Loading...
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.