HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/10/2003Minutes approved by the Board at the May 8, 2003 Meeting
FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Regular Meeting — April 10, 2003
8:30 a.m.
11 Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11
11 Chairperson: Steve Remington jPhone: (H)223-7138 11
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday April 10, 2003, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alison Dickson (left at 11:30 a.m.)
Robert Donahue
Dwight Hall
David Lingle
Andy Miscio (left at 11:30 a.m.)
Steve Remington
William Stockover
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
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:
Stockover made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 13, 2003, meeting.
Donahue seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Dickson arrived at 8:40 a.m.
3. APPEAL NO. 2414
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 2
Address: 1821 Rolling Gate Road — Approved.
Petitioner: Peter Springberg
Zone: RL
Section: 4.3(D)(2)(d)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to
1.5 feet in order to allow a 52 square foot, 8' 9" tall storage shed to be allowed to remain at its
current location adjacent to the rear patio slab. If the shed were 9" shorter, a variance would not
be required.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The shed was constructed directly abutting the concrete patio slab, with the floor of the shed
level with the floor of the patio slab. The homeowner's association reviewed the plans prior to
construction, and it was approved with the condition that the roof pitch matches the house. The
shed can be lowered 9" by changing the roof pitch or by reducing the height of the walls. If the
wall height is lowered, then the full size door would need to be replaced with a shorter door,
making it more difficult to enter, and more difficult to store or retrieve equipment. The shed
cannot be moved to the west side of the patio because it would be directly in front of a window.
The rear yard is very shallow, so if the shed is moved to the rear of the slab then a rear setback
variance would be required for a shed of this height.
Staff Comments:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes showed an aerial photograph of the
property. The lot is on the comer of Rolling Gate Road and Harmony Road. The location of the
shed is adjacent to the back comer of the house. The property backs -up to an open space. The
topography of the lot slopes down to the open space making level space minimal in the backyard.
The house has two raised decks.
Donahue asked what the requirements were for fire -rating. Barnes replied that any portion of a
building that is within three feet of a property line is required to be fire -rated. Barnes noted that
if the Applicant lowered the shed by nine inches a variance would not be required because the
shed would not exceed eight feet. Barnes stated that setbacks do not apply with a shed that is not
taller than eight -feet or larger than 120 square feet. Barnes said that regardless of the size, if a
shed is located within three -feet of the property line, a building permit would be required in
order to assure that the requirements for fire -rating are met. The Applicant would have to do the
necessary fire -rating for his shed due to the location.
Applicant Participation:
Dr. Peter Springberg, 1821 Rolling Gate Road, addressed the Board. Springberg wanted the
shed to match the house in appearance, and the most feasible location for the shed was its current
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 3
placement on the property. Springberg stated that he has not
received any complaints from his neighbors. Springberg stated he would be willing to meet the
fire -rating requirements.
Board Discussion:
Donahue was concerned about the fire -rating due to the closeness of the property line.
Remington stated that the property had some unique features such as the topography and felt that
the Applicant had limited options. Stockover was in favor of the appeal. Remington made a
motion to approve appeal number 2414. The granting of the variance is not detrimental to the
public good as there was no opposition from surrounding properties. Remington based his
motion on the hardship standard due to exceptional physical conditions unique to the property
such as having a six-foot utility easement on two sides of the property, topography, and slope of
the backyard. Miscio seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Donahue, Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Dickson, Miscio, and Hall.
Nays: None.
4. APPEAL NO. 2415
Address:
1504 West Mountain Avenue — Approved.
Petitioner:
Lon Miller
Zone:
NCL
Section:
4.6(E)(4)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback along the east lot line from 5 feet to
1.9 feet in order to allow the rear 8 feet of the east wall of the home to be replaced, and a new
roof constructed over a part of the rear portion of the home. The east wall is already at a 1.9 foot
setback, so the new construction would be in the same location as the existing. This remodel
would result in the old, enclosed porch at the rear of the home being converted to an expanded
kitchen area.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The existing kitchen is along the same side of the home as the enclosed porch, and it is the area
where a kitchen expansion would naturally occur. If the new wall is required to comply with the
setback, then there would be no way to expand the kitchen. The new wall will not add any extra
depth to the home, so the degree of existing nonconformity will not be increased.
Staff Comments:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes referred board members to the site plan
included in their packets. The house is close to the property line on Mountain Avenue. The east
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 4
wall of the house is currently setback at 1.9 feet from the east —
property line. There is a large detached building to the rear of the property. Barnes stated that
the new addition will replace the existing addition and the roof will be reconstructed. The home
is closer than three feet to the property line and the Building Official will allow the new
construction to also include a window, and dicussions have been held regarding building code
issues. Barnes noted the wall on the east side will be higher than what currently exists. The
Applicant noted that there would be approximately a two foot difference.
Lingle asked staff what was triggering the need for a variance since the new construction will
replace the existing construction. Barnes replied that the code requires that any new construction
must comply with required codes. The only time a portion of an existing, non -conforming
building can be reconstructed is if it is a result from a government taking or of a natural calamity.
Barnes stated that the Applicant is proposing the new construction on his own initiative and it is
not the result of a natural calamity or government taking.
Even though the new wall is at the same setback as the existing wall, a portion of the wall will be
taller than the existing. Therefore, it may be difficult to apply the "equal to or better than"
standard since it could be construed that the existing wall is less intrusive since it's lower than the
proposed. The Board may need to determine this appeal based on the hardship standard.
.Applicant Participation:
Lon Miller, 1504 West Mountain Avenue, addressed the Board. Miller has lived there for over
twenty years. The house was built in 1929. Miller explained that the existing addition was made
of 2x2 walls, which will be taken out with the proposed addition. The 2x2 walls are inadequate
for insulation and the ceiling is low. Miller stated that the change in the roofline would provide a
more adequate ceiling height, and the roof line would be a continous line with the rest of the
house. Miller noted that the proposed addition would not be closer to the property line than what
is existing.
Miscio asked the Applicant if the roof pitch would be increased. Applicant Miller replied yes.
Miller commented that the current roof is nearly flat and he has encountered continual leaking
problems.
Board Discussion:
Lingle was in favor of the appeal. Lingle made a motion to approve appeal number 2415 based
on the equal to or better than standard. The purpose of the side -yard setback standard is to allow
adequate privacy, ventilation, air and light. The proposal as submitted will promote the general
purpose of the standard equally well or better than a proposal that would comply with the code.
Lingle found that the physical encroachment into the side -yard setback was not being increased
by the proposal and the additional height of two feet is not a detriment to the standard. Lingle
also found that there was no detriment to the public good. Donahue seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Donahue, Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Dickson, Miscio, and Hall.
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 5
Nays: None.
5. APPEAL NO. 2416
Address:
1833 East Harmony Road — Approved.
Petitioner:
Gregg Glick
Zone:
HC
Section:
3.8.7(D)(6)
Background:
The variance would increase the sign allowance for the property at 1833 East Harmony Road
from 457 square feet to 943 square feet. The variance is requested in order to allow the east
facing tenants to place signs on the east wall facing the Harmony Village Shopping Center.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A.
Staff Continents:
This building may be at a disadvantage when it comes to the sign code due to its orientation and
the changing character of the tenant mix of the building and surrounding property. If the Board
decides in favor of this appeal, staff recommends that a condition be placed on the variance that
limits the amount of signage on the north wall facing Harmony to no more than would normally
be allowed by the sign code. In this case, that means that no more than 457 square feet of
signage be along the north.
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes referred board members to the
information included in their packets. Barnes stated that the character of the tenant mix and the
surrounding property has changed, which was demonstrated by an aerial photograph. The
property is next to the Harmony Village Shopping Center. The building is very large with
minimal building frontage on Harmony Road. Historically, the building was used for industrial
and warehouse purposes. Barnes stated that one square foot of sign allowance is allowed for
every lineal foot of lot frontage on the street or two square feet for very lineal foot of building
frontage. In this case, there would be two square feet of sign allowance. The sign allowance has
been calculated at 457 square feet, which the majority is currently being used for the tenants of
the building. A monument sign exists on Harmony Road and both sides of the sign count toward
the building's sign allowance. Barnes noted there is a driveway entrance into the property from
Harmony Road and a shared driveway access to and from the shopping center. Barnes stated
that the Applicant is proposing to base the sign allowance on the length of the building from
Harmony Road to the south, which would therefore increase the building's sign allowance. The
Applicant planned on renovating the property and adding new tenants. The Applicant would like
to offer the new tenants signage that would be visible from the driveway going into and the from
the shopping center property.
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 6
Remington asked staff if there were any provisions in the sign
code that would allow for the proposed situation. Barnes replied that the Code offers the
property owner an option. The option is that if the Applicant wants to increase their sign
allowance for a fairly narrow lot (lot frontage on the street), and the building is narrow and deep
the Code states if they elect not to put any signage on the wall facing the street the Applicant
would be able to designate any other wall on which the sign allowance would be based. Barnes
commented that the Applicant could elect to not allow any tenants to put signs up on the north
wall of the building facing Harmony Road and the east or west wall could be used to designate
the sign allowance. No signs would be allowed on Harmony Road. Barnes referred board
members to the staff comments on the agenda, specifically the restriction of sign allowance on
Harmony Road.
Remington asked if the purpose of the sign code was to restrict visual impact and clutter. Barnes
stated that there are two purposes for the sign code —safety and aesthetics. Barnes explained the
two purposes.
There was a discussion held regarding the Applicant's current signs and sign allowance.
Applicant Participation:
Tim Dow, Dow Law Firm, representative for Glick Brothers, LLLP, addressed the Board. Dow
stated that the Applicant is in agreement with staff. Dow stated there are no plans to increase the
signage on Harmony Road, and the focus is on the east side of the building. Dow referred board
members to the items he submitted for board packets. Dow stated that the property immediately
to the east of the Applicant's property is a major shopping center, Harmony Village. Dow
showed an old aerial photograph (prior to Harmony Village) to the board members. Dow stated
the building was 250 feet wide on the Harmony Road side, but 1200 feet long. Dow remarked
that the proposal was not detrimental to the public good in terms of safety issues, and the
proposed signage would not be visible from Harmony Road due to the configuration of the
building. Dow commented that there would be no change of use for the property, and the
hardship was not caused by the Applicant. Dow also stated that the property was unique.
Gregg Glick, owner of the property, addressed the Board. His family has owned the property for
25 years. Glick wants to upgrade the property and maintain the Harmony Corridor character.
The upgrades to the property will occur in five to seven stages. Traffic has increased on the
property since the development of Harmony Village (pedestrian and vehicle).
Remington asked Applicant Glick what he felt the hardship was for the variance request. Glick
stated that he had four potential tenants that are not able to put up signs. Remington asked if
there were any other hardships other than economics. Dow stated that the hardship had to do
with the physical characteristics of the property and configuration of the lot. The Applicant is
unable to do anything feasible with the property.
There was a discussion held regarding the approach of the variance request, either hardship or
the equal to or better than standard.
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 7
Hall asked the Applicant if there would be a change in tenant
character of the building. Glick replied yes and explained who potentially might lease spaces.
Board Discussion:
There was a discussion held regarding a previous variance request regarding signage and the
increased volume of traffic.
Barnes noted that staff has worked with Mr. Glick for a couple of years regarding the signage
problems for the property, and it has been a struggle to get enough signage for his tenants.
Bames explained why the signs on the property are regulated, and that the length of the building
is unique.
There was a discussion held regarding how much sign allowance would be available if the
Applicant opted not to put signs up facing Harmony Road. If signs were not facing Harmony
Road the Applicant would have 1400 square feet of sign allowance. Dow reiterated the
Applicant's request of wanting to increase the sign allowance to 943 square feet.
Lingle asked staff where the Texas Roadhouse and the Macaroni Grill generated their sign
allowance. Bames replied that the Code states if a building or property has no frontage on a
public street, the owner of the building gets to designate a wall for the purposes of determining
their sign allowance (the longest wall is usually designated).
It was the Applicant's intention for each tenant to have their own sign.
Stockover was in favor of the appeal and felt it was a unique situation. Lingle stated he could
not be in favor of the request based on the hardship standard because he felt the hardship was
Applicant driven in that the property could remain an industrial use and signage would not be
needed. Lingle would rather see the equal to or better than standard used because the signage
would not be visible from a public street. Stockover felt the Applicant was conforming to the
changing character of the neighborhood. The remainder of the Board was in favor of using the
equal to or better than standard. Remington stated his concerns. There was a discussion held
regarding signage options, specifically a monument sign and maximum signage. Stockover was
in favor of using the hardship standard because the equal to or better than standard was too vague
and the Board risked setting a precedent.
There was a discussion held regarding how to approach the variance request. Stockover made a
motion to approve appeal number 2416 based on the hardship standard for the following reasons:
(1) granting of the variance is not detrimental to the public good; (2) there are exceptional
physical conditions or other extraordinary or exceptional situations unique to the property; (3)
the narrowness and length of the lot is a hardship in the way the building is configured and the
relationship to the surrounding retail area; and (4) the nature of the surrounding businesses
causing unusual and practical difficulties, i.e. high volume of traffic, industrial to retail use,
causing the property owner to change the use of his property, which was beyond the property
owner's control. The following conditions were placed on the motion: (1) that the signage facing
Harmony Road would not increase from the existing square footage that currently exists; and (2)
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 8
any remaining signage or footage used on the east side would be
divided as needed with the restriction of the size of any one sign being limited to 60 square feet.
Barnes suggested stating that the request is not detrimental to the public good because the signs
are not visible from a public street. The property is unusual because the lot is narrow and deep (a
rarity) within City limits. Stockover agreed to amend the motion to include Barnes' comments.
Dickson seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Donahue, Stockover, Remington, Dickson, Miscio, and Hall.
Nays: Lingle.
5. APPEAL NO. 2417
Address:
630 East Locust Street — Approved.
Petitioner:
Monica Engle
Zone:
NCM
Section:
4.7(E)(3)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the north lot line from 15' to 5'
in order to allow the construction of a detached, one -car garage. The garage is 14' x 30', and
one-story in height.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The lot was split -off from the original lot about 50 years ago. Therefore, the lot no longer has
alley access and has no driveway. Consequently, the only parking area is on either Stover Street
or Locust Street. Having a parking area on the property would reduce the congestion on the
street. The petitioner desires to construct a garage in order to be able to have sheltered parking
off of the street. The home has no basement, so the garage would add needed storage space in
addition to vehicle parking. There is a large, existing deck on the rear of the home which would
have to be removed in order to construct the garage in compliance with the 15' setback. The lot
is shallower (100') than most of the lots in the neighborhood. Most of the garages in these older
neighborhoods are detached, so the proposed garage would be in keeping with the character of
the neighborhood.
Staff Comments:
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Barnes stated the property is on the corner of
Locust and Stover Streets. The lot is 100 feet in depth because the rear of the lot was split -off to
create another lot. The property does not have a curb -cut or driveway, and there is not sidewalk
on Stover Street. The proposal is to put in a curb -cut and driveway to the rear of the property
where a new garage would be constructed. The existing shed would be removed. The request is
to reduce the setback from 15 feet to five feet.
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 9
Lingle asked if the driveway access was proposed off of Stover
Street. Barnes stated that was correct. Lingle asked if there was a code requirement that
driveway accessed from the lower volume street for comer lots. Barnes replied that there was
generally no restriction as such in Fort Collins.
Applicant Participation:
Monica Engle, 630 East Locust Street, addressed the Board. Engle stated that if she did not
receive approval for her curb -cut, a mature City owned tree may have to be removed. Engle
stated that parking is difficult, crowded, and a safety issue. The garage will be placed on the
north side of the lot, and if moved closer to the house the proposed garage would not be as
aesthetically pleasing. The Applicant is also in need of storage space.
Miscio asked what the dimensions of the garage would be. Engle responded 14 x 30, and the
deck will be removed. Hall asked how close the house to the north was from the Applicant's
property. Engle responded over 15 feet.
Board Discussion:
The Board discussed how to approach the variance request. Lingle made a motion to approve
appeal number 2417 based on the equal to or better than standard. Lingle stated that the variance
would not be detrimental to the public good. The purpose of the rear -yard setback is to allow
adequate light, ventilation, air, and privacy to adjacent properties. The proposal as submitted
will 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 for the following reasons: (1)
five-foot proposed rear -yard setback would allow adequate, light, ventilation, and privacy from
the adjacent property to the north; (2) there is adequate open space to the property to the north;
and (3) the location of the garage will promote a more usable open backyard. Dickson seconded
the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Donahue, Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Dickson, Miscio, and Hall.
Nays: None.
6. APPEAL NO. 2418
Address: 1001 Akin Avenue — Approved.
Petitioner: Terry Hubbard
Zone: NCL
Section: 4.6(E)(4), 4.6(D)(1)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback from 15' to 13'-4" along the north
property line on Akin Avenue, and would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3
to 1 to 2.75 to 1, in order to allow the construction of a two-story addition between the existing
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 10
home and the existing garage. The proposed addition will
attach the two existing structures. The addition will bring the total floor area of the building to
2470 square feet (including garage).
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The proposed addition will line up with two existing bay windows. Therefore it will not
encroach into the setback any more than the structure already does. Also, a proposed new entry
will be located next to the garage and the protrusion of the structure is required to allow people
entry into the home without having to go through the garage or enter too close to the proposed
stairs. Otherwise they would have to go around to the other side of the home for access. The
addition is proposed due to the size of the home and there only being one bedroom. The new
second story will be for a second bedroom and the new first floor will be additional living space.
The proposed construction also creates a recessed garage door, which complies with the garage
door standards in today's code. The proposed lot line adjustment has no bearing on this variance
request and the lot line adjustment proposal is contingent on the approval of this variance.
Staff Comments:
The setback reduction is along the street side of this comer lot. The Board has used the "equal to
or better than standard" on several other similar requests on corner lots. As stated by the
petitioner, the new wall will result in a recessed garage will actually bring the existing non-
conforming situation into line with the intent of the Code. It may be more difficult for the Board
to apply the "equal to or better than" standard to the lot area/floor area reduction.
Bames presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes passed out revised drawings of the
variance request to the board members. The drawings were revised in order to meet the
requirements of the City's Historic Preservation Department. The property is on the comer of
Akin Avenue and Gordon Street. The property has an existing detached garage. The proposal
would be to attach the garage to the house.
Applicant Participation:
Terry Hubbard, 1001 Akin Avenue, addressed the Board. Hubbard stated that he is shy one
bedroom. Hubbard stated that the house has situational problems such as the lot being long and
narrow. Hubbard would like an extra bedroom and access to his backyard while maintaining the
historical character of the house. Hubbard stated that renovating the existing structure was not
possible because of the balloon frame construction. Hubbard noted that the placement of a
bedroom on the north side of the house is not feasible due to the volume of noise from traffic.
Lingle asked the Applicant regarding the Landmark Preservation Commission's concerns
regarding the proposed addition. Hubbard responded that their specific concern was keeping the
roofline at the same height as the existing roofline.
Board Discussion:
Z13A April 10, 2003
Page 11
Remington asked if the bay window would be included in the
setback. Bames responded no and stated that bay windows are allowed to go two feet beyond
the wall of the house.
Donahue asked staff the significance of the lot to floor area ratio. Barnes replied the purpose of
the lot to floor ratio was to limit the mass as well as the building footprint on the lots in the older
neighborhoods. Detached garages are included in the square footage. The idea is to minimize
large massive buildings and pop -top additions.
Dickson was in favor of the appeal. Remington stated that the lot was a typical corner lot, and if
the frontage was on Gordon Street then the variance would not be required. Bames commented
that was an old argument that came into being in regards to a rear lot line being considered a side
lot line. Bames stated that in this particular zone the setback requirement is 15 feet from Akin
Avenue and Gordon Street.
Hall asked about the floor area ratio and was wondering if the Applicant moved the garage
farther back on the property if it would still count as square footage. Barnes stated that the
garage regardless of placement or whether it is attached or detached it would still count toward
square footage for the lot to floor area ratio requirement.
Dickson asked about the proposed lot line adjustment. Barnes answered that the proposed
addition will not line-up with the existing south wall of the home, and it will bump out an extra
six -feet. The Applicant has arranged to adjust the lot line between his house and his neighbor's
to avoid a variance request for the south lot line. There was a discussion held regarding the
existing square footage of the building and if it was in compliance.
Lingle was in favor of the appeal, and stated that the addition is compact as possible. Lingle also
noted that the street right-of-way could be used as additional open space. Stockover felt the
Applicant was trying to jam too much onto a small lot. Donahue agreed with Stockover. There
was a discussion held regarding the Applicant's options. Lingle made a motion to approve
appeal number 2418 based on the equal to or better than standard. Lingle stated that the granting
of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The purpose of the standard for the
setback is to provide adequate ventilation, privacy, light, and air to the property. The purpose of
the lot to floor area ratio is not to adversely affect the visual bulk of a structure on a particular
lot. Lingle found that the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which
the variance is requested equally well or better than one that would comply for the following
reasons: (1) property is a corner lot and the proposed side -yard setback variance is mitigated by
the presence of parkways and the street right-of-way to provide adequate light, ventilation,
privacy, and air; and (2) the revised building plan and elevations as recommended by the
Landmark Preservation Commission mitigates the concern for the bulk and aesthetic mass of the
proposed addition in such a way that the proposed reduction in lot to floor area ratio is
acceptable. Hall seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Donahue, Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Dickson, Miscio, and Hall
Nays: None.
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 12
7. APPEAL NO.2419
Address:
922 West Oak Street — Approved.
Petitioner:
Craftsmen Builders
Zone:
NCL
Section:
4.6(E)(4), 4.6(D)(1)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback along the west lot line from 5' to 4' in
order to allow a second story addition. The west wall of the new addition will be 4' taller than
the existing west wall, and will be constructed directly on top of the existing wall. The variance
will also reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.5 to 1 in order to allow a
total building square footage of 2,200 square feet (including the existing garage), instead of the
1,867 square feet allowed.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The existing west wall is already at a four -foot setback. The new wall needs to be constructed on
top of the existing wall. The height of the wall will only be increased by 4 feet. The size of the
addition needs to be large enough to accommodate all three bedrooms on the same floor.
Staff Comments
Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. There is an alley to the rear of the property, and
the property fronts on Oak Street. The proposal would be to convert the one-story home into a
two-story home. The variance request is for the west lot -line. The wall height on the west side
would be four feet taller than the existing wall.
Anolicant Particination
Richard Markey, 922 West Oak Street, addressed the Board. Markey is planning on building a
second -story addition, which would allow three bedrooms to be on the second floor. This is
important to the Applicant and his wife because they want to be on the same floor as their
children. The proposal would not add to the footprint of the building. Markey commented that
he values his backyard. Markey stated that the house is already non -conforming. Markey stated
that several other homeowners on his block have been able to add second -story additions. The
wall height will be extended by only four -feet to make the structure appear less imposing.
Markey gave a list of the properties on Oak Street that have second -story additions.
Lingle asked if the Landmark Preservation Commission had reviewed the Applicant's proposal.
Markey said yes and they have agreed to disagree. Markey said the Commission would only
accept the option of the Applicant building out the backyard, but the Applicant is not interested
in doing so. There was a discussion held regarding the Commission's thoughts pertaining to the
project and the Applicant's options.
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 13
Board Discussion:
It was noted that the lot to floor area ratio would still be an issue regardless of the Applicant
building up or out. Bames stated that the only thing that does not count as floor area is a
basement. Barnes explained the character of Oak Street. Donahue stated the project would have
a minimal visual impact.
There was a discussion held regarding how to approach the variance request. Donahue made a
motion to approve appeal number 2419. The approval is not detrimental to the public good. If
the addition were to placed onto the rear of the house open space would not be preserved. The
proposal as submitted will maintain open space. Donahue noted that the visual impact and mass
of the structure would be minimal due to only four feet being added to the eave heights. Miscio
seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Donahue, Stockover, Lingle, Remington, Dickson, Miscio, and Hall.
Nays: None.
8. Other Business
Hall recused himself from the Board. Remington made a motion to reconsider appeal 2410.
Remington stated why he wanted to reconsider the appeal. Remington stated that it has come to
his attention that when the Applicant came before the Board he was prepared to discuss the
hardship standard. The Board found that a hardship did not exist and Remington agreed with
that. The Applicant was not prepared to discuss the equal to or better than standard. Remington
wanted to give the applicant the opportunity to address his case under the equal to or better than
standard. Remington also stated that the Board approved a similar appeal at the same meeting
under the equal to better than standard.
Barnes explained the procedural aspect of the hearing. Barnes refreshed the board members on
the appeal.
Miscio seconded the motion. Lingle was not comfortable with Remington's reason to reconsider
the appeal. Lingle was concerned about setting a precedent for reconsidering variance requests.
Miscio withdrew his second. Lingle wanted Remington to offer some validity to his argument.
Remington explained the similarities between the two appeals.
Miscio and Dickson left at 11:30 a.m. The Board still had a quorum. Stockover asked if the
Board could reconsider the appeal at the next meeting. Eckman explained the procedure for
hearing the reconsideration at the next meeting. The Board was concerned about fairness
because the two original yea votes had to leave the meeting. There was a discussion held
regarding how to proceed. Stockover seconded the motion. Remington stated that he wanted the
Board to maintain consistency, and he did not see the difference between appeal numbers 2410
and 2412. '
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 14
Donahue stated in appeal 2412 the street right-of-way was used
to approve the appeal. Bames stated that both requests were on comer lots. Donahue was in
favor of the reconsideration because he saw the similarities between the two appeals. Lingle
stated there was a clear distinction between the two appeals.
Vote:
Yeas: Donahue, Stockover, and Remington.
Nays: Lingle.
The Board took a break. Eckman asked the Applicant if he would be interested in waiting for the
reconsideration until the next board meeting since the two original yea notes had to leave. The
Applicant said no and he would rather proceed today.
Staff Comments:
Bames presented slides relevant to this appeal. The proposal is to add a second -floor to part of
the existing garage. The home has a second floor addition as well that does not cover the entire
second floor. The proposed garage addition would maintain the character of the property. The
garage was not constructed in the proper place and has since been considered not conforming.
Barnes explained the Applicant's options.
Applicant Participation:
Bill Taylor, 731 Locust Street, addressed the Board. Taylor handed out graphics to the Board.
Taylor explained his graphic hand out. Taylor explained he had good separation between the
existing properties, and where the garage currently exists it is away from surrounding structures.
Taylor stated the character of the property is maintained. Taylor also mentioned that the
footprint of the garage would remain the same. Taylor stated that if he were to add onto the east -
side of the garage within the proper setbacks, the separation would be decreased by 15 feet.
Taylor could also add onto his existing home adding additional footprint to the lot. Taylor
prefers not to do so. Taylor could also put up a completely different, separate accessory structure
in his backyard up to 800 square feet.
In support of the appeal:
Monica Engle, 630 Locust Street, addressed the Board. She was in favor of the appeal.
Board Discussion:
Lingle stated he support the Applicant building over the whole garage instead of just part of it as
proposed. Lingle's problem with the appeal is that he sees alternatives that are better than the
proposal. Lingle felt it was a cobbled on second floor that does not blend with the architecture of
the house or the garage. Lingle felt it was undesirable. Lingle supported the Applicant building
the addition on the east -side or building over the entire garage. Lingle felt that with Appeal 2412
the architecture was not compromised.
ZBA April 10, 2003
Page 15
Stockover stated that each property is unique. Stockover felt it
was out of character with the neighborhood, and it appeared to be alley -house like in style.
Stockover felt that the Board did not risk being inconsistent.
Barnes captured the Boards thoughts. There was a discussion held regarding why the Board
thinks the proposed addition is out of character of the neighborhood. Barnes stated the intent of
the proposed setback standard would be met, regardless of appearance.
Monica Engle stated her reasons as to why the proposal was in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal 2410. Remington based the
motion on the equal to or better than standard. The granting of the variance is not detrimental to
the public good. The general purpose of the standard for setbacks is to provide adequate light,
ventilation, air, and open space and the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard
equally well or better than a proposal which would comply with the code. The structure will be
next to Stover Street and will provide adequate open space, light, air and ventilation, and
building onto the structure in a different direction would take away the open space, light and
ventilation. Lingle seconded the motion. The motion failed.
Vote:
Yeas: Stockover and Remington.
Nays: Donahue and Lingle.
9. Other Business
Lingle wanted some direction from staff on the issue of subjectivity and when it is appropriate.
Eckman stated that neighborhood character could be detrimental to the public good, which
allows for some subjectivity.
Eckman explained the current protocol regarding site inspections conducted by board members.
Meeting a 'ourned at 12:20 p.m.
Steve R'elfyliniton, Chairperson
19--tF, &"
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Pet_ Amer's Letter A
TIMOTHY 1. DOW, MBA, JD
PATRICIA T. DOW, CPA, JD, LLM•
MAYO SOMMER MEYER, PC"
OF COUNSEL
• u 0 woMmso m ranch¢ uw M Rees eG
••,LLSO no�.arr®ro nncncE LAW m wvo�mc
THE DOW LAW FIRM, LLC
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
P.O. BOX 1578
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-1578
(970)498-9900
FAX: (970) 498-9966
E-MAIL: dow@dowlawfilm.com
February 27, 2003
Via Hand Delivery
Mr. Peter Barnes, Zoning Code Administrator
City of Fort Collins Building & Zoning Dept.
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Glick Brothers LLLP
1833 E. Harmony Rd.
Sign Code / Variance Request
Dear Mr. Barnes:
# 7 CLOCK TOWER SQUARE
323 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524
2312 CAREY AVENUE
CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82001
(307)634-1541
This follows our recent meeting and discussions concerning the referenced matter with
which you are familiar. This firm represents the owner of the subject property, Glick Brothers
LLLP ("Glick Bros.') Please consider this as our formal request, on behalf of Glick Bros., to
initiate the variance review procedure pursuant to the Fort Collins City Code.
With this letter, we are filing the following documents as a part of this variance review
process:
■ Nine copies of a list of names and mailing addresses of area property owners
(within 150 feet) secured from the Larimer County Assessor's office.
■ Nine copies of the architectural rendering of the building improvements and
landscaping plan.
• Nine copies of the survey plat of the property.
• Nine copies of reduced plat and Tenant Roster showing tenants' space/square
footage.
■ Nine copies of letter from City Planning dated November 16, 2001.
• Nine copies of City Manager Recommendations.
1
Glick Brothers requests the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance allowing it to place
appropriate signage consistent with the Code on the east side of the property rather than having
the signage allowance restricted to the northern frontage. The grounds for this request are set
forth below.
The Property.
The subject property is located near the southwest corner of the intersection of East
Harmony Road and South Timberline. It is immediately adjacent to the west of the new
commercial center developed on the southwest comer of this intersection, which includes the
Cinemark Theater and other commercial properties.
2. The Code Standards.
Under the strict application of the Sign Code, the sign allowance would be based on the
frontage of the building along East Harmony Road, which is in effect the side, not the front, of
the property. This frontage is approximately 150 feet, while the building is approximately 1200
feet long, running generally from north to south as depicted. With the sign allowance limited to
the north edge, the total signage for the building would be only about 450 square feet. If the east
side of the building was considered the front of the building for Sign Code purposes, the sign
allowance would be approximately 1400 square feet. The applicant is requesting that the Zoning
Board of Appeals grant a variance allowing total signage for the building to be based on the east
side rather than the north side of the property, with an appropriate deduction being given for the
north side signage already in place.
Fort Collins City Code, §2.10.2(H) provides that the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant
a variance from the standards of the Sign Code only if it finds that the granting of the variance
would neither be detrimental to the public good nor authorize any change in use other than to a
use that is allowed subject to the basic development review; and that (1) by reason of exceptional
physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to such property,
including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or
topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy
system, the strict application of the standard sought to be vaned would result in unusual and
exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the occupant of such
property, or upon the applicant, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the
act or omission of the occupant or applicant; or (2) the proposal as submitted will 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 for which the variance is requested.
Argument.
(a) The granting of the requested variance would neither be detrimental to the public
good nor authorize any change in use other than to an allowed use in this case. The east side of
the Glick Bros. property abuts the rear of a new major commercial center. Clearly the nature and
use of this and the surrounding property has changed to a high -intensity commercial use. The
signage on this property would generally be visible only to traffic entering the Glick Bros.
property or from various parking lots located on the adjacent commercial center. There would be
no impact on any residential areas which generally lie to the south of these properties. The
requested signage would be helpful not only to the tenants in the building but also to vendors and
customers of those tenants looking for their place of business. There would be no detriment to
the public good.
There is no proposed change in use other than to an allowed use. The improvements to
this property being undertaken by the applicant as indicated on the attached site plans do not
constitute a change of use or a use which is not permitted. A copy of the letter dated November
16, 2001 from the City Planning Department confirms this. Therefore, the first elements of the
standards set forth in the Code are clearly met in this case.
(b) In this case, there are exceptional physical conditions or exceptional situations
unique to this property, including physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness and
shallowness of the property. As is apparent from a review of the plat of the property, this is an
unusually narrow and deep property, and it is a property which was built prior to the adoption of
the current Sign Code. Certainly a property which is 150 feet x 1200 feet and sits sideways
relative to the street is unique as contemplated by the Code.
The strict application of the standard sought to be vaned would in fact result in unusual
and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship on the occupants (tenants)
of the property and upon the applicant/owner, and such difficulties or hardships were not caused
by the acts or omissions of either the occupants or the applicant/owner. The building was already
on the property when it was acquired by Glick Bros. Historically, this building was used
principally as a warehouse, as it backs up to an existing railroad spur to the west. Given the
number of tenants in the property as indicated on the attached schematic and the related schedule
showing the individual units and tenants, it is clear that an appropriate and fair sign allowance is
necessary to make this property viable for the owner/applicant and the tenants. Without
appropriate signage, there would be a significant reduction in the viability of the property for
multiple tenant usage, which is certainly the highest and best use for this property. It simply does
not make sense in this case to limit the allowed signage for a property such as this to the
Harmony Road frontage. The amount of signage allowed by using the Harmony Road frontage
as the standard would significantly limit the use of the balance of the property.
(c) The applicant is proposing significant improvements to the property aesthetically,
including the parking lot area. In addition, parking lot and building landscaping will be installed
per the attached plans. The eastern side of this property along the border between it and the
adjacent commercial center has in fact become a local street, although this is not a dedicated
public street. This area is used not only by tenants, customers and vendors of the Glick Bros.
property; it is also significantly used by employees and customers of the adjacent commercial
center as well as homeowners in the residential subdivisions to the south seeking an alternate
access point to their neighborhoods.
(d) Finally, the efforts of the applicant in improving this property are consistent with
general policies of the City of Fort Collins as summarized in the attached City Manager
Recommendations. The improvement of this property will be consistent with the adjacent
commercial development and will further the policies of the City of Fort Collins with respect to
3
retail and base industry expansion in existing commercial areas and enhancement of the sales tax
and economic base of the City of Fort Collins.
The applicant respectfully requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant its request for
this variance, which will allow reasonable and adequate signage, within the parameters set by the
Sign Code, along the eastern side of the property.
TJD/hb/enclosures
PC: Gregg Glick
Respectfully submitted,
Timothy J. Dow
The Dow Law F LC
Attorneys for Applicant Glick Brothers LLLP
M