Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/09/1998CITY CLERK'S OFFICE •(Approved Minutes) Liaison: Ann Azari 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, July 9, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Breth, Robert Gustafson, Dan Keating, Diane Shannon and William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Eva Lieser STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Delynn Coldiron, Staff Support to Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Shannon and roll call taken. 2. The Minutes from the June 11, 1998 meeting were approved. 3. APPEAL 2220 — Partially Approved with Conditions: Address: 913 E. Laurel Street Petitioner: Elmer Herbertson, Owner Zone: NCB Zone Sections: 3.2.2(M)(1), 3.2.2.(J), 3.8.11(2) Background: The variance would reduce the required 6% interior parking lot landscaping to 0%, reduce the required 5' landscape strip along the west, east, and the south lot lines to 0', and allow chain link fencing with slats to be used for screening purposes instead of a wood or masonry privacy fence. (The existing chain link fence would be modified by adding slats in order to achieve the required 11 ZBA July 9, 1998 Page 2 screening.). This Appeal was tabled at the June 11, 1998 meeting and was put on the July 9, 1998 agenda. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. In addition, all of the lot is used for storage or for vehicular access, with a portion of the vehicular traffic being semi -truck traffic, requiring large turning radiuses. To landscape this site would severely hamper the use of this site as it is used today. Similar variances were approved in 1993, but the paving project was never started and additional land has now been added to the site, necessitating the need for a new variance request. Staff Comments: This item came before the Board in 1993. The Board granted most of the Petitioner's variance requests; however, denied the part of the variance request that asked for elimination of landscaping along Laurel Street and for elimination of the screening requirement around the storage yard. U.S. West never moved forward with paving and improving the site. U.S. West now wants to move forward with site improvements. However, since additional land has been acquired, and the size of the area to be paved has increased, this matter is back before the Board for additional variance requests. Peter Barnes presented slides relative to this variance request. The U.S. West facility is located on East Laurel. East Laurel dead -ends one lot to the east of this property. There is an RV/boat storage facility adjacent to the U.S. West site. Along the south property line is Laurel Elementary School. Along the west property line of the site is the East Side Neighborhood Park, a fairly new City neighborhood park which has been constructed. The current code requires that outside storage yards and vehicular use areas be screened from other uses by means of a solid fence. In 1993, the Petitioner proposed using slats to obtain the necessary screening required by the code. Code at that time did not prohibit this. However, under the new Land Use Code that was adopted in 1997, chain link fencing with slats is prohibited for screening purposes. The Petitioner is asking for approval to use chain link fencing with slats for screening purposes as part of their variance request as opposed to a solid masonry fence or a six foot high wood privacy fence. The current U.S. West site is used to store a large number of vehicles, heavy equipment, trailers, materials, etc., and the Petitioner believes that putting in the required landscape islands would hinder maneuverability. Board Ouestions: Chairperson Shannon asked about the intention of the Land Use Code for not allowing chain link fencing with slats. Barnes answered that the typical type of slats that were used in the past for this purpose did not hold up well. Because of the problems with ongoing ZBA July 9, 1998 Page 3 maintenance and appearance, staff felt that aesthetically, wood or masonry was a more appropriate type of screening material. Barnes added that there are now new types of slats that are available that are more durable. Applicant Participation: Mary Wohnrade of Northern Engineering Services, Inc., spoke on behalf of Elmer Herbertson, Petitioner/Owner. Mr. Herbertson leases this property to U.S. West as a maintenance facility. The 18' of additional area that has been acquired, which was not included as part of the first variance request, is part of a land -swap deal between the City of Fort Collins and Mr. Herbertson, whereby the City is acquiring a portion of Mr. Herbertson's property along the south property line. Mr. Herbertson and the City are in the final stages of completing this deal. This additional property increases the area of the site and is the reason additional variances are being requested at this time. Board Member Keating asked Wohnrade if she knew why the original paving did not take place. Wohnrade was not sure. Board Member Gustafson asked about the stormwater drainage facility that is being required along the east property line and whether or not paving will be done up to the chain link fence to the east. Wohnrade answered that there will be a 20' strip of gravel between the paving and the chain link fence which will be used as the storm drainage area. Gustafson asked if this area will be used for parking. Wohnrade thought that some storage might occur in this area, but that no permanent structure would be permitted. Barnes confirmed that no permanent structure would be permitted in this area but mentioned that typically a storm drainage area can be used for storage in accordance with any stipulations that might be invoked by the Stormwater Utility. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Chairperson Shannon asked about the location of required landscaping if the Petitioner was required to conform to code. Barnes mentioned that the code would require a 5' landscape strip on the inside of the fence along the east, south and west property lines. They would also be required to have landscape islands throughout the storage and vehicular use area. Shannon asked if they could have landscaping in the storm drainage area. Barnes answered that they could; however, the Stormwater Utility would probably have some concerns about where landscaping would be placed, and the type of shrubs used. Board Member Breth asked if the RV storage site adjacent to the U.S. West site was going to remain RV storage. Barnes mentioned that at this point in time, staff was unaware of any plans the property owner might have to change the use of that site. 1-1 ZBA July 9, 1998 Page 4 Breth asked if Laurel Street would continue to dead-end as it does currently. Barnes mentioned that when the Albertson Shopping Center was built, there was a lot of dialog about extending Laurel through to Lemay. Due to the amount of neighborhood opposition, this issue became, and has remained, a dead issue. Board Member Stockover asked about the trees that are existing between the U.S. West site and the RV storage site and whether or not those will stay. Wohnrade mentioned that she had not received any instructions from the Stormwater Utility that these would have to be removed and, at this point, did not have any plan for removing them. Stockover asked about the existing alley. Wohnrade mentioned that this will be used as part of the stormwater drainage area. Stockover asked if this area would be graded, graveled and cleaned up. Wohnrade affirmed that it would be graded and graveled. Stockover mentioned that the property line between the U.S. West facility and the RV storage area is not that sensitive since no one will every really see it, so he would not be opposed to allowing slats along the existing fence for screening. He mentioned that the areas bordering the school and park should be brought up to code. He did not have any problems with eliminating the requirements for interior landscaping as long as there is proper screening along the property lines adjacent to the park and school. Board Member Breth mentioned that he is in opposition to slatted fencing. He did not have any problems with the elimination of the interior landscaping requirements due to the use of the property. He mentioned that there does appear to be a problem with landscaping on the west side of the property between the park and the U.S. West site; however, there does not appear to be any problems with landscaping on the south side between the school and the U.S. West site. If a decorative fence other than chain -link with slats was put in, landscaping would not be needed. Board Member Keating clarified the three items that made up this variance request: 1) reducing the required 6% interior parking lot landscaping to 0%; 2) reducing the 5' landscape strip along the west, east and south lot lines to 0'; and 3) allowing chain -link fencing with slats to be used for screening purposes. Board Member Gustafson was in opposition to using slats for screening purposes primarily along the property lines adjacent to the neighborhood park and the school. He was not in opposition to using slats between the U.S. West site and the RV storage site because they are both industrial uses, and mentioned that this fence could just stay as is, without slats at all. He mentioned that some landscaping along the east property line could be included, especially since it will be used as a storm drainage area. He recommended that the Board deny the removal of the 5' landscape requirement along the east side, but approve the reduction of the 5' landscape requirement along the south and west sides provided that privacy fencing (not slatted fencing) be installed, and approve the reduction of the interior park lot landscaping to 0%. ZBA July 9, 1998 Page 5 Stockover mentioned that it might make sense not to require any landscaping between the U.S. West site and the RV storage site until such a time that the RV storage site develops since no one really sees this area, and requiring landscaping would be an economic hardship on the Petitioner. Board Member Keating made a motion that Appeal 2220 be approved, as follows: - The variance reducing the required 6% interior parking lot landscaping to 0% is approved. - The variance to reduce the 5' landscape strip along the west and south property lines to 0' is approved with the requirement that a masonry or wood privacy fence be constructed along these property lines. - The variance to reduce the 5' landscape strip along the east property line to 0' is approved, unless the Stormwater Utility requires landscaping in this area, or until such time that the property adjacent to this site (RV storage site) redevelops. - The existing chain -link fence along the east property line can remain as -is until such time that the property adjacent to this site (RV storage site) redevelops. Board Member Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Gustafson, Keating, Shannon, Breth, Stockover Nays: None Appeal 2220 was partially approved with conditions. 4. APPEAL 2221 — Approved: Address: 629 W. Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Susan Rogers and David Haimson, Owners Zone: NCM Section: 4.7 (E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required street side setback along the Loomis Avenue property line from 15' to 11'6", in order to allow the existing rear porch to be removed and a new one-story, 600 sq. ft. addition to be constructed at the rear of the home. This Appeal was tabled at the June 11, 1998 meeting and was put on the July 9, 1998 agenda. ZBA July 9, 1998 Page 6 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: In order to allow the existing basement stairway to remain in the home, the addition must be located closer than the required 15'. The addition will still be located 3.5' further away from the property line than the existing home setback. The home is small, 875 sq. ft., and the addition will add another bedroom, bathroom, and utility room. There is also a 90 year old tree that constrains the design of the addition. Staff Comments: Barnes presented slides related to this appeal. This property is located at the corner of Mountain and Loomis. The house is on a corner lot. The street side property line setback is required to be 15'. On Loomis, the property line is approximately 4' behind the sidewalk. So, any new construction is required to be 15' east of that property line. The Applicant's proposed addition would be 11'6" from the Loomis property line instead of the required 15'. There is a portion of the home that is already at an 8' setback, so the proposed addition would be 3.5' further east than the existing home. The Landmark Preservation Commission gave approval to the demolition of the porch and the construction of the new addition on May 14, 1998. Board Ouestions: Board Member Keating asked for the distance between the property line and the sidewalk. Barnes mentioned that it is 4' behind the sidewalk. Applicant Participation: Applicant Susan Rogers addressed the Board. She mentioned that the main issue they have is the location of the basement stairs and door. The back door of the home currently lines up with the door to the basement. Since the home is a brick structure with stone below grade level, it would be very difficult to cut an opening down through the foundation anywhere else. It is also preferred that the back door continue to line up with the door to the downstairs. Applicant provided the Board with conceptual elevation drawings. Board Member Breth asked about the 90 year old tree that was referenced. Rogers mentioned that the tree is located about 1.5' from the existing porch. She wants to preserve the tree and is planning the addition around it. Public Participation: None. 11 • Board Discussion: ZBA July 9, 1998 Page 7 Breth mentioned that he had no problem with this appeal. The house already has an 8' setback and is heavily landscaped. Board Member Keating made a motion that Appeal 2221 be approved for the hardships stated. Board Member Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Gustafson, Keating, Shannon, Breth, Stockover Nays: None. Appeal 2221 was approved. 5. APPEAL 2228 — Approved: Address: 508 Gordon Street Petitioner: Dick Osborne and Marge Boehner, Owners Zone: NCL Sections: 4.6(F)(1)(g), 4.6(F)(1)(d) Background: The variance would allow the roof pitch of an addition to exceed the maximum allowed 12:12 pitch. Specifically, the variance would allow the roof pitch to be 16:12 and 14:12 in order to allow existing solar collectors to be at the optimum angle. The variance would also allow the second story addition to overhang the existing exterior wall of the garage on the north side. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The steeper roof pitch is desired to allow the existing solar panels to be used in a more aesthetically pleasing manner. The second floor overhang is on the side of the building that is least visible, and does not violate the intent of the code. The home already has a roof with many different pitches. Staff Comments: There are older homes in the neighborhood that have existing roof pitches that are greater than 12:12, so the roof would not be totally out of character. Barnes mentioned that the variance originally applied for was a two-part variance; roof pitch, and the second story addition overhanging the exterior side wall of the building. Upon further review, staff determined that the second part of this variance was not required. The addition overhangs the existing lower wall. The intent of the code is that as you look at a property from the street, if a second story addition were built, there would be no overhang seen over the front or the sides of the structure. The addition that is being proposed will not ZBA July 9, 1998 Page 8 overhang any of the perimeter side walls of the building and, therefore, conforms with code. Roof pitch is the only item the Board needs to address. Barnes presented slides relative to this appeal. The east side/west side neighborhoods have certain design criteria in the code. One of those is that the roof pitch has to be a minimum of 2:12 and a maximum of 12:12, unless it matches any existing roof pitch on the building. If this home already had a 16:12 roof pitch, no variance would be required. While there are many different roof pitches on Petitioner's home, none of them are in excess of what the code requires. The Petitioner wants to construct a roof steep enough that the solar panels can be laid flat on the roof, rather than propped up. Board Ouestions: Chairperson Shannon asked about the intent of the roof pitch ordinance. Barnes mentioned this part of the code was amended in 1994 after two or three years of public debate between City Council and property owners in the east side and west side neighborhoods. Initially, many design standards were included in the revised code. Almost all of these design standards were removed once the debate had concluded. The roof pitch ordinance was added in an effort to avoid having flat -pitched roofs. Although staff initially proposed an ordinance which only addressed flat -pitched roofs, the final ordinance was revised to include minimum and maximum allowable roof pitches. Applicant Participation: Applicant Dick Osborne addressed the Board. He stated that his main concern is to make the solar panels more aesthetically pleasing by having them flush against the roof. Also, the roof lines of the existing greenhouse and the rest of the house do not match. The proposed addition addresses both of these issues. Osborne mentioned that there are roofs of comparable pitch to what is being proposed in this area. The home that is adjacent to the Petitioner's property to the north has a 15:12 pitch roof. 16:12 pitch is not quite optimal for solar collecting, but a roof steeper than this causes problems with shingle installation, etc. If a 12:12 pitch roof is required, Petitioner would have to either prop up the solar collectors, which is aesthetically displeasing, or have solar collectors which work inefficiently. Public Participation: None. ZBA July 9, 1998 Page 9 Board Discussion: Board Member Gustafson mentioned that the roof pitch being requested adds to the character of the house. Strict application of the code would hinder the Applicant's ability to efficiently utilize solar energy devices. Gustafson made a motion to approve Appeal 2228 for the hardships stated. Board Member Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Gustafson, Keating, Shannon, Breth, Stockover Nays: None. Appeal 2228 was approved. 6. APPEAL 2229 — Approved: Address: 1613 Person Court Petitioner: Stephen Burford, Owner Zone: LMN Sections: 3.5(D)(3) Back rg ound: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15' to 5' in order to allow the construction of a 16' x 36' detached garage/workshop to be located behind the home. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The house is small (660 sq. ft. with no basement). The owner would like to build a detached building large enough to be used as a garage with extra room for a hobby area. The home is set back from the front lot line over 50', which is quite unusual. If the home were located closer to the front, then the building could be built without a variance. Because the street is a dead-end street, the large front yard is generally used in the manner that back yards are, therefore, the front yard, with the large trees and deep setback is not a good place for the garage. A front garage would also be totally out of character with the block since there are no other garages in the front. Staff Comments: The character of the block is quite unusual since the street is only 1 block long and is a dead- end. All the other garages in the area are located behind the homes. It is also unusual for a home to be constructed on a lot so that it is located on the rear portion of the property. r� LJ ZBA July 9, 1998 Page 10 Barnes presented slides relative to this variance. Person Court is located just south of East Prospect and several blocks east of College Avenue. Person Court cannot be accessed from any other way than by Parker Street. The Applicant's home is set back a little over 50' from the front lot line, and 44' from the rear property line, so it is more towards the back of the lot than it is to the front of the lot. The proposal is to construct a garage/workshop in the rear of the lot. A 6' privacy fence will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed garage/workshop. Board Ouestions: None. Applicant Participation: Applicant Stephen Burford addressed the Board. He mentioned that his house is so small that there is no storage area inside. About half of the proposed garage/workshop would be a storage area along with a work area. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Board Member Breth made a motion to approve Appeal 2229 based on the hardships stated. Board Member Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Gustafson, Keating, Shannon, Breth, Stockover Nays: None. Appeal 2229 was approved. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: Barnes reported that Board Member Tom Sibbald resigned. Chairperson Shannon read his resignation letter. The City Clerks office is in the process of advertising for this vacancy. Applications are due by June 30, 1998. Board Member Lieser has requested a leave of absence for the next three months to allow her to travel with her husband who just recently retired. She will get a written request to Chairperson Shannon. U ZBA July 9, 1998 Page 11 Barnes mentioned that starting in August or September, other members of the Zoning staff will be participating in the staff presentation portion of appeals. Barnes will continue to be present at the meetings. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m. Diane Shannon, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator