HomeMy WebLinkAbout610 S WHITCOMB ST - APPEAL - 2/13/1997JAN 2 9 1997 APPEAL FOR MODIFICATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE
P6 TOITHE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION NO. a11?
City of Fort Collins
Meeting Date:
���1ucc
(3
(44 g:30 /�-✓Lt- C& -
Cya,Y--&et4. 3c0
Petitioner must
be present
at the
meeting.
when a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has
been granted, the permit must be obtained within six months of the date of the
variance. Any extension of this six month time limit must be stipulated by the
Zoning Board of Appeals at the time the variance is granted.
Address of -Job:. b(c) S . 1A) '" u- Zoning District /%C k
Owner: l.y�n,�-f- t�� Petitioner:
Petitioner is: Owner_K Contractor Architect Other
Petitioner's address: q?la: a,-- Phone No. a0y -0306
Status of Job: Not Started Under Construction X Finished
Specific ordinance
/1modification �desired 16 / �
lim /d aw
000 -_� ti
v
• v �i� I H M t,i • " ..�.• '
Statement of hardship:
Date ( a q'�l Petitioner
S iAnat-kre
ZBA
February 13, 1997
page 8
There are definite design issues that the Engineering and Stormwater department look at when
they require paving in these alleys.
Shannon asked if the Board make a motion to approve, must we include that the paving of the
alley occur? Or would Engineering come in on their own?
Barnes stated he thought that Enginering can require that, due to the need for a Certificate of
Occupancy. However, the Board could condition it.
Shannon stated that there is a hardship that is quite obvious, and she thinks Engineering should
take care of their own problem.
Barnes stated to the Board to keep in mind the variance deals with the amount of open space,
that's a function of the lot area. The petitioner is asking for a lot area reduction by adding a
dwelling unit, he's adding to the density and traffic. The Board can require addtional parking if
that's something they feel might help the situation. In regards to open space, the presence of this
garage takes away from the open space of this property. If it's going to be used for storage, it
doesn't function for parking and this particuliar lot would be at a very minimum for parking
supply.
Mr.Ray stated that the other alley houses built at the same time had to pave the alley, they
weren't required to pave the parking area. He feels Engineering will require me to pave the alley
anyway. It was road base and recycled asphalt they put down in the parking area. We haven't
had any complaints from the tenants about parking.
Breth stated he's not concerned about paving the parking, but in supplying enough parking.
There's five bedrooms there, and could have six or seven people there. Even though the parking
complies with the code, he thinks the Code underestimated what is actually needed in certain
circumstances. He would really like to see more parking supplied, whether it's paved or not.
Stockover stated he would like to see parking stalls labeled, maybe cement parking blocks and
clearly defined parking. And when it's paved to bring it up to code so it drains properly.
Barnes replied that maybe putting concrete curbs in might help identify each space. Striping
recycled asphalt doesn't work, and he doesn't know how to clearly delinate them, unless infront
of every curb stop you put a sign stating "parking for unit.. only"
Keating stated that to him there is plenty of parking on these two units. The petitioner had the
hardship, but the parking is to code.
Barnes stated that there's not a problem with the supply of the number of parking spaces on these
buildings. 50 foot wide lots would accommidate five parking spaces from lot line to lot line. The
other one with the garage has the lack of parking.
ZBA
February 13, 1997
page 9
Vote:
Shannon motioned to approve Appeal 2190 and 2191, for the reasons stated in the petitioner's
hardship.
Keating seconded the motion.
Yeas: Gustafson, Keating, Lieser, Breth, Stockover, Shannon, Felner
Nays: none
The variance was approved 7-0.
ZBA
February 13, 1997
page 10
Appeal 2192, 610 S. Whitcomb St. by Chris Ray, Owner, NCB Zone, approved. Section 29-
167(1)
The variance would reduce the required lot area from 10,000 sq. ft. to 9,500 sq. ft. in order to
allow the basement of the existing single family alley house to be finished as a dwelling unit,
thereby converting the house to a duplex. Because there is an existing residential building on the
front of the lot, a total lot area of 10,000 sq. ft. is required.
--- Petitioner's statement of hardship: A building permit was issued for a new single family
alley house in the fall of 1995. It was designed to accommodate a basement unit at a
future date, and constructed with rough -in electrical and plumbing for a dwelling unit, as
well as also having two separate electric and gas meters. Before the applicant could
obtain a building permit for the total basement finish, the code requirement for the needed
lot area was changed. The change increased the amount of lot area required for alley
houses/duplexes. So the building is partially completed as a duplex but can't be finished
without a variance.
--- Staff comments: If the Board determines that a variance is warranted, then consideration
can be given to approval with certain conditions, such as paving the parking and
providing additional landscaping or fencing.
Board Discussion: (Discussion continued on this appeal after the Board voted to approve
appeals 2190 and 2191)
Board member Keating asked of Mr. Ray about the garage and if he was storing tenant or other
cars?
Mr. Ray replied that it was other cars.
Stockover stated he wanted to consider a motion to approve with the garage torn down, because
the issue is the amount of space covered, and he feels it's been maxed out with the garage there.
Gustafson stated that rather than tear down the garage, maybe condition it that the garage be used
for tenant parking of that property.
Mr. Ray responded that Historic Preservation may not want it torn down. But it's not a problem
to make it a stipulation to have it designed for tenant parking for him
Barnes stated that there is a Demo delay ordinance that the City has on any structure that's over
50 years, which means before it can be demolished it has to be reviewed and approved by either
the Planning Department or perhaps they can refer it to the Landmark Preservation Commission.
That's not to say that it couldn't be demolished through that process, they have approved
demolition of other garages. To design it so that is for tenant occupancy, if the Board doesn't
want to deal with having it demolished, maybe having a condition that the doors be removed.
ZBA
February 13, 1997
page 11
Eckman asked Mr. Ray if he had asked the LPC for permission to tear it down? And have they
made any comment to him?
Mr.Ray replied, No, but that's what he figured, and he really didn't want to tear it down.
Breth asked Mr. Ray how the doors open?
Mr. Ray replied that they swing open.
Barnes stated that it would be very difficult if the Board made a condition that it be designed for
occupancy by tenants, they'd have no way of knowing that. If the garage is removed or the doors
are removed, then it becomes more likely that it will be used by tenants. With the doors gone,
it's more unlikely that someone would store vehicles there.
Keating asked if you can put a car to the left of that red car, in the slide?
Mr. Ray answered Yes, there is room for a car, but someone would be parked behind you.
Keating stated that you could put two cars in there, plus one infront of the garage, for a total of
five.
Barnes stated that the code does not allow tandem parking, it requires that every parking space
has to have unobstructed access to the street. So while a car could be parked there, it doesn't
meet the City standards. He would prefer that the Board deal with side -by -side parking that has
unobstructed access to the street.
Stockover questioned the Historic significance of the garage. It would clean up the parking issue
quickly, if it was removed. He made a motion that it be approved with the garage removed and
clear and consise parking installed. And the Board would take a new hearing if there were
significant problems created from the Historic Society.
Breth asked if the Board can do this? If the Historic Preservation has a stand on this?
Barnes reaffirmed what Stockover said that the Board would require the garage to come down,
unless the Historic Preservation decision is that it can't be torn down, and then the Board would
rehear it?
Eckman stated that the Board can do that.
Felner stated his feeling is that the garage should remain and that the existing parking is
adequate.
Eckman stated that if was important for the Board not to focus so much on the parking, because
the parking code is complied with. If the Board is inclined toward the removal of the garage he
thought it would be more appropriate for the Board to focus on whether or not the code, which
now requires there be 5000 S.F. of lot space for every principal building, whether or not there is
ZBA
February 13, 1997
page 12
enough open space. That is the intent for the 5000 S.F. and for there to be a warehouse, which
apparently is what this garage is being used for, in addition to the dwelling units on the lot,
whether that eliminates the open space that the code was intended to preserve. He felt that it was
a more important focus of the Board than the lack of parking.
Gustafson stated that Mr. Eckman has mentioned open space. If you take a look at this property
even with basically three buildings on it and the amount of lawn area and if you were to go across
the street to one of the apartment buildings, they may have more open space but it's all parking
and it's all paved. Even though there may be the same amount of open space it's of a better
quality because it's landscaped. The property meets the code requirements for parking. He
certainly has a hardship based on the change in the code that came about during the middle of
construction.
VOTE:
Gustafson made a motion to approve the appeal for the hardship stated.
Keating seconded the motion.
Yeas: Gustafson, Keating, Lieser, Breth, Shannon, Felner
Nays: Stockover
The motion passed 6-1
The meeting was adjourned.
Martin Breth, Jr. Chairperson
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
LLC COLMAN
619 S. SHERWOOD
FORT COLLINS, CO 80521
T. OLSON
2836 ELM AVE.
BOULDER, CO 80303
RICHARD TARANOW
2831 GRANADA HILLS
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525
JEFF DONALDSON
540 CLEARWATER PL.
LAWRENCEVILLE, GA 30244
R. DEHN/M. SPRENGER
1326 COUNTRY CLUB RD
FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
ANDREW BARTHAM
617 S. SHERWOOD
FORT COLLINS, CO 80521
JOHN SNYDER
P.O. BOX 67
BELLVUE, CO 80512
JUDY UNDERWOOD
618 S. WHITCOMB
FORT COLLINS, CO 80521
FANNIE TOWNSEND
1519 REMINGTON
FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
YVONNE WITTREICH
1001 E. DOUGLAS RD.
FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
JOHN SPIERS
613 S. SHERWOOD
FORT COLLINS, CO 80521
D. GEORGE
3413 CARLTON AVE.
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525
D. HARTLEY
301 E. MALLEY, #204
NORTHGLENN, CO 80233
KRIS TOWNSEND
528 WHEDBEE ST
FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
February 13, 1997
8:30 am
11 Council Liaison: Ann Azari 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 11
Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr.
229-1629(w) 226-5101(h)
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 13, 1997 in
the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were
present: Gustfason, Keating, Lieser, Breth, Stockover, Shannon, Felner
Absent: none
Staff members present: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Carol Goff, Building & Zoning Admin. Support
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Breth.
The minutes from the January 1997 meeting were approved.
Appeal 2189, 1630 S. College Ave. by Mike Campbell, owner, HB Zone, approved
Sections 29-493(1) and 29-493(2)(E)
--- The variance would eliminate the required 5 foot wide parking lot landscape strip along
the north and south lot lines of the parking lot, and reduce the required amount of interior
parking lot landscaped islands from 6 % to 2.7%. The variances are necessary in order to
allow a retail use to be added to the use mix of the building. (Currently, there is no
landscaping at all on the perimeter or interior of the parking lot, and the petitioner is
proposing to add some perimeter and interior landscaping wherever feasible in order to
comply as much as possible.)
--- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The lot and building are existing. Total compliance
would eliminate 1/3 of the parking. The petitioner is proposing to add as much
landscaping as possible.
--- Staff comments: None.
ZBA
February 13, 1997
page 2
Zoning Administrator Barnes presented slides illustrating property under consideration. The
building in question is currently multi -tenant, proposal would allow owner to add another use to
tenant mix, a retail store. Because there hasn't been a retail store there for some time, it is
considered a change -of -use which requires a C.O. Before that can be issued the property needs
to come into compliance with the code in affect today. For this property this means bringing the
parking lot into compliance with design standards, curb cut locations and landscaping.
Engineering has determined the existing curb cuts are satisfactory with parking code compliance.
The Code requires 15 feet of landscaping along College Ave. Five feet along perimeter side and
rear lot lines, and 6% of the interior of the parking lot, in the form of landscape islands. The
proposed landscape is a retrofit situation. A 5 foot long landscape strip is required along south
lot line. Also a proposal to put a. landscape planter between College Ave. and first parking space.
Also a 5 foot landscape strip along rear lot line, except for access points. A proposal for planter
in back corner, which would achieve 5 foot landscaping along the rear. The only existing
landscaping is a large tree in the back lot, applicant is proposing to put a planter around it,
making it a landscape island. Another requirement is a 5 foot landscape strip along south
property line. No landscape plan has been submitted yet. The specific landscape details must be
approved by staff prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Board Questions:
Board member Breth asked if the width of the driveway on the North is less than the code
requires?
Barnes stated that was correct.
Board member Breth asked on the south, those parking spaces in the middle, facing north, is
there enough room to back out and have a 5 foot strip. Would that meet the code requirements?
Barnes stated there would be room to put a 2 foot landscape strip without making those non-
conforming as far as required back up.
Petitioner:
Mike Campbell addressed the board. He's been trying to lease the building due to the slow down
in commercial market. With the help of Peter Barnes, he drew in as much landscaping as he
could on the site plan without destroying the parking around the building. The lots are very
narrow. The driveway on the south gets used continuously, mostly by delivery trucks to back up
and unload. Any landscaping to go along south property line wouldn't work, as the driveway is
tight as it is now, and landscaping could make it a dangerous situation. He proposes to put 5 foot
x 30 foot perimeter landscaping on the very east end of parking stalls, and around the tree. There
ZBA
February 13, 1997
Page 3
are 32 parking spaces with 11 tenants. By doing the landscaping he would lose 5 spaces, but he
would like to spruce up parking lot, is willing to give up 5 spaces for landscaping.
Board Discussion:
Board member Shannon asked the petitioner if he had an idea about how much parking a retail
store would generate?
Mike Campbell responded he didn't have a feel for it, as he has never had a retail tenant in the
space.
Board member Shannon asked if he had a tenant lined up already?
Mike Campbell replied no, but it seemed like a good location, and he would like to be able to
market the space for retail.
Board member Shannon stated the applicant has put forth good faith effort and considering what
he has to work with, would be in favor of approving the variance.
Board member Gustfason stated that the couple of existing lots are very narrow, and the way the
building is placed puts constraints on the property. There definitely is a hardship to do any sort
of improvements to the property.
Vote:
Gustfason motioned to approve the appeal, for the hardship stated above.
Keating seconded the motion
Yeas: Gustfason, Keating, Lieser, Breth, Stockover, Shannon, Felner
Nays: none
The variance was approved 7-0
ZBA
February 13, 1997
page 4
Appeal 2190- 522 S. Whitcomb, and Appeal 2191- 526 S. Whitcomb Chris Ray, owner,
NCB zone. Approved.
Section 29-167(1)
The variance would reduce the required lot area from 10,000 sq. ft. to 9,000 sq. ft. in order to
allow the basement of the existing single family alley house to be finished as a dwelling unit,
thereby converting the house to a duplex. Because there is an existing residential building on the
front of the lot, a total lot area of 10,000 sq. ft. is required.
--- Petitioner's statement of hardship: A building permit was issued for a new single family
alley house in the fall of 1995. It was designed to accommodate a basement unit at a
future date, and constructed with rough -in electrical and plumbing for a dwelling unit, as
well as also having two separate electric and gas meters. Before the applicant could
obtain a building permit for the total basement finish, the code requirement for the needed
lot area was changed. The change increased the amount of lot area required for alley
houses/duplexes. So the building is partially completed as a duplex but can't be finished
without a variance.
--- Staff comments: If the Board determines that a variance is warranted, then consideration
can be given to approval with certain conditions, such as paving the parking and
providing additional landscaping or fencing.
Zoning Administrator Barnes presented slides illustrating the three properties under
consideration. Because all three properties are owned by the same person, and the nature of the
variances are the sames, Barnes said that he would present the staff presentation for all three at
the same time. Petioners statement of hardship is the same for all three. The permits applied for
were for alley houses. At the time of application it was clear they would be used as a duplex with
a basement unit. They had separate outside stairways to the entrance, two electric and gas meters.
In the fall of 1995 staff was putting together guidelines for the East Side/West Side
neighborhoods. In the code changes it included a provision that the lot area requirement in the
NCB Zone be increased from 4500 S.F. per dwelling to 5000 S.F. per dwelling. At the time the
alley houses were built all three of these lots had at least 9000 S.F., which under the code at that
time was enough to allow the applicant to finish the basement for a dwelling unit. Then the code
changed to increase to 5000 S.F., which meant 10,000 S.F. of lot area was required to have two
principal buildings on the lot. 522 and 526 S. Whitcomb have homes on the front, alley houses
in the rear of the lot. 610 S. Whitcomb is of the same design as 522 and 526 S. Whitcomb. In
particular in the 600 block of S. Whitcomb each lot has a duplex or alley house. There has been
some concern from other property owners that have built alley units in the back: They were
required to pave part of the alley through the Engineering departments requirements. They have
wondered why other units did not have that same requirement. Apparently it slipped through the
cracks when the Engineering department released these. The Engineering department is very
ZBA
February 13, 1997
page 5
adament that if the Board grants the variance, it is with the condition that any Engineering needs
in the neighborhood be complied with at this time, such as paving the alley from the property line
to the nearest street. If the Board does not put that condition on, they could probably require it
anyway because a Certificate of Occupancy would be required. When you need a Certificate of
Occupancy, it cannot be issued until the property is in compliance with the requirements of the
Zoning Code. The Zoning Code and the Parking Ordinance deals with access into properties. If
the Board finds that there are some unusual situations about the conditions here, and are
ameniable to think about conditions such as fencing, landscaping or paving, those are issues the
Board can discuss.
Board Questions:
Board member Shannon asked how many parking spaces are required per dwelling unit?
Barnes replied: The Code requires one per dwelling unit when you have a lot frontage of at least
40 feet. When you have a lot width of 40 feet or less you need two spaces per unit. The
Petitioner has provided more than that. Regarding the other two in the 500 block, I believe he's
provided four per building already, which exceeds the Code requirement.
Board member Shannon asked about the one with the garage, is there enough depth for tandum
parking?
Barnes replied he didn't believe so. According to the site plan there is 35 feet from the back of
the building to the alley. Legal tandum parking that complies with the Code requires 38 feet
Petitioner, Chris Ray addressed the Board. Chris stated that needless to say all these changes that
took place were confusing. He fully intented to build duplexes, but got caught in the middle.
What he tried to do was create a downtown character, not taking up the whole lot. Future units
will have two bedrooms in basement, that have already been roughed -in and framed for that.
Board member Breth asked what the purpose of existing garage is.
Mr. Ray replied that it is used for storing cars. He also stated that people do park in front of the
garage, which is probably not a legal distance of only about 15 feet. Most of the people are those
going to school who take up those spaces.
Breth asked if the existing unit above is a one bedroom or two.
Mr.Ray stated it was a three bedroom unit.
Breth confirmed that would make five bedrooms in that one building.and could have five cars
involved.
Mr. Ray stated that was correct.
ZBA
February 13, 1997
page 6
Board Discussion:
Board member Lieser had a question for Barnes, if in the original permit the basement was
already allowed and accounted for.
Barnes replied that the original permit was for single family with the basement not totally
finished, it was clear to us that it was designed to be occupied as a dwelling unit at some point.
Lieser asked if it was possible that the applicant did get caught in the middle of several changes
in that neighborhood.
Barnes explained that there were moritoriums and last minute changes when we were going
through it.
Lieser had a question about paving the alley, if the Board were to make that a contingency for
approval, would the other people who had not had to pave be contacted and then brought up to
code? She had a vision of an alley with paving and then doesn't and then does, in that case it
doesn't make any sense to even have it.
Barnes stated that the Engineering department would require the alley be paved from Myrtle to
the south property line of this lot, it might join up with where the paving ended from the other
one, or there may be a gap. That is something the Engineering department deals with, they have
Pay -Back agreeements.
Board member Keating asked if he has to pave from the south end of that property all the way to
Myrtle, will this owner be Paid -Back for the portion he paved for the other people's property.
City Attorney Eckman replied: The way the code is written, One developer is required to extend
the street to the nearest paved street so that there is reasonable access. If another developer
comes along later and takes the benefit of that street that was built by the first one, then the
original developer gets paid back, portionally if and when the other developer develops.
Eckman stated that if they don't ever develop, Mr. Ray doesn't get paid back. It's possible some
of those properties would benefit from a new alley without having to pay for it.
Board member Gustafson had a question on the Construction of alley houses, were first and
secod floors completed before the Code and lot size change took affect?
Barnes replied that the building permit was issued six months before code change, they were
under construction during the code change.
Shannon asked if any landscaping is required.
ZBA
February 13, 1997
page 7
Barnes replied that the Code doesn't require landscaping for parking lots that are this small. We
don't require foundations plantings on duplexes or single families either.
Shannon asked Mr. Ray if any landscaping was planned.
Mr Ray replied that they put rock all the way around and grass in the back, but it's only from the
front sides to the back. Everything in the front has road base and gravel for parking. 522 and
526 S. Whitcomb has an already paved alley.
Breth stated his concern was with the parking, that is always the last thing that is addressed.
Provide enough parking for tenants and guests. His concern would be to address some off -alley
parking areas as well as pave the alley on the south lot line to Myrtle. A hardship exists due to
the fact that it was under construction during the Code changes, and a narrow lot hardship.
Board member Felner stated his feeling as far as the parking situation, that it should be addressed
by the Engineering department, as well as the paving of the alley, and not specifically by this
Board. The narrowness of the lot and the circumstances where the City was still going through
changes, and a permit was already issued that the Board should approve the variance as it stands.
Barnes wanted to clarify one point: Engineering doesn't have juristiction on what happens on
private property in regards to parking. That's a function of the Zoning Code. The Parking
Ordinance states that lots have to be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or other materials approved
by the City. His recommendation if the Board wants hard surface parking, that is something for
this Board to deal with, rather than Engineering.
Gustafson stated the petitioner certainly has a hardship based on the code changes. Obviously the
intent from the beginning was to have these as a duplex. He got caught in some unfortunate
circumstances beyond his control. As far as the parking, the petitioner meets all the requirements
of the Zoning Code. As far as the paving of the alley, that's an issue the Engineering department
needs to take up, as they made a mistake. Mr. Ray definitely has a hardship based on the changes
in the Code while it was under construction.
Board member Stockover asked if they pave the alley, how is that going to affect the current hard
surface of the existing parking? If you pave the alley and raise it up three inches, you have a
giant mud hole where the parking is.
Barnes stated that those are all things that the Engineering department deals with. When they
require paving of an alley, they also require a utility plan which deals with drainage.
Stockover asked if the Board approves it with the alley being paved then will they look at
bringing the current parking up to code?
Barnes stated that they will deal with drainage issue, they won't necessarily require that the
parking be paved, by dealing with the alley and making sure it doesn't flood other properties.