Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 03/21/2002w Chairperson: Steve Remington I Phone: (II) 223-7138 1 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday March 21, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Breth Robert Donahue David Lingle Andy Miscio Steve Remington Diane Shannon William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Remington, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Shannon made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 14, 2002, meeting. Breth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2366 -- Approved with conditions. Address: 172 North College Avenue Petitioner: Joe Rowan Zone: D Section: 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) Boardmember Lingle noted a conflict of interest regarding Appeal Number 2366 and recused himself from the Board. Background: The appeal would amend the variance that was approved on November 10, 1999. The variance reduced the required number of off-street parking spaces from 71 to 47 in order to make it possible for the Northern Hotel to have been converted to a 47 unit, senior housing apartment building. Now that the conversion has been completed, the owner is requesting a variance to reduce the number of parking spaces from 47 to 25. The spaces will be located in the City - owned Old Town Parking Garage (on Remington Street), which is the same location approved by the 1999 variance. Petitioner's Statement of Hardshi Please see attached Petitioner's letter A. Staff Comments: If the Board decided to grant this variance, it might be advisable to do so with the same or similar conditions that were placed on the original approval. Those conditions were: (1) the primary occupants would be 55 years of age or older, (2) the occupant income requirement remain at 40% of less of the area medium income level, and (3) that the parking permits be kept current annually. A letter from Cary R. Album, III was read. The letter noted Mr. Album's opposition to the appeal. Barnes reviewed board packet information with the Board. Boardmember packets included a letter from the Downtown Business Association which stated the Association's support of the appeal. Also included in board packets were copies of the minutes from the November 10, 1999, meeting. At the November 10, 1999, meeting the Board approved a variance request to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 71 to 47 spaces. Barnes stated the petitioner is requesting an amendment to that variance which would reduce the parking spaces from 47 to 25. Bames addressed the letter from Mr. Album and stated he has followed -up with Mr. Album. Barnes stated that due to the federal funding, legal issues, and the impossiblity of 24-hour parking in the Civic Center parking structure, the City is not allowed to purchase parking permits for the Civic Center parking garage. ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 3 Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. Nuckols referred the boardmembers to the map that was included in their packets. Miscio asked staff what the maximum time allotment was for an individual to park in the Civic Center parking garage. Barnes replied that he did not know. Applicant Participation: Joe Rowan, representative for Funding Partners, addressed the Board. Rowan stated that Funding Partners is in partnership with the National Development Council, and act as co -owners of the Northern Hotel. Rowan passed out an update on the current tenant role for the Northern Hotel. Rowan gave backgroud information regarding the funding for the Northern Hotel. Rowan stated the project was completed using predominantly a federal tax credit program that was geared towards low income housing developments. Rowan noted that by using the federal tax credit program, a stringent financing mechanism was created requiring certain demographics of future tenants. The Northern Hotel was approved as a senior affordable housing project, and has strict limitations on the age of the tenants (55 years of age or older) and income limitation requirements (40% of area median income cannot exceed $16,280.00 per year and 50% of area median income cannot exceed $20,350.00 per year). Rowan explained that the strict limitations do not allow tenants of the Northern Hotel to have discretionary income. Rowan stated that less than half of the Northern tenants have the luxury of maintaining a vehicle. Rowan noted that 20 of the 47 units at the Northern Hotel are or will be held by Section 8 voucher recipients (low income, less than $12,000.00 per year). Rowan stated the Northern Hotel does not have the tenants that a typical apartment facility would have. Rowan told the Board that the Northern Hotel currently has 24 tenants and 10 tenants who have applied for a parking permit from the City. Rowan noted the letter from the Downtown Development Association stating their support of the appeal. Rowan commented on the fact that if the Northern is reserving more parking spaces than are needed, it is limiting the ability for merchants and their customers as well as downtown business employess to park in the parking garage. Rowan requested that if the appeal were to be approved, it would be approved under the condition that the approval would be reviewed annually to evaluate the usage of the parking permits and spaces. Shannon asked Rowan if additional spaces would be available if needed. Rowan replied the Northern would not provide additional pre -arranged permits, although the tenant would have the ability to purchase a parking permit from the City or the Downtown Business Association. Shannon asked if there is access for emergency or service vehicles. Rowan stated delivery vehicles have a tendency to park in the middle of the street to perform their duties, although a dedicated loading zone and handicap stall do exist along Walnut Street. Miscio asked how many units the Northern Hotel contains for full occupancy. Rowan replied the Northern contains a total of 47 units. Miscio stated that according to the current tenant role, about 40% of the Northern Hotel tenants were asking for parking permits. Miscio suggested that if the Northern were at full occupancy and the 40% ratio was maintained, a total of 18-19 total permits would be needed for parking. Rowan stated that was correct based on the current tenant ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 4 role. Miscio asked Rowan if a bus or in-house transportation would be considered to mitigate the parking situation. Rowan stated that City services were available for tenant transportation needs. Breth asked if anybody could apply for a 24-hour parking permit. Barnes offered some _ clarifiation and stated the City does not sell 24-hour parking permits. When the first variance request was approved in November of 1999, the City and the Northern Hotel made a special agreement to allow the sale of 24-hour parking permits to the Northern Hotel only. Barnes noted the agreement allocated 47 parking permits. In support of Appeal: Jonathan Harshaw expressed his support of the appeal and agreed with Mr. Rowan's request. Board Discussion: Breth was in favor of the appeal due to unique circumstances. Breth wanted the Board to review the parking data every year to ensure the Northern Hotel was providing adequate parking to the tenants. Stockover asked staff what would prevent a Northern Hotel tenant from parking on the street. Barnes replied that the street is public parking and the tenant's vehicle would be subject to time limits and other parking restrictions. Barnes suggested that if the Board were inclined to approve the variance, the Board could put a condition on the approval. The condition would include that the Northern Hotel provide staff with an annual update similar to the current tenant role that was given to the boardmembers indicating the number of tenants and the number of cars. Barnes stated that at the time of the annual review, if the tenants of the Northern Hotel had more than twenty-five vehicles, the Applicant would be required to return to the Board to amend the variance. Remington asked staff if the approval of the variance would modify the existing agreement between the Northern Hotel and the City Parking Services Department. Barnes replied that the agreement would not be modified. Breth asked Rowan how the Northern Hotel accomodates overnight visitor parking. Rowan replied that overnight visitors would be subject to parking regulations enforced by the City. There was a discussion held regarding overnight guest parking. Rowan noted that the units in the Northern Hotel are modest in size (360 square feet/720 square feet) and really could not accomodate several visitors. Rowan stated if a tenant were to have an overnight visitor, it would be limited to the tenants with a two -bedroom unit, of which there are only six in the facility. Miscio asked Rowan if the Northern Hotel had restrictions on how many tenants could have a vehicle. Rowan replied no. Miscio questioned the Applicant that if such a restriction existed, would it impair his ability to have the spaces occupied. Rowan replied yes, and stated it would ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 5 limit the Northern Hotel's market potential. Rowan noted he would not be interested in undertaking such a policy. Miscio stated the only problem he had with approving the variance would be if the Northern ended up with more than 25 people wanting parking permits. How it would impact the downtown area? Rowan reiterated that the Northern Hotel has the ability to issue 47 permits, and the request was for how many parking permits would need to purchased at the beginning of the year. Rowan noted that if 25 or more people wanted parking permits, they would be purchased on an as -needed basis. Remington asked the Board how the request should be approached. Shannon replied the request should be considered under the hardship standard. Barnes informed the Board that the variance would qualify under the hardship standard. Bames told the Board that the hardship would be the following: (1) exceptional and unique situation of the property (2) the building covers the entire lot, leaving no room to build a private parking facility on site and (3) the type of population the Northern Hotel accomodates (low income, senior housing). Shannon made a motion to approve appeal number 2366 based on the hardship created by the unique situation of both the population and location of the Northern Hotel. Shannon placed the condition on the motion that the federal guidelines are to be met, 55 years of age or older and that the income limitation requirement remain. Shannon also stated that parking permits should be kept current and City staff should be advised of the parking status. Eckman wanted Shannon to include in her motion that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. Eckman thought Shannon should also condition the variance to state that the variance would terminate at such time as the car count on the annual review shows more than 25 vehicles. Shannon agreed to add Mr. Eckman's suggestions to her motion. Stockover wanted Shannon to include that City staff receive a report from the Parking Services Department each year. Miscio agreed with Stockover. Eckman suggested to the boardmembers that to ensure the accuracy of the report, that it be a sworn affidavit. Shannon amended her motion to include Stockover's and Eckman's comments. Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Donahue, Remington, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2368 -- Denied. Address: 824 Whedbee Street Petitioner: Dennis Sovick Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background: ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 6 The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 1.5 feet in order to allow a 480 square foot addition to the west side of the existing detached garage. The existing garage is already located at a setback of 1.5 feet from the lot line. The proposed addition will line-up with the existing north wall. This appeal was considered at the February 14, 2002, meeting but was tabled to the March 21, 2002, meeting in order to allow the applicant to prepare and submit additional information that was requested by the Board. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The existing garage building is small and is already nonconforming. The new wall will line-up with what already exists. The existing home on the lot is located to the rear of the 190-foot deep lot, and is already much closer to the rear garage than all other homes in the neighborhood. It is the only lot on which the home is located at the rear. Moving the garage over an additional 3.5 feet will further "block" the rear of the home. Staff Comments: The Applicant has submitted site plans and elevation drawings depicting the property without the need for a variance, and also depicting it with the requested variance. The Board must determine if a hardship exists, or if the plan submitted promotes the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard, for which no variance would be needed. Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. The new garage addition will be between the existing garage and the house approximately 4.3 feet from the rear wall of the home. Applicant Participation: Dennis Sovick, designer and builder of the project, addressed the Board. Sovick presented slides to the Board for the project with and without the variance. Sovick explained the essence of the variance was to obtain a clean roofline and to simplify the building. Sovick noted he does not have any intention of tearing down the garage. Sovick stated that if the variance were not approved, he would still construct a side -loaded garage, although it would be more constricted. Breth questioned the Applicant if a parallel back-up space could be provided next to the existing residence. Sovick responded that the intention was to have a back-up space along the sideyard. Barnes noted that the code would require a 20-foot back-up space. Barnes stated the proposal as submitted would result in a 25-foot back-up space, but without the variance the back-up space would be at 21 feet. Sovick stated he has conferred with his client, and his client is insistent on a side -loaded garage. Board Discussion: Breth was in favor of granting the variance. Breth stated that by not approving the variance, the appearance of the garage would not be improved, and it would add to the cost of the project by ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 7 having to build a saddle between the two roofs. Breth was also concerned that if the variance were denied, the back-up space would be constricted, and wanted the Applicant to include a parallel back up space along side of the house. Shannon stated that aesthetically the approval of the variance would be an improvement, although she was concerned with the maintenance. Lingle stated he disagreed that approval of the variance was aesthetically a better solution. Lingle felt a three -car garage with a single roofline was not in character with the neighborhood. Lingle noted a 1.5-foot setback behind a fence line was not desirable and something he did not want to encourage. Lingle stated he was in favor of denying the appeal. Miscio stated he would place rock behind the fence to keep maintenance at a minimum. Miscio felt the maintenance issue could be corrected and the proposed three -car garage with a single roofline was consistent with existing structures in the neighborhood. Miscio agreed with Breth, and was in favor of granting the variance request. Donahue asked staff if there was any information on the floor -to -lot area ratio with the new residence and garage addition. There was a discussion held regarding the floor -to -lot area ratio. The total square footage, including the existing garage, proposed garage addition, and new residence is 2854 square feet. Breth made comments regarding the aesthetics. Breth felt the proposed garage with the variance would resemble a carriage house maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Sovick addressed the maintenance concern, and stated the intention is to have lay concrete block and gravel to minimize the maintenance. Sovick noted the turn around driveway is intended to be submitted as proposed, regardless of approval or not. Stockover felt the Applicant was trying to accomplish too much on a small lot and stated he was opposed to it when the appeal was presented at the February meeting. Stockover stated he did not see the maintenance to be an issue. Stockover agreed with Breth regarding the single roofline maintaining the character of the neighborhood, and stated since no adjacent property owners were opposed to the appeal, that he was in support of the variance request. Breth made a motion to approve appeal number 2368 based on the hardship of the narrowness of the lot, that the proposed garage addition with the variance is aesthetically better than without the variance, and the appeal is not detrimental to the public good. Breth asked staff if a dual approach was acceptable. Eckman explained how to use the hardship standard and the equal to or better than standard to the Board. Barnes cautioned the Board regarding the narrowness of the lot. Barnes stated in the NCM zoning district the minimum lot width requirement is 40 feet, and this particular lot width is 50 feet, so this lot would not qualify for a narrow lot. Breth struck his motion. ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 8 Remington noted the Applicant was able to comply with code requirements. Breth stated the lot was narrow for a side -loading garage. Barnes commented that the lot was not narrow for a side - loading garage because the proposal was in excess of the feet required by code. Stockover asked if approval could be based on appearance. Eckman explained the requirements for using the equal to or better than standard to the Board. Miscio felt the proposal promoted safety and better accessibility to the garage. There was a discussion held regarding the purpose of setbacks. Barnes noted setbacks ensure adequate light and ventilation to circulate between properties, provide adequate means for access and maintenance, and meet the requirements for fire and building codes. There was a discussion held regarding which standard the Board should use. The positives and negatives of approving or denying the appeal were discussed. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2368 based on the equal to or better than standard for the following reasons: (1) the proposal provides a more readily accessible use of the improvement (2) the proposal improves the safety of the access to the improvement (3) the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood and (4) the proposal is aesthetically equal to or better than what would be required by the variance and it is not detrimental to the public good. Miscio added the provision that the Applicant would provide some sort of improvement along the 1.5 feet strip that would minimize maintenance of natural accumulation. Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth and Miscio Nays: Donahue, Remington, Lingle, Shannon, and Stockover. 5. APPEAL NO. 2370 -- Approved. Address: 3815 #A Celtic Lane Petitioner: Eric and Sarah Harding Zone: LMN Section: 3.8.11 (C)(2) Background: The variance would allow a fence that is taller than 4 feet to be located in the front yard. Specifically, the variance would allow a 5-foot tall fence to be located on the north side of the home, along Celtic Lane. The lot fronts on Celtic Lane, with a 46-foot wide road access easement on the east side of the lot. The legal front yard is the area between the north side of the house and Celtic Lane. However, the house faces the access easement, so even though the proposed fence is in the legal front yard, it is in the area that functions as the side yard. Side yard fences are allowed to be taller than 4 feet. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 9 This is unusual in that the house fronts on the access easement. The owner wants to fence in the side/back yard of his lot, in a manner similar to what his neighbors are allowed to do. The extra 1-foot of height would provide for more privacy and security. Staff Comments: This is not a true corner lot since the front "street" on the east side of the lot is really an access easement, not a street. However, if it were a street, then a variance would not be required. The Board may find that the intent of the code to prevent tall fences in front yards is being met, and that a hardship exists due to the unique situation where the lot functions as a corner lot, but is not a legal comer lot. Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. Nuckols referred Boardmembers to the site plan that was included in their packet. The house faces the access easement. The legal front yard is along Celtic Lane. Nuckols read the definition for a front lot line. Nuckols noted the property is not considered a corner lot because the property fronts on an access easement. It is not actually a street. Lingle asked if the Waterglen PUD was silent on how to handle fences along a public street. Nuckols stated she did not believe the Waterglen PUD had any requirements regarding fencing, except those stated in the Zoning Code. Applicant Participation: Eric Harding addressed the Board. Harding contacted KB Homes (the builder) and the Home Owner's Association to find out the fencing requirements. Harding read from a letter that stated, "as we discussed the design guidelines and standards adopted by the Waterglen Owner's Association provide that all of the fencing for the above referenced lot (3815 #A Celtic Lane) except for the rear property line fence shall be a five-foot, dog-ear picket fence. Since the rear property fence is adjacent to the common area denoted as Track DD on the final plat of Waterglen PUD, this fence must be a three rail, open rail fence." Shannon asked if the Applicant had pictures of his neighbors fenced side backyards as indicated in his statement of hardship. Harding responded that the pictures were to be taken by staff. Barnes referred the Board to the copy of the plat that was included in their packets. Harding told the Board that KB Homes was contracted to put a five-foot fence between the houses. The fence has not been completed due to the weather. The Applicant would like to match the five-foot fence on the opposite side of the property. Breth asked if the proposed fence would be a wire -meshed fence. Harding responded the wire - meshed fence would be along the rear of the property. Harding stated the reason for having to have a wire -meshed fenced was that the rear of the property is a greenbelt area. ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 10 Remington asked staff if the lot were a true corner lot, would there be adequate visibility. Barnes replied that it would be outside of any sight distance triangle that would be required. Barnes noted if the access easement were a dedicated public street, the proposed fence would comply with all the requirements of the fence ordinance. Board Discussion: Lingle asked staff why there was a front yard 4-foot maximum fence height requirement. Barnes explained the 4-foot front yard fencing height requirement was approved approximately six years ago. Barnes stated that prior to this a 6-foot front yard fencing height requirement existed. Barnes said the community felt it was not appropriate for individuals to fence in their front yards with tall fences. Barnes noted that fences are not subject to the same setback requirements that buildings are. Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2370 based on the hardship standard. Remington found the following: (1) there was no detriment to the public good (2) unique situation with the access easement (3) and a conflict with the homeowner's association standard. Stockover seconded the motion. Rollcall: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Donahue, Remington, Lingle, Shannon and Stockover. Nays: None. 6. APPEAL NO. 2371 -- Approved with conditions. Address: 3320 Hearthfire Drive Petitioner: Alan Strope Zone: UE Section: 3.8.3 (t) Background: The variance would allow a home occupation activity to be conducted in a detached building, rather than entirely within the building that contains the dwelling unit. Specifically, the variance would allow the existing home office for the owner's construction business to be relocated from within the home to the detached structure already under construction. The other portion of the structure will occupy a hobby -related workshop unrelated to the owner's construction business. No business related materials, equipment or employees would be at the office. Home occupations normally can only be conducted within the principal dwelling and not within a detached building such as this. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Due to changes requiring full occupancy of the house by the family, the existing office will be displaced. The owner would like to move it to the detached structure, which was originally ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 11 intended for a hobby workshop and craft room. The detached building is only 4 feet from the home. The owner could connect the two buildings and would no longer need a variance, but he would rather leave them unattached. From the street, the 2 buildings look like 1 building already, so physically attaching them would really not accomplish much. Staff Comments: The Board has granted numerous variances requests over the years to allow detached buildings to be used for home occupation activities. Those that have been granted usually involve properties in older neighborhoods, where the owner wants to convert an older, existing detached building. In this particular instance, the applicant proposes using a brand new detached building. Since the building is within 4 feet of the home it would not be difficult to connect the home and the detached building, thereby eliminating the need for a variance. However, the Board may find that a connection would not really serve any practical purpose. Especially since it would not be visible from the street or from the rear of the property, and that the proposal to leave the buildings detached would promote the general purpose of the standard equally well as would a proposal to attach the buildings. Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. Nuckols noted the detached building looks like it is attached to the residence. Remington asked what the purpose of the standard was for not allowing home occupations in detached buildings. Barnes stated the Code does not state the purpose, although staff created a purpose. Barnes stated the Current Planning Department and the Zoning Department collaborated to create a purpose. Barnes read the purpose. It states "the purpose of allowing a home occupation as a permitted accessory use to a dwelling is to permit the inhabitants of a dwelling to conduct self-employment and that one support employee on the property where that inhabitant resides in buildings with a residential character that one would normally expect to find on a residential lot, such as homes, sheds, garages, or other similar detached buildings. This self- employment use is intended to only be permitted when the impacts on the neighborhood are minimal." Remington asked if there were any definition that constitutes what is attached and if a breezeway would suffice. Barnes stated a breezeway connection would not be sufficient because the building code states it has to be a common environment. Barnes noted the connection would have to be an enclosed hallway. Applicant Participation: Alan Strope addressed the Board. Strope noted he owned Savant Homes, a construction business. Strope stated he did have employees, although the employees worked at the job site. Strope noted he and his wife work for the company, and needed a place to do paperwork. Remington asked the Applicant if deliveries were made to the home. Strope replied no. ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 12 Board Discussion: Shannon stated the request was reasonable and she did not have any issues with granting the request. Shannon told the Board, if the request were approved, that approval should be for this owner only. Remington agreed with Shannon and felt it met the standard equally well. Shannon made a motion to approve appeal number 2371 based on the equal to or better than standard and that there was detriment to the public good. Shannon made the condition that approval of the variance request only applied to Mr. Strope's office use. Shannon amended her motion to include that the residential nature of the property will be maintained. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Donahue, Remington, Lingle, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. 7. APPEAL NO. 2372 -- Approved. Address: 1500 West Oak Street Petitioner: Arundeep Pradhan Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(3), 4.6(E)(4), 4.6(D)(1) Background: The variance would (1) reduce the required rear -yard setback from 15 feet to 9.58 feet along the north lot line in order to allow a two -car garage addition (2) reduce the required street side setback along Roosevelt from 15 feet to 13 feet in order to allow a wrap -around front porch to be constructed, and (3) reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 2.75:1 to 2.52:1 by allowing a total building square footage of 2384 square feet instead of the existing 2184 square feet. The existing detached building at the northeast corner of the lot will be removed. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The trolley tracks run along Roosevelt Avenue, making the street narrower than most streets when cars are parked on both sides. The petitioner would like to construct a two -car garage addition in order to accommodate off-street parking off of Roosevelt. The proposed wrap- around front porch adds to the aesthetic appeal of the home. If the support posts were moved in 2 feet from the edge of the porch, a street side setback variance would not be required since a 2- foot overhang is allowed into the setback. Placing the posts at the comers instead of 2 feet in is more practical. The existing floor area of the buildings on the lot are already over 2000 square feet. An existing shed building of about 250 square feet will be demolished to make room for the garage addition, so only about 200 square feet of additional floor area is being proposed. Staff Comments: ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 13 Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. Nuckols stated the house fronts onto Oak Street. Nuckols referred the Board to their site plans. Roosevelt Avenue is along the east -side of the home. The existing bay window is currently at 16.5 feet setback and the main wall of the house is 19 feet. The property line starts approximately five feet from the back of the sidewalk. The property line is within the fence. The proposed addition will extend 3.5 feet further to the east. The existing detached structure will be removed. Nuckols referred the Board to the proposed elevation drawings. Applicant Participation: Arundeep Pradhan addressed the Board. Pradhan stated a two -car garage addition is necessary due to lack of space to park their cars. The addition would also allow the Applicant to consolidate tools, bicycles and various other items. Shannon stated that after the completion of the addition, very little yard would remain. Pradhan replied that the backyard was non-functional due to several adjacent garages facing into the backyard, although the front and side yards are used. Pradhan felt the wrap -around porch would enhance the front and side yards. Stephanie Pep, co-owner of the property addressed the Board. Pep stated her vehicle was been vandalized numerous times and she would like to be able to have a garage. Barnes asked if other people in the neighborhood had two -car garages. Pradhan responded yes. Board Discussion: Lingle was concerned about the approximate 10-foot reduction of the rear lot line due to the proximity to the adjacent property to the north. Lingle assumed the adjacent property owners to the north did not have an objection to the variance request due to their not being present at the meeting. Shannon agreed with Lingle. Barnes told the Board they needed to consider the lot area to floor area ratio. Stockover asked if the wrap -around porch would be considered in the floor area. Barnes stated the porch would not be included in the floor area calculation because the porch is not enclosed. Donahue asked whether the proposal complied with the height restriction for the zoning district. Barnes replied that it did comply. Breth thought a hardship existed due to parking, security, and the trolley that runs down Roosevelt Avenue. Breth stated the lot to floor area ratio would only be reduced by a minimal amount. Breth was in favor of granting the appeal. Breth made a motion to approve appeal number 2372 for the hardship stated. Breth noted the approval was not detrimental to the public good and approval of the request promotes better safety and security for the occupants. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Donahue, Remington, Lingle, Shannon and Stockover. ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 14 Nays: None. 7. APPEAL NO. 2373 --Approved. Address: 1945 Fossil Creek Parkway A&B Petitioner: Centex Homes Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D)(3) Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 4.9 feet in order to allow the construction of a duplex on lot 39 of Linden Park PDP. Lot 40 is under contract and construction. The petitioner feels it would be unreasonable to ask the new owner to change the size of their lot. The request is for a reduction of 0.1 feet. The structure cannot be moved closer to the east property line due to a 6-foot utility easement running along the east property line. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached Petitioner's letter B. Staff Comments: Barnes pointed out that Linden Park is a new development currently under construction. The development was approved under the Land Use Code. Linden Park is a mixed -use subdivision. A minority number of the lots are designated for duplex construction, the others are for single family construction. Barnes referred the board members to the plat. Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. Anolicant Participation Yvonne Seaman, representative for Centex Homes, addressed the Board. Seaman stated that the normal process would be to replat the property to make sure that the duplex would fit on the lot. Seaman stated the lot adjacent to the property was already sold, and felt it was unreasonable to ask the owners to give up part of the lot they had purchased. Seaman noted the separation between the two buildings would be 10.4 feet, which met the building separation standard. Lingle questioned the Applicant regarding the 10.4 feet separation between buildings. Seaman stated on lot 40 a 5.5-foot setback would be maintained where a 5-foot feet is required by code. On lot 39 the Applicant asked for a 4.9-foot setback. Lingle asked if the homeowner on lot 40 could build to a 5-foot setback. Seaman replied yes. Remington asked the Applicant if the duplex could be built an inch smaller. Seaman responded that was not a feasible option because the stairway would have to be redesigned. ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 15 Board Discussion: There was a discussion held regarding the hardship standard and the equal to or better than standard as it would apply to the variance request. Lingle felt it was a self-imposed hardship. Remington agreed with Lingle. Stockover made a motion to approve appeal number 2373 based on the equal to or better than standard. Stockover found that the adjoining property is in excess of the minimum requirement and the combination of the two still had the required distance between the two properties. Stockover added there was no detriment to the public good. Miscio seconded the motion. Rollcall: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Donahue, Remington, Lingle, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. 8. APPEAL NO. 2374 -- Approved. Address: 144 South Mason Street Petitioner: Paul Aragon, for Joshua's Crossing Zone: D Section: 3.2.2(K)(1)(g) Background: The variance would reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces from 50 to 0, in order to allow the use of the building to be changed from the shop/storage area of Operation Electric to Joshua's Crossing Church. The church facility would primarily be used on Sundays. There is no room on the lot to accommodate parking, but parking is available off -site in public parking lots and on streets near the property. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is no room on the lot to provide any parking on -site. However, there is an abundance of available parking on the street or in other parking facilities. The Code does not require any parking for commercial uses, but it does for churches. The proposed church facility will have no greater parking demand than other businesses in the vicinity, and those businesses are not required to provide on -site parking. Staff Comments: Lack of off-street parking on private lots in the downtown area is the norm, rather than the exception. Since the property is already developed, they can't construct a parking lot. Since the peak parking demand of the church will occur on off-peak periods for the commercial uses, the granting of a variance should not be detrimental to the public good. ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 16 Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. The Mason Street public parking lot is directly north of the church facility. Applicant Participation: Paul Aragon, pastor of Joshua's Crossing Church, addressed the Board. Aragon started the church two years ago and has pioneered the church in the downtown area. In the past, the church has used Suite 152, Sunset Event Center, and the Matrix. Aragon felt his proposal was not unusual due to the fact that the church has been meeting in the Old Town area for the past two years. Aragon noted he was not trying to relocate a large church to the downtown area. The church has a current membership of 110 people. Aragon stated he has found parking on Sunday evenings to be accommodating in the Old Town area. Aragon had taken photographs, passed out photographs to the Board, and gave an explanation of the photographs taken. Aragon felt the relocation of the church would be a fantastic addition to the downtown area. Shannon asked Aragon what times the church would be meeting. Aragon responded that the church currently meets on Sunday evenings at 6:00 p.m., although the church may meet on an occasional Sunday morning. Shannon asked Aragon if the church plans on having activities during the week. Aragon responded that the new facility would provide some new opportunities for the church, but the church does not have any plans to start a mid -week service. Aragon noted the intent is not to book the church seven days a week. Miscio asked Aragon how many parking spaces he anticipated using. Aragon replied the church at maximum occupancy would be using approximately 75 parking spaces. Miscio asked Aragon to estimate how many parking spaces were currently being used. Aragon responded that 35 spaces would be an estimate. In Support of Appeal: Cole Hart, Veldman Morgan Commercial, showed his support for the variance request Board Discussion Shannon stated she was in favor of granting the appeal because she felt it would not create much of an impact. Shannon was concerned with activities that might occur during the week and wanted the Board to consider this in the motion. Breth agreed with Shannon and did not want to set the precedent of allowing churches not to provide parking. There was a discussion held regarding the issue of the possibility of Monday through Friday activities. Lingle stated he did not want to restrict the church to only having Sunday activities. Stockover remarked the church would out grow the facility before the church would outgrow the parking availability. Stockover mentioned that paid parking is ample in the Old Town area. ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 17 Remington asked Aragon if the church would lease its space to other groups. Aragon responded that no immediate plans existed for leasing the space. Aragon did not deny that things may come up that the church would be interested in facilitating. Aragon agreed with Stockover's statements. Miscio felt it was a positive influence and improvement to the Old Town area. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2374 with the understanding that it is complimentary to the neighborhood, improve the use, and is not detrimental to the public good. Remington asked Miscio to include the staff comments in his motion. Miscio agreed, and amended his motion to include staff comments. Shannon seconded the motion. Rollcall: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Donahue, Remington, Lingle, Shannon and Stockover. Nays: None. 9. APPEAL NO. 2375 -- Approved with conditions. Address: 2700 South College Avenue Petitioner: Shaw Sign and Awning Zone: C Section: 3.8.7(A)(3)(B)(1) & 3.8.7(G)(1) Background: The variance would allow the existing nonconforming "Homestead House" monument sign to be structurally remodeled without having to bring the sign into conformance. Specifically, the variance would allow the base of the existing 53 square foot per face, 9.33 foot tall, 0 foot setback sign to be lowered 1 foot, 7 inches in order to allow a decorative cap to be added on top of the existing sign cabinet, without having to move the sign 10 feet further east. By lowering the sign, the overall height will remain at 9.33 feet, so the degree of nonconformity will remain the same. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached Petitioner's letter C. Staff Comments: A letter from Bill Bullard was read in support of the appeal. This is a similar request to the one considered by the Board last year regarding the nonconforming Conoco sign at 2451 South Taft Hill Road. The Board granted that variance with the condition that the sign be brought into compliance by 2009, the year that all nonconforming signs are required to comply. Staff does not believe a hardship case can be shown with this particular appeal, so the Board must determine that the proposal promotes the standard for which ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 18 the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. If the Board is inclined to grant the variance, then specific findings must be stated. For instance, the Board may find that the proposal promotes the standard equally well or better because: (1) the overall purpose of the standard is to ensure that nonconforming signs are removed by 2009, and that such signs are not made more nonconforming (2) the existing nonconforming sign can remain as is until 2009 or be remodeled to bring the sign into compliance by an earlier date (3) the proposed remodel will not bring it into conformity, but is preferable to leaving it as is or re -skirting the existing base because the proposal will lower the height of the sign base, reduce the bulk of the overall sign structure, achieve a more human scale, and be more compatible with the building architecture, and therefore, the proposal is better than leaving the sign as is for another 7 years. Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. Nuckols referred the boardmembers to their packets. Nuckols noted the sign would be nonconforming, but would have to be brought into compliance in 2009. Lingle asked if the Applicant would be able to change out the sign faces or the cabinet without a variance and if structural changes required a variance. Barnes stated that in 1994 the sign code underwent some major revisions. The revisions made a significant number of signs nonconforming. City Council adopted a fifteen -year amortization period, at the time of the revisions, which required that all signs that were made nonconforming had until 2009 to be brought into compliance. Barnes explained the exceptions and limitations. Barnes stated the Applicant could change the face of the sign without having to bring the entire sign into compliance. Barnes stated the Applicant is requesting a structural remodel which requires a variance. Applicant Participation: Jonathan Harshaw, representative for Shaw Sign and Awning, addressed the Board. Harshaw noted the sign would be reduced and mimic the architecture of the building. Harshaw stated his client is concerned with using native elements of Colorado. Harshaw demonstrated how the landscaping effects the signage. Remington asked Harshaw if he was requesting a permanent variance. Harshaw replied he is requesting a variance until the year 2009. Miscio stated the request was an improvement to the property and was in favor of the appeal. Miscio asked Harshaw what the owner's intentions are when the year 2009 comes around, and why the sign is not being brought into compliance right now. Harshaw stated he could not answer on the owner's behalf, but the owner understood if the variance request were to be approved, it would only be until 2009. Board Discussion: Breth agreed with Miscio. Breth stated the sign was an improvement and looked aesthetically better with the decorative cap and the reduction of the base of the sign. Remington agreed. Remington made a motion to approve appeal number 2375 based on the equal to or better than we ZBA March 21, 2002 Page 19 standard because the purpose of the standard is met, the sign is an improvement to the property (reduction in size and aesthetics), and there is no detriment to the public good. Remington put a condition on the motion, which stated the sign would have to be brought into compliance in 2009. Miscio seconded the motion. Rollcall: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Donahue, Remington, Lingle, Shannon and Stockover. Nays: None. APPEAL NO. 2376 -- Tabled to April 11, 2002, meeting. Address: 730 West Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Tom Campbell Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(D)(1), 4.6(E)(4) Stockover made a motion to table appeal number 2376 until the April 11, 2002, meeting since the Applicant has decided to amend the scope of the variance. Breth seconded the motion. Rollcall: Yeas: Breth, Miscio, Donahue, Remington, Lingle, Shannon, and Stockover. Nays: None. 10. Other Business Barnes told the Board that City Council would be reviewing the Zoning Board of Appeals. A questionnaire needs to be filled out and returned by July 9, 2002. The Board will meet as a group at the May meeting to answer the questionnaire. A study session will be held July 23, 2002, the chairperson and vice -chair person will need to attend the study session. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m. J /kf�--- Steve R m on, Chairperson Peter Bames, Zoning Administrator =" 93b6 172, Petitioner's Letter A FUNDING PARTNERS S FOR HOUSING SOLUTIONS vma/LiEA6 aC/aemall( 110aar:nk0� lla1i1.en irr. ra[nzawo January 10, 2002 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Zoning Board Members: Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, Inc. and The National Development Council, both not - for -profit 501(c)(3) organizations and partners in ownership have recently completed historic renovation of the Northern Hotel located at 172 N. College Avenue. The 4-story building now provides 47 units (41 1-bedroom/1 bath; 6 2-bedroom/1 bath) of senior housing for residents earning 40 — 50% of the Area Median Income ($16,280 - $20,350 for an individual for 2001) on levels 2 - 4. Of the 47 units, 20 have been set -aside for residents holding Section 8 vouchers, which provide rental subsidies for very low-income tenants. Fort Collins Housing Authority has been contracted to provide management of the residential units and building maintenance. The building also provides commercial space on the ground level. Federal Tax Credit financing mechanisms utilized for this project require the Northern to retain residential affordability for a period not less than 20 years. On November 10, 1999, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance (Application No. 2277) to the existing code requirement of 71 parking spaces that allowed ownership to provide a total of 47 spaces. Subsequent decisions within the City Parking Services Department required tenants to utilize the 4°i level of the Old Town Parking Structure (Remington Street) exclusively. Additionally, an Agreement for Parking Permits, dated May 11, 2000 between the City and Northern Hotel Fort Collins L.P. stipulates prepayment for all required spaces at the rate of $288 per space ($24/month/space), subject to increases in general public rates. Through current marketing efforts, it is apparent that residents that meet the age and income guidelines do not require parking facilities to the extent expected with traditional residential projects. Further, consideration of lease -up experience for similar housing projects in the area, it is anticipated that full occupancy will not occur before Sur uner 2002. As an affordable senior housing provider, it is imperative that ownership, management and tenants make every effort to limit overhead expenses, while providing safe, adequate housing. Then to, we are also dedicated in our efforts to be a positive contributor and neighbor within the Old Town community, as expressed in the attached letter of support from the Downtown 2000 SOUTH COLLEGE, SUITE 220 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 PH: 970.194.2021 FAX: 970. 494,2022 MAIL TO: P.O. BOX 2731 LOVELAND, COLORADO 80539 EMAILnfogfnndingpanners_o rg Petitioner's Letter A Business Association. Therefore, we respectfully request your consideration of this request for modification of Section 3.2.2(k)(1)(a) of the City of Fort Collins Zoning Ordinance. Northern Hotel Fort Collins, L.P. hereby requests a variance to limit the number of reserved parking spaces for residential tenants to 25, or .5 spaces for each bedroom included in the Project. This request is based upon the following statistical information collected from similar facilities in the Fort Collins area. It is anticipated that the approval of this variance would be re- evaluated annually, and in conjunction with subsequent parking rate modifications, to insure adequate facilities for our tenants. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Respectfully, Gina Roe Executive Director Funding Partners for Housing Solutions Comparable Data (Data provided by Property Managers) Current Tenant Roll — Northern Hotel 21 tenants (as of January 10, 2002) 6 Parking Permits requested (as of January 10, 2002) DMA Plaza — 300 Remington Street; 126 units Affordable Senior 47 spaces available — Full 16 tenants on waiting list 63 spaces needed; .5 spacesiunit Reflections — Troutman Pkwy; 72 units Affordable Senior 90 spaces available — 50 Tenants own vehicles (per Manager survey), remaining spaces unused. Oakbrook I — 3200 Stanford Road; 106 units Section 8 Senior 100 Spaces available —Approximately 60-65 spaces in regular use Oakbrook II — 3300 Stanford Road; 100 units Section 8 Senior 70 spaces available — Approximately 55-60 spaces in regular use 1 /1 ) Petiti .er's Letter B CENTEX HOMES 9250 E. Costille Ave., #200 Variance request for 1945 Fossil Creek Parkway Unit A and B, Greenwood Village, CO 80112 Lot 39, Linden Park, Fort Collins Colorado Phone: 303-792-9810 Fax: 303-792-9811 Centex Homes purchased the Linden Park Subdivision in March 2001. At that time we purchased the land with an approved plat and began construction of the site. As we started construction of homes in the area we realized that there were a few lots that were not correctly platted to accept the product we designed for the site. In October of 2001 we submitted a replat of the lots that were not buildable sites. In January we requested a plot plan from Carrol Lange, engineer, for Lot 39. At that time we realized we had made an error and Lot 39 is not a buildable lot. Lot 40 which is on the west side of 39 is under construction and is under contract. We feel it is unreasonable to ask the proposed owner to change the lot size they have under contract. Thus we are asking for a variance for 0.01 feet on the west side setback for Lot 39 Linden Park. The required setback on the west side is five feet. Our plot plan shows the actual setback as 4.9'. Thus the variance request is for 0.01 feet. Adjacent to Lot 39 is Lot 40; the home on this lot is 5.5' from the side property line. Thus the separation between the two homes would actually be 10.4 feet where 10 feet would be required. On the east side of Lot 39 the minimum setback is also five feet. There is utility easement located along the east property line which is six feet. Thus the duplex will actually have a six- foot side setback on the east side. Attached Plans Plot Plan Lot 39 Lot under consideration for Variance request Plot Plan Lot 40 Lot West of Lot 39 Plot Plan Lot 38 Lot East of Lot 39 Front Elevation of Proposed Duplex Foundation Plan for Duplex Floor Plans for Duplex The variance request for 0.01 feet to a side setback will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well as the standard for which the variance is being requested. The variance meets the standard equally well in the following ways: ♦ The separation between the two homes will actually be 10.4' where 10 feet is required. ♦ The east side of the lot will have a six-foot setback where a five-foot setback is required. ♦ The variance request will not be a detriment to the public good or impairment to the intent and purpose of the Code. Thank you for your consideration, Yvonne Seaman, Centex Homes SHKW Petitioner's Letter C 8 SIGN & KWNING, INC. 901 SW FRONTAGE ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 50524 (970)49S-6244 (91704"3629eFAx March 1, 2002 City of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Department Zoning Board of Appeals 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Request for Variance for 2700 S. College Avenue (Homestead House nka Touchstone Furniture & Design Reason for Request: Existing monument sign does not conform to current code (setback), and is currently classified as "grandfathered." Therefore, significant design changes to grandfathered monument sign are not permitted, unless the sign is brought to conformity with current code. Variance request is asking for permission to leave sign at present location, but with some design upgrades, which would "promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard." Nature of Request: Refurbish existing monument sign as follows: 1) Addition of decorative stone to bottom of sign to create a sign "base." 2) Addition of decorative aluminum "cap" to top of sign. No significant dimensional change to occur. By reducing existing area of sign base, this allows the cap to be added without changing the grandfathered sign's overall height. Explanation of Proposed Changes as Favorable: The following illustrates why the proposed changes can be considered favorable: 1) Proposed changes will bring the sign more in line with the changes currently underway in the overall building design. 2) Proposed changes allow for fresh image and will be more attractive/asthetically pleasing. 3) Proposed changes allow sign to remain same height as current sign; width to be streamlined to approximately 3" narrower than current sign. 4) Proposed changes help to make the overall look of the sign more proportional.