Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECTOR SHOPS (111 W. PROSPECT) - PDP/FDP - 32-97 - DECISION - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGcurb and gutter, etc.. Since those improvements already exist, then there is no need for the development agreement. (If the Board grants #4 above, then this section will not be a code requirement). 6. 3.5.3(D)(2)(a)(3) - This section requires that "All sides of the building shall include materials and design characteristics consistent with those on the front. Use of inferior or lesser quality materials for side or rear facades shall be prohibited". The variance request would allow the west (rear) and south sides of the building to not include all of the design characteristics that are proposed on the east (front) and north sides. Specifically, the height variation and building articulation elements that are prominent on the east and north walls would not be "wrapped around" to the west and south walls. However, the building materials will be the same, and the brick column details will also be included on the east wall. Staff recommendation: Approval with condition. The south wall of the building is only 10' from the adjacent building. Since this side of the building has minimal exposure, no benefit is obtained by compliance. However, staff would recommend a condition that in the event that the property to the south should redevelop in a manner that makes the south wall of this building more prominent to pedestrians or vehicles, then the south side of the building should be re- evaluated, and remodeled as necessary in order to comply with the standard. Immediately west of the building is the railroad tracks. Therefore, the rear of the building (west side) is not as primary an elevation as might often be the case. The proposed "wrap around" at the northwest corner, the use of the same materials that are found on the front, the brick columns, and the masonry trash enclosures help to satisfy most of the design concerns. 2. 3.2.1(E)(5) and 3.2.2(M)(1) - Request to reduce the amount of required interior parking lot landscaping from 6% to 3.5%. Staff recommendation: Approval. As stated in number 1 above, parking is already minimal. The applicant is proposing to add landscaping where possible without impacting parking. Therefore the site will be improved considerably. If all of the landscape requirements were met, 6 parking spaces would be lost. The loss of 2 more parking spaces will occur by the addition of 2 requried handicap parking spaces and the creation of a landscape area defining the parking lot entrance from Prospect. Therefore, a total of 8 spaces would be lost if all the landscaping is required. This would be a 25% reduction. 3. 3.2.2(G)(2)(b) - request to allow more than 15 parking spaces in a row without an intervening landscape island. Specifically, request to allow the existing 17 parking spaces in the east parking row without having an island to break up the row. Staff recommendation: Approval, the east row of parking is directly adjacent to an existing landscape area containing large mature trees. The applicant will be adding a landscape island at the south end of this row of parking in what is currently a painted no -parking area. The added island at this location will serve as an intervening landscape area since the parking row continues south of the applicant's property. With the addition of this island, and the adjacency of the existing trees, the intent of this regulation is met. 4. 3.3.1(A)(3)(b) - request to waive the requirement that this property be platted in order to allow the construction of the new building. Staff recommendation: Approval. Platting is a tool that allows the City and other agencies to require the dedication of additional right-of-way and easements, and of ensuring the construction of necessary public improvements such as sidewalks and curb and gutter. In this particular situation, the departments and agencies involved have determined that there is no need to plat the property since the redevelopment that is occuring is only the construction of a new building shell upon an existing foundation, with no other regrading involved, and no need for additional dedications since the required public improvements and utilities are already in place. Requiring platting would result in additional expenses and time for the applicant, with no resulting public benefit. 5. 3.3.2(B) - request to waive the requirement to prepare and obtain approval of a Development Agreement. Staff recommendation: Approval. This section requires that the applicant shall enter into an agreement that provides for the installation of all improvements. The improvements would be those that relate to the construction of sidewalks, Commum Planning and Environmental Si ices Building Permits and inspection Division City of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8, 1997 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals members FROM: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator j)i3 RE: Appeal #2209 The following is a listing of the specific code sections and variances that are being requested by the applicants for Appeal #2209, 111 W. Prospect Road. A staff recommendation for each section is also included. 1. 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) - Request to waive the requirement to provide "full tree stocking" along the east side of the building. "Full tree stocking" is required within 50' of the building. This means one tree every 40 lineal feet along high use, visibility sides of the building (east and north sides). This requirement will be met along the north side of the building only. Staff recommendation: Approval with condition. The number of parking spaces existing on site is minimal. Since there is no wide, non -parking area in front of the building in which the trees can be planted, they would have to be located in the parking lot. The resulting loss of parking would be detrimental. The Board has granted some relief in the past to the interior landscape requirements for other applications where the property is already developed. In this case, the parking lot is existing, as well as the building foundation. The established landscape strip on the adjacent property along the east lot line contains mature trees and landscaping that helps to satisfy the intent of the code. Staff is recommending that a condition be placed on this requiring that in the event the property to the east redevelops, and the adjacent landscape strip is removed, then the site needs to be re-evaluated for compliance with this standard, and if necessary, trees be added to the site as required. 281 North College Avenue 9 P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6760 ZBA December 11, 1997 Page 6 Gustafson motioned to approve Appeal 42209 for the hardships stated and no conditions. Sibbald seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Gustafson, Sibbald, Lieser, Shannon, Keating, Stockover ZBA December 11, 1997 Page 5 Board member Keating asked for clarification regarding the condition recommended' for variance request #1. He commented he sees the landscape island as a separate property which could be redeveloped without the trees. He stated this is why staff is recommending the condition of future compliance on this, so the landscaping and trees will be replaced if need be. Li ley responded that their concern is regarding the loss of parking spaces. Barnes stated it is possible that if that site is redeveloped, there is the possibility of the trees not being replaced - depending upon how the site would be redeveloped. He clarified that if that were to happen, the condition on the variance request would ensure this issue is reevaluated to see if tree stocking could be provided. Sibbald asked if there is currently on the plat or statement of ownership, any dedicated parking easement or access easement on either properties. Barnes replied there is no plat. Liley stated they are not aware of any. BOARD DISCUSSION: Gustafson stated the hardship on this property is not owner imposed and agreed that to impose future conditions on this property is unreasonable regarding variance request # 1. Regarding variance request #6 for the south side of the building no one would see this side of the building now or in the future. He stated he does not support the conditions placed upon granting the variances and commented that he feels the Code requirements would provide for plenty of landscape buffering. Keating agreed that conditions placed upon the variance request is not what he would want so, he was' looking for another way to word a condition. Stockover commented both corners on the property are being landscaped. Paul Eckman, City Attorney, pointed out that if the property to the east is developed at a later time, there would be the same tree requirements as are being asked for in this variance request. Barnes added that landscaped parking lot entrances are being provided with a deciduous tree. Sibbald commented that the hardship is somewhat perpetrated by the City's omission in transition from the old Code to the new Code regarding the potential redevelopment of this property. He agreed the condition on the variance request would be a burden. Board member Lieser agreed and stated the owners have no control over what might happen to the other property. 1 ZBA December 11, 1997 Page 4 Barnes explained that it is not unusual for the Board to grant these landscape variances when property has changed use. When a property changes use a Certificate of Occupancy is required and that requires that the whole site be brought up to compliance with the Code. He stated the Board has heard many variance requests over the years, and generally granted them, when dealing with a retrofit situation: the parking lot is already in place, the building is there, and strict compliance with the Code would result in loss of needed parking spaces. In this situation the property is already developed, and not proposed to be re -developed, and the building foundation will be reused. The fact that they are not redeveloping it in regards to the site means they are not required to provide erosion control, storm drainage reports, or utility plans. None of the requirements usually associated with new development are being required in this situation. Appellant, Lucia Liley representing Diane and Jerry Blake, owners of Prospect Plaza, addressed the Board. She stated a few days after the flood an explosion happened and reiterated that the owners only want to rebuild and continue the same types of usage they've had on this site. The owners have no intent to enlarge the building nor change the usage. Liley explained that the new Land Use Code does not address a situation regarding conforming uses and what can or cannot be done when something like the flood or an explosion damages property. She commented it is ironic that there are provisions, as in the old Code, for allowing an owner to rebuild if they have a limited permitted use or non -conforming use - without going through a development review process, replating, or complying with all the new Code requirements. She stated it is a glitch in the new Land Use Code that it does not address conforming uses, which the owners of this property have always been in conformance with the zone district. She explained that the owners have worked closely with Planning and Zoning staff the past few months and are in agreement with staff recommendations to seek only the six variance requests - initially they had a list of 19 requests. Liley stated the only area the owners have minor disagreement with is the staff recommendation that conditions for future compliance be placed on granting variance request #1 and #6. Liley explained they don't feel the conditions are reasonable or necessary. Liley sunmitted additional letters and a petition in support of the variance. Barnes read a letter from a former tenant of this property, Beverly Campbell, and read a petition from 16 tenants and owners in the area supporting the granting of these variance requests. BOARD QUESTIONS: Board member Sibbald asked if there is a possibility of the owner selling the property before rehabilitation takes place. Jerry Blake, property owner, addressed the Board and stated there is always that possibility though he has no particular buyer in mind and has a couple of inquiries regarding selling the property. He stated his intent is to proceed with construction and maintain ownership and control of the building, however, if he were to have issues with finance in the future, he would probably need to sell the property. He clarified that he already has different things in motion with the SBA and insurance protest which, if they come through as expected, he will be able to carry through with this project. Liley presented photos of the site to the Board for review. ZBA December 11, 1997 Page 3 Barnes explained that the first variance request is to waive the requirement to provide full tree stocking, which is a new requirement in the Code that requires every 40 feet, maximum spacing, they plant a deciduous tree within 50 feet of the building. The existing landscape island is about 70 feet from the base of the building. There is no large planting area in front of the building to accommodate the trees so the trees would be required to be located in the parking lot resulting in loss of parking spaces. Another variance request is to reduce the amount of interior landscape islands, or landscaped areas within the interior of the parking lot, from six percent to three and one-half percent. If they were to comply with the six percent requirement, six parking spaces would be eliminated. They defined the parking lot entrances which will be made into landscaped areas, and part of those areas do count towards the six percent interior. Barnes pointed out that the parking row continues onto the neighbor's property - there is a shared driveway and collective parking area. Another variance request is for the angled row of parking. The Code requires that not more than 15 spaces in a row be without an intervening landscaped area. The landscaping areas at the parking lot entrances to the south helps break up that parking space row, and goes towards meeting the intent of the Code. Barnes summarized the first three variance requests as the full tree stocking, reduction of the interior landscape areas, and the intervening landscape island breaking up a row of 15 parking spaces. Barnes continued and stated the fourth variance request is to waive the requirement that the property be platted in order allow the construction of the new building. He explained that platting is a tool that allows the City and other agencies to require dedication of additional right-of-way, easements, and those type of things that are necessary to accommodate development. Staff believes, in this instance, that since there is no right-of-way dedication and no public utility dedication required, that platting the property serves no public benefit. It puts the applicant through another timely review and additional costs. Barnes stated the fifth request is to waive the requirement to obtain approval of a development agreement. Barnes commented that if the Board waives the platting requirement, this section would automatically be waived because it would not be a code requirement. He stated there is one building design variance request to reuse the existing foundation and reconstruct the shell of the building. There is a basement under a portion of the building, not the entire building. The Code requires that all sides of the building shall include material and design characteristics consistent with those on the front - use of inferior or lesser quality materials for side or rear facade shall be prohibited. Strict application of this Code would require that they wrap all around the building the elements they are using on the front: defining their entrances, getting building articulation, defining bays, getting some height and mass variation, etc. The variance request is to not wrap this around the south wall of the building and along the west side of building which is adjacent to the railroad tracks. Barnes stated he believes they are very close to complying with the standard and what has been submitted is acceptable to staff in meeting the intent of the Code. They are using the same materials, carrying over the brick columns around the down spouts, providing some horizontal banding, and they have the dormer feature on the back of the parapet, which is on the front. Barnes clarified that it is unusual for staff to make a recommendation to the Board, however, given the situation with flood related hardships and other constraints on the property, staff felt it was appropriate to analyze the variance requests being made and whether or not the intent of the Code is being met. He stated staff do feel that, for the most part, they've done a very good job of reacting to staff comments and submitting a good plan. It ZBA' December 11, 1997 y� Page 2 --- Staff comments: It is very unusual for staff to provide a recommendation to the Board regarding a specific variance request. However, this is an unusual request, with unique hardships that the Board may often disallow. Staff believes that a recommendation is warranted in this instance, and that some consideration to the unusual hardships is appropriate. A comprehensive list of the specific sections that are being requested to be varied and a staff recommendation for each section will be provided to the Board before the meeting. Two letters were read to the Board in favor of the variance request. One letter from Stephen J. Schrader, Schrader Oil Company and the other letter from Melvin Johnson, President of Johnson Investments, Inc. Administrator Barnes stated to the Board that this appeal request is what is called the first step in a two step development review process for this type of development." He explained that the proposal for the redevelopment of the site and the uses that are being proposed to occupy the building are required to be approved through an administrative review or Type 1 review under the new Land Use Code. The appellants can proceed with modifications to the Code which is an "equal to or better than" scenario that goes to the Planning and Zoning Board, or they can come to the Zoning Board of Appeals to seek hardship variances and then proceed to the Type 1 hearing with a site plan that reflects those variances. This two step process is very similar to the process that was in place under the old zoning code, not for PUDs, but for other types of site plan reviews, for instance the IL Site Plan review. Proposals for projects in the limited industrial zone, or industrial park zone for instance, were required to go through an administrative hearing - very similar to the Type 1 hearing that is in place under the new Code. The Code allowed them to either go to that hearing with a site plan and other documentation that complied with the requirements of the Code or go to the ZBA first, obtain hardship variance, and then go through the administrative hearing. Barnes stated the Type 1 hearing is scheduled for next week. Mike Ludwig from the Current Planning Department is present today, if the Board has questions for him. He is the Project Planner assigned to handle the Type 1 hearing. Barnes presented slides illustrating the property in question. He referenced the memo dated December 8, 1997, which outlined the six code sections which are being requested to be varied, revised site and landscape plans, and elevation drawings. The proposal is to reconstruct the building at I I I W. Prospect which included numerous tenants such as Johnny's Liquors, a Laundromat, Vinne's Pizza, etc. This building was damaged by the flood in July and, also, by an explosion that occurred at that time. Not much has been done on the site since then, except a fence was put around it and there was some clean up. The building ends at the Laundromat tenant space and there is a breeze way opening connecting one building to another. Each building is on a separate lot with different ownerships. The Prospect Shops is not a part of the rest of this particular development. The landscape strip is on property owned by Mel Johnson and was installed when Mel Johnson developed the other portion of this development. The landscape strip was a requirement for development at that time. Mr. Johnson has indicated this landscape strip will not be removed - it's removal would be a violation of the Code. �. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING December 11, 1997 8:30am Council Liaison: Ann Azari Staff Liaison. Peter Barnes Chairperson: Diane Shannon 223-6973 (h) The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, December 11, 1997 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following, members were present: Gustafson, Lieser, Shannon, Sibbald, Keating, Stockover Absent: Breth Staff members present: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, City Attorney Elain Radford, Building & Zoning Admin. Support The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Shannon. The minutes from the November 1997 meeting were approved pending two corrections: 1) correct spelling of the name Shannon throughout the minutes, and 2) page 11, paragraph 6 add to the last sentence ", if the sign is not readable." Gustafson motioned to approve the November minutes. Shannon requested two corrections. Keating seconded the motion pending corrections. Appeal 2209, 111 W. Prospect Street by Petitioner: Lucia Liley, for the owners Jerry and Diane Blake, Zone: C, approved - without conditions. Section: See sections enumerated in December 8, 1997 staff memo. --- The variance would allow the building at 111 W. Prospect to be rebuilt to it's original condition without the building and site having to comply with some of the design standards and regulations of the Code. The existing foundation will be reused and the building shell will be reconstructed to its original size. The parking will remain unchanged. This building was damaged by the flood and an explosion. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioner's letter.