non-residential use the requirements are two parking spaces for every three employees. At that time the City made a decision to get out of the business of telling people how much parking they needed for clients, and Just to require them to provide parking for employees. Prior to that time there were parking standards based on square footage of the building depending on the use. The requirement for an office use of this nature was one parking space for every 250 square feet of floor area. Boardmember Barnett asked what the review process was for this plan. He wanted to know if the building envelope and the actual square footage of the building would be publicly reviewed at any time. Mr. Barnes replied that the only public hearing after this deals with the subdivision plat in which they deal with lot lines, easements, right-of-way dedication, and development agreements. But it is not site specific as to what use goes there, what type of building, how big the building is, how many parking spaces, curb cut locations. All of those will be reviewed at the time of building permit submittal. Boardmember Walker stated that what has been submitted meets all parking codes relative to the particular office that they're proposing. The stipulation for parking is two parking spots for every three employees. Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that the Board should be careful of dealing with the number of employees for this particular use, because, as Dr. Bachus pointed out, someone else could move into the building in the future, with a different number of employees. Boardmember Walker stated that based the existing parking code, the Board really didn't have much to say about it. With 6 parking spaces, they could have 9 employees. That would preclude any patron parking, but that's what the law says. The concerns that are expressed about adequate parking are well taken, but it is beyond their purview, and it really needs to be discussed by the adjacent property owners to resolve the issue. Boardmember Thede pointed out that the variance runs with the land, and if the variance is granted it will always be there regardless of the use. Boardmember Walker pointed out that the hardship is a legitimate hardship in the sense that the City has decided that they want more right-of-way from Lemay, and nothing can be done without a variance. Basically what the Board is looking at here is just that issue. Mr. Barnett stated that if this lot met the lot width requirements, it wouldn't be here at all, and the same building envelope with exactly the same parking, could be built. The lot width question does not have a great deal of bearing on the parking question. The site is located by a pretty dangerous part of the street because of the narrowing of Lemay, and a project that cleans it up is going to be an improvement to the area. That's the reason why the City wants to have that additional right-of-way width, and wants to have that part of ZBA Minutes - December 11, 1986 Page 8 Lemay reconstructed. The hardship stems from what the City wants to do by cleaning the area up, so essentially this project overall is a good idea. Boardmember Coleman asked if a business added employees, did the City have a way of following up and enforcing the parking requirements. Barnes stated that it could be enforced through complaints from adjacent property owners. There was no way of knowing about any increases of staff, but the adjacent property owners would notice and could file a complaint with zoning. The situation would then he investigated, and compliance would be required. Boardmember Lawton asked if the sign that is on the property would remain. Mr. Barnes did not know but it would be included in the property's sign allowance. City Attorney Eckman stated that the Code requires that variances be granted only if it is determined that there is no substantial detriment to the public good. But if the parking requirements of the City Code have been met, it would be indefensible to argue that there is a detriment to the public good. Apparently this plan meets the Code requirements. Boardmember Walker added that the Board needs to keep perspective on the issue - this is a City imposed hardship on this piece of property, and nothing can be done without a variance. Although it could be debated that given the nature of the use in this area, City Codes are providing an inadequate amount of parking, that issue needs to addressed between the property owners, and need not be concerned as long it is stated that the Codes are being met. There could be weakness in the Code, but we are not here to make new Code, only to consider what exists. Boardmember Thede expressed concern that this is the only chance for public review of this project. City Attorney said that although this is the only Board that reviews this, it still gets back to whether or not the Code parking requirements are being met. And if the Board concludes that the requirements are being met, je would have a difficult time defending the conclusion that that it is detrimental to the public good. Boardmember Barnett said that another important consideration is what happens in this particular instance if the variance is not granted. The Board should separate the use question, and take a look at the site as it exits, and what its future is likely to be without this variance. The City isn't going to get the right-of-way to widen Lemay, it won't have a mechanism to do that without actually condemning the entire property. That is not very likely to happen. The property in its existing situation is a residence, and can't be a desirable place to live because it is at the intersection of a major collector and an arterial, and is surrounded by commercial property. So to get the property out of its current situation and create some changes where Lemay Avenue can be improved, it's going to require a variance. Boardmember Lawton made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Thede, Barnett, Walker, Lawton, Lancaster. Nays: None. ZBA Minutes - December 11 1986 Page 9 Appeal # 1765 Section 118-43 (B) Park Street - Appr (C), (D) (R), (F), by Les Charvat, 244 ---This is a request to have the Board consider granting a rehearing based on new evidence to be submitted at this meeting. The variance request was previously denied by a vote of 2-1 at the October 9, 1986 ZBA meeting. If a rehearing is granted, the Board will then consider the variance request to reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 2500 square feet, the lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet, the front yard setback from 15 feet to 2 feet 8 inches, the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 0 feet, and the street side setback along the north lot line from 15 feet to 6 inches. The variances are requested to allow an existing, illegal duplex in the RM zone to be brought up to code. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The present owner got the property back through foreclosure earlier this year. He sold the property in 1979 to someone who illegally converted the building into a duplex. Prior to that time, the owner lived in the dwelling and had a small grocery store in the front part of the building. The present owner has inherited this "duplex" and would like to make it legal. The lot and building are existing. No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that at the October meeting there were only three Boardmembers present, so that he would review the appeal for those who were not present. He stated that a duplex is a permitted use in this zone. What makes this duplex illegal is that it was converted to a duplex without receiving building permits for the conversion and without receiving a certificate of occupancy to allow it to be occupied as a duplex. There was much discussion at the last meeting and much confusion over square footages of the building, layout of the interior, open space, the fact that only one unit had access to the limited open space. Mr. Charvat was prepared to present new evidence at this time and the Board would discuss whether or not to grant a rehearing. Lucia Liley, attorney representing Les Charvat, presented new evidence to the Board as follows: She submitted detailed floor plans, both the present floor plans, and the proposed floor plans. She stated that at the last meeting only a sketch of the plot plan was available, which did not have dimensions, square footages, and did not accurately represent the what the present situation was or what Mr. Charvat was proposing to do. Ms. Liley stated that in reviewing the minutes of the October meeting she felt that much information necessary for the Board's decision was not available. Further, Mr. Charvat did not know that he had the right to address questions and clarify issues after he spoke for the first time. Consequently, many questions went unanswered. The Board reviewed the plans as submitted to the Board, and concluded that there was enough new evidence to warrant a rehearing. The Board voted unanimously to rehear Appeal # 1765. Zoning Administrator Barnes then reviewed the petitioner's statement of hardship. Mr. Charvat had owned this property for a good number of years ZBA Minutes - December 11, 1986 • Page 10 and prior to 1979, the front of the building was a small grocery store and the rest of the building was a residence. In 1979 Mr. Charvat sold the property. The new owner converted this building illegally into a duplex. He did not get building permits, and did not come before the Board to get necessary zoning variances. Mr. Charvat got the property back this year through foreclosure. He inherited this situation, and now would like to keep it as a duplex and do some remodeling to it and make it more usable. Therefore the need for all the variances. A letter was received from the property owner just to the south at the last hearing. She did not have any problems with the variance request, but she did suggest that a fence should be put up along the lot line because the past occupants of the building generally had a mess along the side of the building, and when they walked out of the building, they often trespassed across her yard. The proposed remodel does make provisions for a second entrance along the south side of the house. Mr. Barnes stated that most of the houses in this area are rental units. There is an existing one car garage door opening onto Maple Street, which will be widened to accommodate a two car garage. Typically the lots in this part of town are narrow, 35-45 feet in width, and some 50 feet wide. Most of the lots are over 100 feet in depth. This situation is similar to what happened to corner lots in older part of town many years ago. People had corner lots which were deep. and they sold off the back part of it which fronted on another street. This created postage stamp size lots, which are on corners throughout the older part of town. Lucia Liley, representing Les Charvat, spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Charvat is proposing to spend in excess of $12,000 in materials alone, for a major renovation of the existing duplex. He will do the labor himself. The changes will consist of raising the roofline on the second floor, adding dormers and windows to provide adequate lighting and to visually open up that area and make it more attractive on the second floor. He will add two new furnaces, a firewall between the kitchen area in unit two and the garage, repaint the inside and the outside, completely replace the countertops and add new bath tiles, re -do the garage, although not enlarge it. It is presently large enough for two cars, but because it has a partition blocking one side it is not usable for two cars at the present time. So he would add sheetrock, and open up the partitioned area so that it could house two cars with two separate entrances. He also proposed to landscape, fence, and generally clean up and condition the outside and patio areas. Ms. Liley stated further that none of the walls in the interior need replacement, because the major structural changes have long since been made to this house so that it physically divided into two completely separate living units. What Mr. Charvat intends to do is to take what's been done, bring it up to code, and finish it, spending about $12,000 to make it an attractive, livable duplex unit. In terms of the square footages, apartment number 1 will have approximately 868 square foot net, and apartment number two will have 863 square feet of living space. In addition, the garage is another 337 square feet. One other factor is that there is a 900 square foot basement which has been used as some sort of living space. Mr. Charvat proposes to put the two new ZBA Minutes - December 11, 1986 Page 11 furnaces down there, a laundry room, and a recreational room, and use the rest as tenant storage. Ms. Liley said that if you look at the total square footages, it's not out of line for typical duplexes and apartments in this part of town. In terms of the garage and parking, there will be no additional lot space taken up with parking and/or garage. The intent is to meet the City's requirement for a duplex to have two off-street parking spaces. Ms. Liley stated that Mr. Charvat planned to make the outside of the property more useable by dividing the outside space into two patio areas with fencing, and adding an entrance to that area for the second unit. Unit #1 would have an access from the front, and then out to the sideyard. Unit lit would have an access through the garage and out through the sideyard also. Mr. Charvat proposed to landscape that area by adding some shrubbery, and a fence. He's talked a lot with the neighbor to the south, (adjacent to the patio area) and she was not able to be here today but she did want to express her support of the project. Ms. Liley addressed the issue of neighborhood compatibility, stating that the lot is zoned RM and a duplex is a permissible use as are other multiple family uses. If you look at this area you will find that all of those uses exist. Across the street there is an older house which has been converted into three separate apartments. Many of the houses rent out with the basement rented also. So you have a number of different rental type situations in the area. Mr. Charvat attempted to contact everybody on the APO list, and he was successful with most of them. Everybody he did talk to and showed the floor plan to felt that not only was it a compatible use, but that it was an upgrade for the neighborhood. Three neighbors are here today to speak in favor of the project. Ms. Liley said that at the past hearing there was much discussion as to whether or not Mr. Charvat had a legitimate hardship because the conversion had been done illegally. There is a doctrine in zoning law which talks about "unclean hands" and it basically says that if you create your own hardship that's not a legal hardship and a board is entitled to disregard It. But that's not the case here. Mr. Charvat does not have unclean hands. He did not create the situation. The conversion was attempted without his permission, without his knowledge, without any control at all. He involuntarily acquired the property through a foreclosure proceeding, and at that point the conversion was well underway, and no permits had been obtained. Which is not to say that if he had the property he would not have come in and applied for permits to turn it into a duplex, because given its history, given the lot, and other considerations of the neighborhood, a duplex may in fact be an appropriate use in that area. But the point is the conversion was begun and he inherited the problem. Ms. Liley pointed out that even if the building were to be used as a single family dwelling, he would have to apply for exactly the same variances. In the RM zone a single family and a duplex use are both considered the same type of use and they both require the same minimum lot size, the same sideyards, the same setbacks. He would not be in compliance with any of those. So he would be asking for the same variances regardless of the use. ZBA Minutes - December 11, 1986 Page 12 Ms. Liley said that it was important to consider the fact that the structure was built under a very different set of standards in 1924, if there were in fact any zoning standards back then. It was a grocery store/living unit. It would now be considered a nonconforming use if it were still a grocery store. Mr. Charvat wishes to convert the building into a conforming use - a duplex is a conforming use in this zone. The building itself is nonconforming because of the setbacks --which can't be changed. It's there. Many of the old corner grocery stores in the older part of town have been converted to duplexes. Mr. Charvat has proposed a workable plan for a difficult property. Ray Tadlock, 222 Park Street, spoke in favor of the variance. He has lived three houses south of Mr. Charvat's property for 39 years. The lots south of the store are 50 ft. wide and 190 ft. deep. He has been a plumbing contractor for 52 years and has worked in the houses in the neighborhood, and they are nearly all two-family houses. He saw no problem in the request - they've lived with the building the way it is and they think a duplex is acceptable. George Michaud, 343 N. Shields, spoke in favor of the project. He felt that it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He did not like the present situation of a big vacant building in the neighborhood. He owns a single family rental unit in the neighborhood. He saw no problem with parking - there was much more need for parking when it was a store because a lot of customers traded there. Mr. Charvat proposed a project that would be an improvement to the neighborhood, and he was highly in favor of it. June Grading, 227 Park, said she lived in the neighborhood for 36 years. She said that as long as Mr. Charvat is interested in fixing it up she had no problem. It is an eyesore now because the paint is such an ugly color. Mr. Charvat said he would paint it so that it would look really nice on the outside. Mrs. Grading thought that rather than it standing idle, something should be done there. She knew Mr. Charvat, and felt that he would do a good job remodeling it. Mr. Charvat submitted a letter from a neighbor, which Mr. Barnes read to the Board stating support for the project. (The letter is attached to the minutes.) Boardmember Lawton asked about a notice on the building that deemed it unsafe. Mr. Barnes said that the notice was not due to any deterioration of the building, it was because the conversion did not meet Code. Mr. Charvat plans to correct the building code violations. He will need building permits, and all code requirements will have to be met. Boardmember Walker stated that he had a problem with the idea that if the duplex was illegally converted, somehow that's a hardship. He felt that the legitimate hardship was the fact that while in the RM zone this type of duplex is allowed, this lot is an existing lot that does not conform, and anything done to this property has to have variances because of the size of the lot and the way the building is on the property. ZBA Minutes - Dec• er 11, 1986 • Page 13 Boardmember Thede said that she had a problem with increasing the density on this lot by making it two units. She would be more inclined to grant a variance for a single family because of the size of the lot and the square footage of the building. Mr. Barnes stated that it was already converted into a duplex. Boardmember Thede stated that it could also be converted back to a single family residence. Boardmember Walker presented some density calculations, stating that the density ended up to be about 34 units per acre. He felt that this pushed the limits of what is considered to be RM zoning. On the other hand Mr. Charvat has done a good job in preparing this - the layout is good, and he has dealt with the neighborhood. Boardmember Barnett stated that clearly a lot more thought went into the design, the second entrance into the yard space is shown, there is a resolution to the question of the open space. He was impressed with the neighborhood support of the project and their opinion that there would not be an adverse affect on the neighborhood. It is a nonconforming building on a nonconforming lot. Mr. Barnett that there is a legitimate hardship. It would be more desirable for it to be a single family, but to do that they would be have to demolish the existing structure and start from the ground up. He did not see any logical way to make the existing structure into a workable single family residence. Boardmember Thede asked if letters were sent again notifying adjacent property owners about the rehearing. Mr. Barnes replied yes - and the notice also stated that if a rehearing occurred, it would be done immediately, and this would be the last opportunity for public input. Boardmember Lawton stated that the reason the variance was denied the last time was for lack of hardship. He questioned whether the hardship was proved to be any greater than before. Boardmember Barnett stated that the hardship was more apparent now that the plans were in front of them. At the previous meeting he felt that the structure could easily be converted back into a single family residence. The plans submitted clearly showed that this was not the case. Boardmember Walker felt that the hardship, more properly stated was that nothing else can be done with the lot. The building exists. The question is whether a duplex is an appropriate or too intense a use. Boardmember Thede felt that the structure could be converted back to a single family dwelling. It is too dense a use - too small a lot. Boardmember Lawton said he had a problem with the variance because the building does not fit in. There are many attractive homes in the neighborhood setback from the lot line. This is the only house that goes right up to the lot line. And a building of this size does not fit in the neighborhood. He felt that it was good that the neighbors were here and and are in favor of approving the facility, but the future use of the area ZBA Minutes - Dec• er 11, 1986 • Page 14 needs to be considered. He felt that too many variances were needed for this use. Mr. Barnes replied that the building exists. The building may not fit in, but but if you don't grant the variance it still exists. The design and the color of the building make it stand out. Mr. Charvat has expressed willingness to repaint the building and to do some changes, such as the dormers windows, to make it blend in more with the other homes in the neighborhood. Boardmember Lancaster said it's the number of people living in the structure that has the impact on the neighborhood. As a duplex, about two people would live in each unit, and as a large single family dwelling just as many people could be living there. Boardmember Walker pointed out that taken to the extreme, as many as three unrelated individuals could live in each unit, or any number of related individuals. Boardmember Thede asked why it could not be improved to be a very attractive single family dwelling. Mr. Charvat said that this is large building for a single family dwelling. And he doesn't believe that you could get anyone in there that would care if it was kept up. A duplex would support itself financially, and whoever owned it would probably keep the building up. Converting it back into a single dwelling with the four bathrooms, two kitchens, would not be feasible, and would not support itself economically. Boardmember Coleman felt that as a single family dwelling, there is an economic question as to whether the dwelling would be inhabited by people willing to pay a rent suitable to maintain the quality of the establishment on the part of the owner. A duplex would allow the owner to rely on two sources of income, which would better maintain the building. A duplex, while maybe not as desirable, would be more desirable than a vacant building. And rather than choosing between a duplex and a single family dwelling, the choice seems to be between a duplex and a vacant building. Considering the neighbors support of the project, Mr. Coleman found the duplex to be acceptable. Boardmember Lancaster made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Barnett, Walker, Lancaster. Nays: Thede, Lawton. Other Business: The Board asked Mr. Barnes to discuss the issue of site distance as it relates to pedestrian traffic with the city traffic engineer, and to make some recommendations for standards. Respectfully submitted, IA Peter Barnes, Staff Support Lloy Walker, Chairman ��