Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 01/09/1997U:\ - �'J n ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1997 Council Liaison: Ann Azari Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr. 8:30am Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 229-1629(w) 226-5101(h) The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, January 9, 1997 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Gustafson, Felner, Lieser, Breth, Keating, Stockover Absent: Shannon Staff members present: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Elain Radford, Building & Zoning Admin. Support The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Breth. The minutes from the December 1996 meeting were approved. Appeal 2188, 2223 S. Howes by Andy Miscio and Ray Gile owners BG Zone, approved with conditions. Sections 29-493(1) and 29-493(2)(a) --- The variance would reduce the required 5' landscape buffer setback to 0' along the west lot line and along part of the north property line adjacent to the parking lot. The variance would also eliminate the required six foot high privacy fence along the west lot line of the parking lot. The property to the west is a vacant lot that is probably going to be developed as commercial. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: Property to the west is also owned by the applicants and they desire to utilize as future commercial site with cross access parking to this site. ' Both the fence and landscaping would have to be removed when built upon. Landscaping required to the north side would hamper traffic as existing driveway is narrow for two- way use at 10' at lawn and 15' at building. --- Staff comments: none. ZBA January 9, 1997 Page 2 Zoning Administrator Barnes presented slides illustrating property under consideration. In July 1996 this site was granted a variance to eliminate the 5' landscape strip along most of the north property line. The area in question affected by this variance along the north lot line is where the petitioners want to eliminate the 5' landscape strip. Along the west they want to eliminate the requirement for the 5' landscaping and the requirement to provide a 6' high fence adjacent to the parking lot. The fence along the north lot line has been removed. Some of the fence along the west property line has come down - either knocked down or fallen down. Along the east property line is a cement block fence where a 5' landscape strip will be installed - so the east lot line will be unaffected. The vacant property to the west is owned by the same people who own 223 S. Howes who have indicated they plan to develop this for commercial. The code requires the fence screen when the parking lot is adjacent to a residentially zoned lot or a lot that is zoned for residential use. Both properties are currently zoned BG for general business but that zone does allow residential uses. So, since this property is zoned for a residential use the code requires that the fence be in place. Board questions: There were no questions from the Board to the staff. Petitioner, Andy Miscio, addressed the Board. Miscio stated he respects the integrity of this neighborhood and he owns several properties there. He added that his intent is to make the property as nice as is financially viable - not to diminish it in anyway. Miscio stated the landscape requirement causes a hardship in several areas. Miscio explained that the property is currently leased to the Sheriff's Office who has expressed their need to quickly get into and out of this property, especially during times of emergency. This is not a common occurrence but when it does happen the required 5' of landscaping would get crushed or their vehicles would be damaged. So the required landscaping does impede them from efficiently doing their job. The widest part of the drive is 14' and the approximate width of their vehicles is T which gives us only T to work with for them to efficiently go in and out of this driveway. If they take 5' of landscaping out, it leaves only 2' for getting in and out of the drive. Miscio stated that the second area of hardship is with the landscaping in the back of the parking lot. There is about 52' from the back of fence to the handicapped access area in the back of the house. The longest vehicle the Sheriffs Office is 22'. When they are parked next to another vehicle that is another 22' -- so they have to clear 44' before they can start to curve to get out of ZBA January 9, 1997 Page 3 this property. Right now they have 8' within which to maneuver their biggest vehicles to get out of this parking area. It is a very strong inconvenience for them and in an emergency situation it is very difficult. Miscio added that the third issue is with the property immediately to the west, which Miscio and Gile own, and their intent is to build about a 1500 sq. ft. commercial building here. This property will have a common driveway that has access from Howes and Canyon so both properties have easy access. The plan is to have a common parking area which would improve the efficiency of both properties. Board member Breth asked if there is a concrete curb between the west and east properties. Miscio confirmed that there is a slight curb which would come out and be contiguous with the adjoining property. Board member Gustafson asked how wide this lot is. Miscio stated he believes this lot is 50' wide. Board member Keating asked if the petitioners are requesting to eliminate the 5' landscape strip next to the building. Miscio confirmed that is correct. Barnes clarified that the only portion they are required to put in 5' of landscaping along the north lot line is right on the north side of the handicapped parking stall. The rest of that north lot line received a variance in July 1996 to eliminate the landscaping along the driveway - because of the width of the driveway. He stated that if the 5' of landscaping goes in, the handicap stall will still meet the requirements as a handicap stall. Miscio added that they are requesting to not put in the 5' of landscaping along the north side of the building because of the ingress and egress of the Sheriff s Office vehicles. Wilda Woodward, owner of property to the south at 227 S. Howes, addressed the Board. She stated that their driveway goes out to Canyon Avenue and her concern is that if the 5' landscaping strip is not required, where will the driveway be placed. Their driveway is to the south of their lot from their property line out to Canyon Avenue. Are the petitioners planning to use the Woodward's driveway as a public drive way? She stated that the Sheriff s Office staff uses her driveway to come and go. ZBA January 9, 1997 Page 4 Breth asked Barnes if the vacant lot next door is developed, that the landscaping and fencing would be required. Bames explained that how the lot is developed will determined this. If the lot is developed to have parking adjacent to the south lot line, then a 6 ` high fence and a 5' wide landscape strip would be required along the south lot line. Miscio stated that they have no interest in using the Woodward's driveway. He clarified that the driveway in question is on the Key Bank side - the north side of the property. Verdet Woodward, husband of Wilda, addressed the Board. He stated that Miscio and Gile have been good neighbors but the public has not been. He stated he has had problems with the public using and blocking his driveway. He added that he feels Miscio has the right solution to the driveway problems, but his concern is that the public will continue to use his driveway. He emphasized that as a taxpayer he feels he should not have to put up a "private property" sign to keep the public from using his driveway. Board Discussion: Gustafson asked Barnes if a commercial venture goes into the property to the west, would there be no landscape requirement between the two properties. Barnes explained that the current parking code requires the 5' wide landscape strip and the 6' fence unless the parking lot is a collective parking area. So, if the property to the west does develop a commercial building and puts in a collective parking lot, the fence nor the 5' landscape strip would be required along the west lot line. Board member Stockover asked if a certain square footage amount of landscaping is still required, even if the property is developed commercially. Barnes explained that once a parking lot area exceeds 1800 sq. ft. then 6 percent of the property is required to be in the form of landscape islands. He added that in the case of collective parking lots, the square footage of both lots is considered and landscape islands would be required to be installed in appropriate locations. Breth asked if ZBA could put a condition on this variance request that if the lot is developed residentially, the landscaping would be required. Barnes confirmed that the Board could put this condition on the variance request. ZBA January 9, 1997 Page 5 Woodward addressed the Board and stated that the back lot has no water line in it and may need to remain as a parking lot. He added that the City Engineering office put a stake in the middle of his driveway, but he doesn't know what it was for. Breth asked Barnes how the Board could provide guidance for the neighbors regarding the egress and the use of their curb cut by the property owners to the south and west. Barnes replied that the curb cut itself is in the public right of way. To change the location or configuration of a curb cut requires a curb cut permit through the Engineering department. The Engineering and Transportation departments deal with egress issues. When another building is built this issue will be reviewed to approve where they take access off of Canyon. Barnes asked City Attorney, Eckman, if the City can get involved in trespass issues. Eckman stated that the City should not get involved in two private neighbor property disputes, if that is what this turns out to be. He recommended that one, or both parties, get a survey to find out where property lines are and reach an agreement of where the property line should be located. Stockover reminded the Board that the back lot is not up for discussion. He suggested that the back fence be repaired, and this would keep anyone from driving in and out the property until such time the lot is developed. He also, suggested that landscaping adjacent to the handicapped parking space, on the north side of the lot, be required. Gustafson stated that commercial development of a 50 foot lot may be difficult and hard to have much handicap and shared parking area. He recommended that if this lot is developed as commercial with a shared parking lot, the landscaping on the north side not be required. However, if the lot is developed for some other use without a shared parking lot, that the variance become null and void. Keating asked for clarification on the two conditions recommended: 1) there has to be a shared parking lot and, 2) if the lot is developed as residential, then the landscaping would be required. Gustafson confirmed this and motioned the appeal be approved for the elimination of the 5 foot landscape buffer along the west side and along the north property line and removal of the 6 foot fence on the condition that as the property to the west develops as a commercial venture with shared parking. If it develops as something else, the landscape requirements and fencing will be reinstated. ZBA January 9, 1997 Page 6 Stockover stated he feels the fence should remain in place until the lot develops and the landscaping be required along the north property line. Gustafson explained that the curb cut is already along the driveway to Canyon and requiring the north landscaping would leave them with only about three useable parking spaces. Stockover replied that Barnes had previously stated the handicapped parking space would still be viable with the 5 feet of landscaping. Gustafson pointed out that the future proposed driveway is where the handicapped space is now which will have to be moved to another location. Keating asked for clarification on Gustafson's motion. Barnes interjected that if the new property develops as commercial with shared parking, the landscaping does not have to be installed. If it develops as residential, the landscaping will be required. Keating seconded the previous motion. Felner asked, regarding the condition for approval, if the hardship reason is the narrowness of the lot. Gustafson confirmed that the narrowness of the lot and access to the front of the property with parking in the rear are the extenuating factors. Breth requested an amendment be attached to this motion stating that when the parking is developed, they have to comply with the landscape guidelines as set forth. Stockover commented that if the landscaping and fencing are not required, the parking lot is allowed to become open access through the neighbor's driveway. He recommends the fence and landscaping be required until the lot is developed. Gustafson motioned to add another condition to this appeal of requiring the existing 6 foot fence to remain intact until the property to the west develops. Barnes clarified that the motion is to approve the variance to eliminate the landscaping and a new 6' fence on the condition that the property to the west be developed for commercial use, that there ZBA January 9, 1997 Page 7 be collective parking between the two properties, and that the existing fence along the west lot line remain until such time as the property develops. Keating seconded this motion. VOTE: YEAS: Gustafson, Felner, Lieser, Breth, Keating, Stockover NAYS: None OTHER BUSINESS: Barnes facilitated a review of the variance requirements proposed under City Plan. Copies of the proposed Land Use Code were handed out. Barnes stated his objectives were to go through the sections of the proposed Land Use Code that refer to the ZBA to review the language, especially the part that deals with hardship variances. Copies of the current Code were handed out so the current language and powers of ZBA may be referred to. The Codes have five sections, Articles I-V, and Articles I and II have reference to ZBA whereas the current code sheet handout is the only ZBA reference. Martin Breth, Jr., Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator