Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/14/2003Minutes to be approved by the Board at the September 11, 2003 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — August 14, 2003 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 71 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: Steve Remington _11Phone: (H) 223-7138 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday August 14, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Steve Remington William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Lingle Andy Miscio STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney 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: Dickson made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 10, 2003, meeting. Donahue seconded the motion. The motion passed with Hall abstaining. ZBA August 14, 2003 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2429 — Approved with conditions. Address: 4001 South College Avenue Petitioner: Westec Construction Zone: Commercial Section: 3.8.7(G) (6), 3.8.7 (D) (5) (C) Background: The variance would allow two ground/freestanding signs along South College Avenue instead of the one that is allowed by the sign code. Specifically, the variance is requested in order to permit both a preview menu board (ground sign) and regular menu board (freestanding sign). This appeal was originally heard at the July 10, 2003 ZBA meeting, but was tabled to the August 14, 2003 meeting in order to allow the applicant opportunity to consider revisions to the original variance request. The original request was to allow three signs along College Avenue, and to increase the amount of signage allowed along College from 155 square feet to 331 square feet. Harmon Management, owner of the KFC franchise, has agreed to remove the large ground sign on College replacing it with a ground sign in compliance with the code and positioning it on Boardwalk Drive. The owner wishes to keep both the menu board and preview board on South College Avenue thus requesting two ground or monument signs on the east or South College side. The sign code only permits one. With the elimination of the large ground sign from the South College allowance there will be no need to request additional sign allowance as a part of this variance. The applicant has also agreed to provide additional landscaping screening for the two ground signs (menu and preview board) on South College Avenue. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The building recently underwent remodeling with the drive -up windows remaining at the same south wall location. The relocation of drive lanes and drive -up window to the north side of the building where a menu board could have been installed without any variance (as it would have been considered a freestanding sign taking allowance off Boardwalk) would have been prohibitive as it would have made a substantial change to the site plan thus affecting existing parking, drive through lanes, sidewalks, etc. Applicants prefer to also have the smaller preview board approved as the second South College Avenue ground/freestanding sign in order to help expedite the ordering process thus reducing traffic/cue spacing problems which may occur. Staff Presentation: Barnes stated that the Applicant has resubmitted a plan. Barnes reviewed the Applicant's previous request. Bames said that the new proposal would allow their signage on College Avenue to be 103 square feet, instead of 331 square feet (52 square feet less than what the Code ZBA August 14, 2003 Page 3 would allow on College Avenue). The large non -conforming monument sign will be removed and reoriented towards Boardwalk Drive. The sign will be lowered to comply with the Sign Code. Bames presented slides relevant to this appeal. Bames reviewed the issues around the menu board. Remington asked Barnes what the sign allowance was on Boardwalk Drive. Barnes responded that the sign allowance would be 307 square feet. Barnes said that the Applicant was currently using 66 square feet. Staff Comments: The applicant's revised proposal is significantly different from the original application. It appears that the applicant has submitted a plan that addresses the concerns that Board members raised at the July 10, 2003 meeting. If this variance is approved, the end result should be better then the sign situation that existed before the building remodel occurred. Staff comments from the original July 10th submittal appear below. The intent of the standard that is requested to be varied is to reduce the sign clutter along streets, thereby preserving and enhancing the streetscape. It may be difficult to find that 3 signs in close proximity promote the standard equally well or better than. Therefore, the Board may have to find some hardship. The large KFC/A&W monument sign is a nonconforming sign that needs to be brought into compliance in 2009. The Board may determine that in order to mitigate the presence of 3 signs along College Avenue, a condition to bring the large sign into compliance now might be appropriate. Additionally, the new preview board could possibly be turned at an angle in order to reduce the amount of sign face that is visible from College Avenue. Applicant Participation: Chris Thompson of Westec Construction addressed the Board. The owner decided to bring the monument sign into compliance. The face of the sign will be reused. The menu board will be considered a College Avenue sign. Thompson stated that the proposal was equal to or better than the Code because the proposal would eliminate traffic problems and additional landscaping has been added to provide screening from the street. Board Discussion: Dickson stated that the Applicant has made an effort to comply with the Code and was in favor of the appeal. Remington wanted a condition placed on the approval that no new signage be put on the property without coming before the Board. Remington agreed with the equal to or better than proposal due to less signage square footage. Dickson did not agree with Remington's condition. There was a discussion held regarding Remington's condition. Remington made a motion to approve appeal 2429. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The general purpose of the standard was to reduce sign clutter and to reduce the visual ZBA August 14, 2003 Page 4 impact of signs along the street. The proposal promoted the general purpose of the standard by having approximately 120 square feet less of allowable signage. The Applicant has also taken measures to mitigate the visual impact by adding landscaping. Remington placed the following condition on the approval: that no new signage to be placed on the property without the Applicant coming before the Board to request a variance. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Remington, Donahue, Hall, and Stockover. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2431 — Approved with conditions. Address: 661 Parliament Court Petitioner: Terry Colbert Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D) (2) (C) Background: This item was originally scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board on July 10, 2003, but was tabled until August 14, 2003. The variance would reduce the required rear- yard setback from 15 feet to 11 feet in order to allow a 20' x 14' deck on the rear of the home. The deck is existing and was constructed at the time the house was built. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The home has a walk -out basement and the deck was constructed off the kitchen when the home was built. There is an open space, natural area behind the home, so the intent of the rear setback standard is met. Staff Presentation: Barnes stated the variance came to staffs attention as a result of a complaint by a neighbor. The deck was constructed with the home. The deck was constructed 11 feet from the rear property line, but the Code requires 15 feet. A screen was placed on top of the deck and a compliant was filed due to the negative impact on the neighboring property. Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. There is a large natural area behind the property. The screen was constructed recently and was placed to provide some privacy. Remington asked if the screening was a solid or lattice type screen. Barnes replied that the boards are at an angle. ZBA August 14, 2003 Page 5 Staff Comments: The purpose of the rear setback standard is to ensure separation between buildings and structures in order to provide for privacy, light, air circulation, etc. There are no developable lots behind this property. The Board has heard similar rear setback requests previously and has determined that the purpose of the standard is promoted equally well. Applicant Participation: Kathy Colbert, 661 Parliament Court, addressed the Board. The Colberts bought the house in 1997. Colbert stated that she was shocked when she received the violation notice. Colbert stated what was in the open space to the rear of the property. Colbert stated that the screening was added to improve privacy. Colbert stated that she decided to plant additional trees between the deck and the property line and to build a privacy screen. In April 2000 a proposal (lattice screening) was submitted to the Homeowners Association, which was approved. The Colberts decided to go with vertical louvers because the louvers allow for more air flow. The louvers were approved by the Homeowners Association in April 2001. Colbert explained the photographs that she submitted to staff. Remington asked Colbert what type of tree was planted. Colbert replied that an apple tree has been planted. Colbert is also working with landscapers to decide the best type of trees to plant. Remington asked how high the deck was from the ground. Barnes replied that it was 17 feet from the ground to the top of the deck structure. Opposed to the appeal: Barnes read the comments from the opposing neighbor. The neighbor wanted the four foot section of the wall removed on the south end because it obstructed his view to the west. The opposing neighbor felt a certificate of occupancy should not have been issued because the deck did not comply with the rear setback requirements. The opposing neighbor also commented on the damage in the natural area by the contractor. Dickson asked staff what the rules were regarding landscaped screening. Bames replied that the City does not have any solar or view corridor easements. Board Discussion: Remington asked Colbert what her response would be to taking down the four -foot section of louvers. Colbert stated that the beams are structural and would need to stay. Colbert did not want to take out the louvers, but would do it if the Board desired that the louvers be removed. Stockover asked Colbert to explain the open space property damage. Colbert stated that her contractor did not cause the damage and explained what happened. An excavation truck was stuck. Stockover felt that the situation was a neighborhood feud. Hall was in favor of granting the variance for the deck, but was concerned about the four -foot section of louvers. Dickson agreed. There was a discussion held regarding the landscaped screening. Stockover felt the ZBA August 14, 2003 Page 6 issue should go to a neighborhood mediation board. There was a discussion held regarding what structural elements would have to remain if the louvered section was removed. Hall made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2431 with the exception that the four foot louvered section at the south end of the deck be removed. The structural beams will be allowed to remain intact. Hall found that there was no detriment to the public good. Hall based the approval on the equal to or better than standard due to the open space allowing for adequate air, light, and ventilation between structures. Dickson seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Remington, Donahue, Hall, and Stockover. Nays: None. 5. APPEAL NO. 2436 — Approved. Address: 1503 Woodrose Court Petitioner: Nancy Eckardt and Simon Tavener Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D) (20) (c) Background: Property is located in the Residential Low Density (R-L) zone which requires a minimum rear setback of 15 feet. The Applicant requests a reduction of the rear setback to 6 feet to accommodate a pergola (covered patio) to provide shade from the afternoon sun. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Currently the house is setback from the rear property line approximately 17 feet. This provides little room for any addition such as the pergola to the rear. Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A for additional information. Staff Comments The Board has previously used the "equal to or better than" standard to grant rear setback variances for decks and patio covers that back up to open spaces. This property does not back up to an open space, but rather to another lot. The petitioners' statements contained in their letter appear to be statements of hardship rather than statements that support "equal to or better than". Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the rear of the property abuts existing homes. The home is 17 feet from the rear property line, which is shallow. ZBA August 14, 2003 Page 7 Applicant Participation: Nancy Eckardt, 1503 Woodrose Court, addressed the Board. Eckardt referred board members to her petitioner's letter. Eckardt explained her project and proposed that the setback be reduced to six feet. Eckardt wanted additional privacy and shading for her backyard. Eckardt brought three letters for support from three immediate neighbors. Remington asked Eckardt that if the primary point of her hardship was the configuration of the lot. Eckardt replied yes due to the shallowness of the lot. Eckardt stated that the 15-foot rear setback would preclude her from ever building a shade structure. Eckardt stated that she had no neighborhood opposition. Bames read the letters in support of Eckardt's request they were from the following: Greg and Stephanie Vossetieg of 1502 Woodrose Court; Donna Meyer of 1520 Woodrose Court; and Bill and Anne Petenes of 3215 Honeysuckle Court. Board Discussion: Hall struggled to find a hardship. Eckardt reiterated her argument. Remington agreed with Hall. Bames stated that the house is setback 31 feet from the front property line. The Code requires that the minimum lot width has to be 60 feet. Applicant Eckardt has a pie shaped lot. The house was pushed back further to meet the minimum lot width requirement. Stockover reminded the Board that a pie shaped lot was not unique. Barnes commented that the Eckardt lot was shallower than most cul-de-sac lots. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2436. Remington found that approval of the variance request was not detrimental to the public good. Remington based his motion on the hardship standard noting the geometric shape of the property combined with the narrow front and the 60-foot width requirement required the house to be setback further than other houses in the area. This situation created a shallow back yard. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Remington, Donahue, Hall and Stockover. Nays: None. 6. APPEAL NO. 2437 —Approved. Address: 605 West Lake Street Petitioner: James Swanstrom Zone: HMN Section: 4.24 (D) (2) (a) Background: The petitioner is proposing a 594 square foot, one-story addition to the back of the existing house. Since the addition exceeds 25% of the existing floor area, the code requires that the ZBA August 14, 2003 Page 8 addition be a minimum of 1.5 stories in height. A variance is requested in order to allow the proposed addition to be only one-story in height in order to match the existing house. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The home is an existing single -story ranch structure constructed during the 1960's. Petitioner seeks to keep the addition the same height as the existing. A 1.5 or more storied addition and roof would not fit in character with the home. Other homes in the neighborhood are also single story structures. Staff Comments: The code does not state what the specific purpose is for requiring a minimum 1.5 story building height. However, the purpose statement of the HMN zoning district (Section 4.24(A)) states that the "...district is intended to be a setting for higher density multifamily housing and group quarter residential uses.... Multistory buildings (greater than one story and up to five stories) are encouraged in order to promote efficient utilization of the land and the use of alternative modes of travel." Staff believes it is reasonable to conclude that this purpose statement applies to new high density development or redevelopment, and not to existing single family homes. The Board may be able to determine that a one-story addition to an existing one-story single family home "promotes efficient utilization of the land and the use of alternative modes of travel" equally well as would a 1.5 story addition. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property is in the HMN zoning district. The HMN zoning district was created in 1999. The HMN zoning district abuts the CSU campus and is designated as a high density, mixed use neighborhood. Barnes explained the Code requirements (see Staff Comments). Barnes noted that all of the surrounding homes are single - story homes. The house faces the CSU campus. A hole has already been dug for the foundation. Applicant Participation: Robert Swanstrom, father of Applicant, addressed the Board. The Applicant was unable to attend the meeting. Swanstrom stated that a 1.5 story addition would be out of character for the neighborhood. Hall asked if the property was an owner occupied house. Swanstrom stated that it was a rental. Swanstrom stated that the addition would add additional bedrooms and a bathroom. Board Discussion: Donahue said that the proposal would fit the character of the neighborhood. Dickson stated that the proposal achieved the intent of the density. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal 2437 based on the equal to or better than standard. Remington stated that the approval of the ZBA August 14, 2003 Page 9 variance request would not be detrimental to the public good. Remington cited staff comments. Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Remington, Donahue, Hall, and Stockover. Nays: None. Other Business Barnes stated that he will be proposing a code change in the fall that the 1.5 story minimum does not apply to existing one-story single family homes. Barnes noted that the intent was not to make additions taller than the existing structure. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m. Steve R in on, Chairperson 119,1., 6-A" Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Petitioner's Letter A If-;L-4 3 6 Fort Collins Zoning Board of Appeals 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO July 22, 2003 Nancy A. Eckardt and Simon J. Tavener 1503 Woodrose Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80526 We hereby request a variance for a reduction from 15' to 6' for the rear setback for the property located at 1503 Woodrose Ct. in The Ponds at Overland Trail Subdivision, for the express purpose of building a pergola (decorative overhead shade structure) covering the patio at the rear of the house, because this represents an exceptional situation unique to the property, and the restriction imposes undue hardship on us, the property owners, as detailed below. The reasons for this request are as follows: 1. There is a total of 17.5 feet from the rear of the house to the property line. The 15' restriction prevents construction of any sort of shade structure over the rear patio. The rear of the house (facing northwest) receives the hottest afternoon sun. We wish to construct the pergola to provide shade to cool both the patio and interior of the house — improving our use of the patio and reducing our energy needs (for air conditioning) in summer. It is illogical for the city to prevent wise use of energy resources. This issue is similar to that of Home Owner Associations preventing low water use landscaping (Xeriscaping), which prevention the city has recently banned in order to promote wise use of limited water resources. The city should similarly promote homeowner activities that encourage and enable the wise use of energy resources. 2. We wish to construct the pergola with a lattice front extending 10-11' out from the house (maintaining the 6' utility and drainage easement). The lattice front will be planted with vines to provide additional shading, and to provide privacy for our rear patio. As far as we are aware, ours is the only property in our neighborhood that has this space limitation in the rear yard. Everyone else in the neighborhood could build such a structure with the approval of the city (i.e. a pergola to cover a rear deck or patio extending 11 feet out from the rear of the house and maintaining a 15' setback), and it is unfair effectively to impose this restriction on us alone in our subdivision. The situation arises due to the unusual geometry of our lot. Although the house could have been built farther forward on the lot, the builder did not do this (probably due to the extreme narrowness of the front of the lot and proximity to the neighboring houses on either side, which were built before ours), and we were not informed of the setback requirements. 3. We understand and agree with the restriction to prevent construction of structural additions with solid walls or a solid roof within 15' of the rear property line. However, the pergola structure in question, although technically a "structural addition", is essentially a decorative landscaping feature with all sides and roof open to the elements and intended to support decorative plants and vines. We note that it would be possible for any of the neighbors to build a shed, play structure, or dog run (within certain size limits) bordering on the 6' drainage and utility easement in the rear, without restriction from the city. It is illogical in this situation to Page 1 of 2 prevent us from building an attractive structure that will enhance the beauty and privacy of the rear yards for all of the adjoining properties as well as our own. 4. Detailed plans for the patio and pergola (also called an "arbored trellis"), including the intended setback from property line of 6' to maintain drainage and utility easement, were submitted to The Ponds at Overland Trail Homeowners Association and were approved on Feb. 15, 2003. Copies of these plans and the approval letter dated Feb. 21, 2003 are included. Please note that the plans were approved with the exception of a retaining wall, which we no longer plan to build. Instead, the proposed pergola structure will cover a stamped concrete patio, both of which are proposed to extend a maximum of 11.5 feet from the rear of the house, to maintain the 6' drainage and utility easement. 5. Preventing us from building the pergola would impose numerous undue hardships: - lack of shade leading to excessive energy use in summer. - lack of privacy. - decrease in property value, because ours is the only such property in the neighborhood currently restricted from erecting a shade structure over the rear patio/deck area, and because building the structure will enhance the appeal and value of the property. Respectfully submitted, _ Nancy A. Eckardt and Simon J. Tavener Attachments: 1) Plot plan of 1503 Woodrose Ct, showing planned location ofpatio and pergola to scale. 2) Architectural elevations showing construction plan, drawn by Dennis P. Rink, builder of proposed pergola structure. 3) List of names and addresses within 150' of property obtained from Lorimer Co. Assessor's Ofce. 4) Original request and plans submitted to HOA dated Feb. 3, 2003, and approval letter from HOA dated Feb. 21, 2003 (4 pages stapled). Page 2 of 2