HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/09/199911 Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11
II Chairperson: William Stockover I Phone: 482-4895 (H)
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, September 9, 1999, in
the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft.
Collins.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Thad Pawlikowski, Steve Remington, William Stockover, Martin Breth, Diane Shannon
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
David Afraid
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector
Sandy Lindell, Staff Support to Board
AGENDA:
1. ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call taken.
2. The Minutes from the August 12, 1999 meeting were approved.
3. APPEAL 2269: -- Approved
Address: 2121 E. Harmony Road
Petitioner: BHA Design, Inc., Architecht
Zone: HC
Section: 3.8.7(G)(6)
Background:
The variance would increase the number of allowed freestanding signs on Harmony Road
from 1 to 4 and increase the number allowed on timberline Road from 1 to 2. Specifically,
one of the additional Harmony signs would be a 10 sq. ft. parking lot directional sign, located
55' south of the Harmony lot line. The other 2 additional harmony signs would be small,
E
• ZBA
Sept. 9, 1999
Page 2
2.25 sq. ft. logos located on each side of the Harmony driveway entrance. The additional
TimberlineRoad entrance.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Any directional sign larger than 4 sq. ft. counts as a freestanding sign. Because the buildings
Make up the campus have numerous entrances and uses, it is important that the directional
sign be large enough so that patients can read it without slowing down or stopping, and
thereby impeding traffic on Harmony. The logos will be incorporated into entry columns at
the Harmony and Timberline entrances. The entry columns are sculptural elements that are
designed to carry out the theme of the campus. They really aren't signs, yet the logo
categorizes the sculpture as a freestanding sign. The property is actually allowed one larger
sign on timberline that could be as large as 90 sq. ft.; however, the small logo/entry columns
are proposed instead.
Staff Comments:
Jenny Nuckols presented slides relative to this appeal. Slides were viewed showing the
entrance to the Poudre Valley Hospital South Campus off of Timberline Drive. The area of
the proposed entry columns were shown at the Harmony entrance. The proposed locations of
the directional signs and the larger, project identification sign were viewed.
Shannon asked if the entry columns did not include the PVH logo, if they then would be in
compliance with the Code and not required to apply for a variance. Peter Barnes replied that
without the logo, the entry columns would be considered a "work of art" and therefore
exempt from the Sign Code. Barnes explained that the logo plaque makes the columns a
freestanding sign since they are not part of the building.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Bruce Hendee of BHA Design, Inc., addressed the Board. Hendee presented an
overview of the master plan for the Poudre Valley South Campus project. Hendee noted that
the campus encompasses 100 acres including buildings that will have a variety of uses, one
of which may be an elderly care facility. This project will have an inner campus surrounded
by a loop -road that would segregate the parking zones from the inner campus and maintain
the pedestrian area in the center. Hendee pointed out that patrons of the facilities would need
directions to the proper buildings in a manner that would not heavily burden them with signs,
but still be easy for them to find their way. By keeping the PVH logos on the signs, Hendee
believes it would make them easily identifiable and aesthetically pleasing. Hendee
mentioned that there would be a deceleration lane for people entering the facility off of
Harmony Road. At this point, people would have the option of three different directions to
go, the directional sign at this location is needed to quickly ascertain where to go to keep
traffic from backing up onto Harmony Road and needs to have large enough letters to be
easily read. Hendee contended that the four foot sign requirement impedes the ability to
quickly convey people through the campus.
• • ZBA
Sept. 9, 1999
Page 3
Hendee commented that the sign on Timberwood Drive is a permitted sign on a public road.
PVH is not proposing a sign out on Timberline Road; therefore, they will be using only one
sign for two right of ways. According to the Sign Code, they would be able to have one of
these columns with the logo on it, but not both columns and they desire to have both.
Remington asked the Applicant if, as the campus is built out and the road goes through,
would they then require a sign on Timberline Road. If they did desire a sign at that location,
would a variance be required for that sign. He wanted to know how much signage will be
required overall for this project.
Hendee responded that they would possibly need additional signage only on the Harmony
Road side and these would probably be entry columns and a freestanding sign.
Barnes commented in that case that they would have to apply for another variance at that
time and could not be included with this variance request.
Barnes mentioned that along Timberline Rd., they would be allowed one freestanding sign as
large as 90 sq. ft. per side. As they are not proposing a large I.D. sign on Timberline, only the
2 entry columns, one of those two, 2.25 sq. ft. signs would be allowed. In asking for one
additional sign on Timberline, the two they are proposing would be in place of the 90 sq. ft.
sign allowed.
Pawlikowski asked the Applicant if the directional sign on Timberline would need to be
revised as time went by and more information added to it.
Hendee replied that there is potential of that particular sign needing to be expanded, however,
they are designing any additional verbiage to fit within the original sign size submitted with
this variance. Hendee stated that if they need additional signage at that location at a later
date, they would place them in an area not in the public right of way and therefore not
requiring a variance for them. Barnes clarified that a sign that is not visible from a public
street or property line is not regulated by the Sign Code.
Public Participation:
None.
Board Discussion:
Shannon commented that after visiting another hospital facility recently and finding the
signage there to be very inadequate, she felt that good signage is crucial in a hospital facility
to ensure that people get to where they need to be. Shannon also commented that with the
fast moving traffic along Harmony Road, it would be important to have signs directing the
traffic from that street in a manner that directions could be ascertained quickly.
Remington mentioned that in previous variances, the Board has put conditions on the
approval of the variance such that the Applicant could not come back and ask for additional
signage at a later date.
• • ZBA
Sept. 9, 1999
Page 4
Barnes stated that these signs are different than some of the variance requests Remington was
referring to, in that the Applicant in this case is allowed to have a sign up to 90 sq. ft per side
on Timberline Road, but has elected to put up the entry columns in its place. In doing so, this
would preclude any other signs. The only way the Applicant could put up another
freestanding sign along Timberline Road is with a variance.
Shannon made a motion to approve Appeal #2269 due to the nature of the facility and its
campus concept. Breth seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Remington, Stockover, Breth, Shannon
Nays: None
Appeal #2269 was approved.
4. APPEAL 2272: -- Approved
Address: 601 E. Elizabeth Street
Petitioner: Bud and Meridith Razey, Owners
Zone: NCL
Section: 4.6 (E)(2)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required setback along Smith Street from 15' to 10.5' and
reduce the required setback along the south lot line from 5' to 3.67' in order to allow an
existing deck to be covered and enclosed.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The Petitioner's Statement of Hardship was referred to in a letter sent by the Applicant's to
the Board. The letter stated the conditions and concerns they believed constituted a hardship
in this case.
Staff Comments:
Barnes wanted to clarify that the notices that had previously been sent to adjacent property
owners and the information the Board received, had erroneous information regarding the
front setback for this Appeal. The setback request for this variance along Smith Street was
noted to be from 15' to 10.5' when it should actually be 15' to 11.5'.
Nickels presented slides of the Applicant's property noting the site of the proposed addition.
The existing neighbor's garage was shown and its relationship to the Applicants proposed
addition. This slide showed that the neighboring garage was currently setback the same as
the Applicant's proposed addition. The distance from the Applicant's property line and the
edge of the structure to be enclosed was noted by Nuckols to be 11.5' and the setback to
• • ZBA
Sept. 9, 1999
Page 5
Smith Street was 26.5'. In the slide showing the northeast veiw, Nuckols mentioned that the
covered deck addition would line up exactly with the existing house.
Stockover commented that much of the work proposed for the variance appeared to have
already been started in the slides seen. Nuckols affirmed that this appeared to be the case.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Meridith Razey, addressed the Board. Razey apologized for the construction
already being underway for this project, stating that she and her husband were unaware that
they needed to obtain a variance to cover the deck. Razey reiterated information supplied in
her letter to the Board regarding the neighbors trees and how the Razey's have had to
resurface the deck every year due to the residue emitted from the trees dripping on it in
addition to an array of other problems created by the trees.
Public Participation:
None.
Board Discussion:
Shannon commented that the deck cover appears to conform to the original footprint and
although the trees are a problem, she didn't know if that alone was enough to constitute a
hardship to grant the variance.
Barnes interjected that he had conversed with Deputy City Attorney, Paul Eckman, in regards
to this Appeal. Barnes stated that in the past, problems with trees have been considered to be
a topographic hardship. Barnes informed Eckman that the trees were not on the Applicant's
property and cutting them down was not an option and therefore not within their power to
control. Barnes and Eckman concurred that this Appeal could possibly fall into the
topographical hardship realm.
Breth noted that in the Applicant's letter, she stated the setback for their covered deck would
be the same as the neighbor's and therefore, there was already an obstruction projecting to
that point.
Remington made a motion to approve Appeal # 2272 based on the topographical hardship
incurred by the trees at the adjoining property. Shannon seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Remington, Stockover, Breth, Shannon
Nays: None
Appeal 2272 was approved.
5. APPEAL 2273: -- Approved
Address:
Petitioner:
Zone:
Section:
Background:
405 N. Grant Avenue
David Warner, Owner
NCM
4.7(E)(4)
ZBA
Sept. 9, 1999
Page 6
The variance would reduce the required south sideyard setback from 9' to 7' to allow a
dormer along the south wall on a second story addition that is currently under construction.
An 8' section of the proposed dormer is the only wall portion out of compliance.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The existing house currently sits at a 7' sideyard setback. The second story addtion is
currently under construction. The dormer cahnges are requested for aesthetic exterior
reasons, and interiorly, the proposed dormer creates additional headroom, whereas the
permitted roof/dormer limits the headroom in the bathroom. Historic Preservation has
approved the proposed dormer changes/elevations. The existing home is 818 sq. ft. and the
family is expecting a child and finds the need for a larger home.
Staff Comments:
Nuckols commented that before she presented the slides for this Appeal, she wanted to note
that the construction currently underway by the Applicant's is work being done under a valid
building permit for the 2nd story addition and a small addition to the west of the house.
Nuckols presented the slide showing the construction noted above. She referred to the
elevation drawing in the Board's packets referring to the the 2"a story roof pitch on the
dormers. The roof pitch is why the height variance is needed to meet the 5' sideyard setback
in this zoning area. Nuckols said that anything 18 feet and over, for every two feet, or
fraction of those two feet, an additional foot is needed to meet the setback requirement.
Nuckols continued to present slides showing where the addition would encroach into the
setback. The site of the proposed addition was viewed where the existing setback is 7' and
would be 9' with approval of the variance. The neighboring property was viewed and
Nuckols noted that there was quite a bit of distance between the Applicant's property and the
neighboring property.
Breth asked for clarification on which parts of the construction were approved by the
Building Department and subsequently obtained a permit for. Nuckols submitted detailed
drawings from the Applicant to the Board that better illustrated the separation of the
permitted construction from the work proposed if a variance was granted.
Shannon asked Barnes the purpose for the height restrictions in the setback requirements.
Barnes replied that the height restriction was one of the Code amendments the City Council
approved in 1996. Barnes continued to explain that because there are so many narrow lots in
the older part of town, there was some concern by City Council that if just the 5' minimum
setback was allowed regardless of the height of the house, there might possibly arise a
problem of shading and density in the neighborhoods when people started doing second floor
11
zBA
Sept. 9, 1999
Page 7
additions. City Council came up with a formula wherein the higher the wall got, the more it
was required to step back to allow addition sunlight to the neighboring lots.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, David Warner, addressed the Board. Warner commented that he and his wife
wanted to do all they could to keep the architectural integrity of their home in line with the
old town neighborhood. Warner stated that to comply with the setback requirements, he
would have to hip the roof on the dormer addition, which would not only reduce the
headroom, but also complicate the design of the office and bathroom area. As a result of the
hip roof, the addition is not as attractive or architecturally compatible with the neighborhood.
Warner stated that while he supports the idea of requirements reducing tall walls that result in
narrow alleyways between neighbors, the variance he is asking for only includes an 8'
section of his home and there is a considerable distance from his home and the neighboring
property. Warner also mentioned that he and his neighbor agreed there would be no adverse
shading to the adjoining property resulting from his addition.
Breth asked for clarification from the Applicant on the design elements of the upstairs areas
to be finished. Warner responded that the hip roof greatly complicates the design and would
create an odd ceiling configuration.
Breth noted that the proposed addition would not extend beyond the roofline of the home.
The Applicant confirmed that the existing roof would be removed and replaced with 12/12
pitch roof and the entire new structure would be below the eaves of that new roof. Warner
said this would achieve both the desired headroom and prevent a look of the tall walls along
the property lines.
Public Participation:
None.
Board Discussion:
Breth mentioned that there is not a lot of difference in the plans that were permitted and those
that were proposed other than what is referred to as the "crimped" gable.
Breth made a motion to approve Appeal #2273 based on the hardship stated. Pawlikowski
seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Remington, Stockover, Breth, Shannon
Nays: None
Appeal 2273 was approved.
6. APPEAL 2274: -- Approved
• • ZBA
Sept. 9, 1999
Page 8
Address:
1106 Poudre River Drive
Petitioner:
Dick Rutherford of Stewart & Associates, Engineering Consultant
Zone:
CCR
Section:
3.2.2(7)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required width of the parking lot landscape setback behind the
street right-of-way line along Poudre River Drive from 10' to 5' in order to allow the
construction of a parking lot expansion. The plan will still include 10' of landscape setback,
but 5' of it will be between the new sidewalk and the street curb, instead of all of it being
behind the right-of-way line.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The parking lot expansion is designed to compliment the already existing and approved
parking lot. The new area will actually have a larger landscape setback than the old one.
The code used to require a 10' setback behind the curb, not the property line, and this
proposal would meet that requirement. However, the code was changed 2 years ago to
require that the setback be entirely behind the property line. If the extra 5' is required, then
an entire row of parking will need to be removed.
Staff Comments:
Nuckols presented slides showing the existing parking lot layout and the approved
landscaping. Nuckols referred to the drawings of the proposed parking lot layout included in
the Board's packet that showed the area that would be landscaped. Slides were shown of the
entrance to the existing lot and where the street dead -ends to that location. Nuckols noted
where the existing lot and the proposed lot expansion meet.
Barnes commented that in the slide showing the existing landscape setback, the Board might
note that it is behind the sidewalk on the developed property, but as the lot is extended in the
expansion, the sidewalk and the landscaping will become detached.
Shannon asked if the existing parking lot conformed to the code standards. Barnes replied
that it currently does not, as it was originally developed under a P.U.D. under the old code
and did not meet the current 10' code requirement.
Breth asked if by just having 5' of landscaping lie on the wrong side of the sidewalk was
enough to constitute something that would require a variance. Barnes replied that the
sidewalk really isn't the problem and before adopting a new code two years ago, a 10'
setback was required behind the back of the sidewalk, or in the absence of a sidewalk, behind
the edge of the pavement. The new code changed the 10' requirement to be behind the right-
of-way line or property line with no consideration of the sidewalk. Because the existing
parking lot was done under a P.U.D, it did not have to meet the code requirements at that
time.
• • ZBA
Sept. 9, 1999
Page 9
Remington asked Barnes to clarify that if the requirement for the sidewalk to be detached
was due to the new Code. Barnes responded that it was actually a requirement of the City
Engineering Department that the sidewalk was detached and perhaps the Applicant could
better reply to that question.
Annlicant Participation:
Applicant, Dick Rutherford, addressed the Board. Rutherford wanted to first mention that he
was representing The Internal Medicine Clinic, owners and occupants of the property
proposing the parking lot expansion. In response to the question regarding the requirements
from the City Engineering Department that the sidewalk be detached, Rutherford said the
Engineering Department had changed its requirements for all streets. They now require that
all sidewalks cannot be attached to the curb and must have at least 5' of landscaped area
between the curb and the front of the walk and also for the walk to have a width of 5', this is
why the existing walk was attached to the curb and after crossing the driveway cut, the
sidewalk was detached with the 5' landscaping in between. Rutherford stated that as a result
of this, there was 10' of landscaping, 5' of that between the curb and the front of the walk
and then another 5' of landscaping between the back of the walk and the curb for the
proposed parking lot.
Rutherford explained that the owners purchased the lot for parking lot expansion with the
intent of keeping in line with the master plan of the Poudre River Business Park in that there
would be another building constructed in that area sharing a common driveway that would
split to the right and left. The Internal Medicine Clinic has increased its clientele by adding
additional medical services, which has increased the need for more parking. The staff for
this building now must park in the graveled area of the proposed parking lot. Rutherford said
they could not widen out the lot from the north to the south by adding another 5' of
landscaping because the property line at the north borders a steep bank which is not in their
power to alter as it is not on their property. Rutherford stated that the hardship for this
variance would be that if they had to have 10' of landscaping from the property line, they
would end up with 15' of landscaping total, and the only way they could configure the lot to
meet that criteria is to take out the north row of parking, losing about a third of the parking
spaces, resulting in an inefficient parking lot that would not meet the needs of the clinic.
Remington asked the Applicant if there was any problems encountered with the utility
easment being in the parking lot instead of the landscaped area. Rutherford replied that it is
required that the easment has to be behind the right-of-way and is commonplace that the
easment can partially cover both the parking lot and the landscaped area. Remington asked if
diagonal parking was utilitzed, would it save the spacing taken out by the parking lot
requirements. Barnes responded that the spaces could be shortened by using diagonal
parking, but it doesn't result in any meaningful savings until the angle becomes about 45
degrees or less and would probably end up losing about the same amount of spaces because
of the depth needed for the angled parking.
Rutherford commented that with the 90 degree parking, it would allow more than just a one-
way system for traffic flow. If angled parking was used, traffic would have to be directed all
the way around the lot to exit and enter and a two way traffic flow is more efficient.
• • ZBA
Sept. 9, 1999
Page 10
Pawlikowski asked for clarification on the amount of footage of landscaping that was
required on the existing parking lot and the amount that would be required for the proposed
parking lot. Barnes referred to one of the slides presented earlier to show that the existing
parking lot contained approximately 6' to 7' of landscaping and then the 5' sidewalk
resulting in a total distance of approximately I V from the curb. The proposed parking lot
would have the curb, 5' of landscaping, a 5' sidewalk and then another 5' of landscaping
totaling approximately 15' instead of 11'. Barnes commented that is what happens when you
have P.U.D.'s that could vary the old Code.
Public Participation:
None.
Board Discussion:
Breth commented that the Applicant would not be here if it were not for a code change and
they are attempting to align the new parking lot with an existing lot and condition. In this
circumstance, even though the code has changed, 10' is still 10'. This is a case of an
existing condition that the code has changed and they have tried to comply as best they can.
Breth made a motion to approve Appeal #2274 for the hardship stated. Shannon seconded
the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Remington, Stockover, Breth, Shannon
Nays: None
7. APPEAL 2275: -- Approved
Address: 509 E. Myrtle
Petitioner: Barry Schram, Owner
Zone: NCM
Section: 4.7(E)(3)
Back,, rg_ound:
The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15' to 2.7' in order to allow
the walls of the existing garage at the rear of the home to be reconstructed at the same
setback and size as originally constructed.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The older garage walls were in bad shape and needed to be rebuilt in order to re-establish
structural integrity. The lot is very shallow, only 50'. The foundation and roof are already
existing at this location.
Staff Comments:
ZBA
Sept. 9, 1999
Page 11
Nuckols presented slides relevant to this appeal. Slides were shown of the existing garage
structure in all directions. Shannon asked for clarification that this garage was being
reconstructed to be exactly the same configurations as before. Barnes commented that this
building is what Zoning calls a non -conforming building in that it does not meet the required
setbacks. It is an old building and was constructed either before the City had codes or used
old codes. The Code allows a non -conforming building to be reconstructed to a safe
condition if the City first inspects it and deems it to be an unsafe condition. If the City deems
it to be unsafe, a permit may be issued to reconstruct without a variance. Barnes stated that
the City had not been called out to do that inspection in this instance and reconstruction
began without going through those channels, therefore requiring a variance.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Barry Schram, addressed the Board. Schram stated that he purchased the property
at 509 E. Myrtle three months ago. At the time of purchase, the garage project had already
been underway by the previous owner. Schram stated that when he closed on the property,
he inquired if any permits were necessary. He said he was informed that because it was an
existing building and they were just doing reconstruction, there was not a need to approach
the City. It wasn't until Schram received a Stop Work Order for failure to obtain a permit,
that he became aware of the situation requiring a permit and the variance.
Remington asked the Applicant if there had been any changes to the foundation of the
garage. Schram replied that there were no changes to the foundation and the roof is the
original roof including the trusses. Schram stated that when he purchased the property, there
was just the roof structure, the foundation and the 2 x 6 frame. Schram said he has just
installed a garage door and the siding.
Public Participation:
None.
Board Discussion:
Shannon commented that since Schram is only replacing an already existing building, she did
not have a problem with it. Breth concurred with Shannon further noting that it is a small lot
and that if the previous owner had contacted the City, he probably would have been granted
approval to rebuild this structure.
Breth made the motion to approve Appeal #2275 for the hardship stated. Shannon seconded
the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Pawlikowski, Remington, Stockover, Breth, Shannon
Nays: None
Appeal 2275 was approved.
ZBA
Sept. 9, 1999
Page 12
Other Business:
A. Election of Officers:
Barnes mentioned that this is the annual meeting to determine who will occupy the
Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson and Vice -Chair positions.
Shannon made a motion to appoint William Stockover to fill the Chairperson position.
Seconded by Breth.
The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.
Shannon made a motion that she would volunteer to fill the Vice -Chair position.
Seconded by Remington.
The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
B. New Board Member:
Barnes informed the Board of the new ZBA member filling the vacancy left by Dan
Keating. The new member's name is Andy Miscio, a local realtor. His term became
effective Tuesday, September 7, 1999.
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
William Stockover, Chairperson
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator