Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 08/12/1999A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, August 12, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Ayraud, Thad Pawlikowski, Steve Remington, and Diane Shannon BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Martin Breth and William Stockover STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Gary Lopez, Zoning Inspector Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, Staff Support to Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Board Member Shannon and roll call taken. 2. The Minutes from the July 8, 1999 meeting were approved. 3. APPEAL 2259: -- Approved with Conditions Address: 4606 South Mason Street Petitioner: Fred Frantz, Contractor Zone: C Section: 3.8.7(1) • • ZBA Aug. 12, 1999 Page 3 enough sign allowance for all of the existing sign allowance to remain once the "audio" and "video" signs have been removed. There was a question on whether there was a limitation on the number of signs that could be placed on a property. Barnes answered that there are no limitations on the number of signs in the sign district along College Avenue. In the Neighborhood Sign District, however, there are limitations on the number of signs that are allowed. The only limiting factor in this case is the sign allowance that the property has. The allowance can be used up in one sign, or can be divided up between a number of signs. There was a question on the amount of sign allowance that would remain if this appeal were granted. Barnes answered that there would be approximately 100 square feet of signage allowance remaining. Pawlikowski asked if there were any other issues besides the 12" projection that caused concern in this case. Barnes answered that there were none. Applicant Participation: Mery Eckman with Adcon Sign Company addressed the Board. He provided Board Members with a proposed drawing of the sign. He restated that the proposed sign would be made up of individual letters and would not be a cabinet sign. He also mentioned that the sign would match the letter style of the signs that were located on the opposite side of the building. Shannon asked if the sign would be illuminated. Eckman confirmed this. Pawlikowski asked if this was a standard sign used by this franchise. Eckman answered that the proposed sign was the franchise's logo, and would be done in their type -style, colors, etc. The sign itself is a very standard type of sign that is manufactured by Adcon Sign Company. Pawlikowski asked about building attachment. Eckman clarified that there will be two points of attachment. He also clarified that there would be no flux in the sign. Ayraud asked if there was any intent to add additional signage should this variance be approved. Eckman answered that he was not aware of any plans to add more signage. Pawlikowski asked whether the "audio" and "video" signs that would be removed once the new sign was installed would be relocated to another part of the building. Eckman answered that there were no plans to relocate these signs on the building. Public Participation: None. e • • ZBA Aug. 12, 1999 Page 5 Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He mentioned that in order meet the Landmark Preservation Commission's recommendations related to the proposed addition in this case, the height of the building had to be increased. This increase changed the required setback along the north property line from the normal 5' setback to a 6.5' setback. He also reiterated that the lot is very narrow; only 35'. Shannon asked if the property would remain in character with the neighborhood with the 2nd story addition. Lopez answered that the Landmark Preservation Commission makes these types of decisions. Applicant's proposal was approved as long as the recommended change to the roof pitch was made. Shannon asked if there were any similar houses in the neighborhood. This could not be confirmed. Shannon asked if any letters of complaint had been received. Lopez answered that none had been received. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Ron Lynam, addressed the Board. He mentioned that the proposed project converts a 1,050 square foot home into a 1,700 square foot home. Lynam clarified the position of the property line between his home and his neighbor to the north. Lynam also provided Board Members with copies of letters from neighbors on either side of him, indicating their support for the proposed addition. Barnes read the letters for the record. Lynam stated that his initial proposal included a partial wall for the 2"' floor with a steeper pitched roof. The Landmark Preservation Commission did not feel that this design would be in keeping with the character of the house. They wanted to retain the hipped -style roof, with a much shallower pitch. This change required that full 8' 2"d story walls be built above the existing house. This change put them over the ordinance limit for height without requiring the larger setback. Pawlikowski asked if the change allowed for an 8' high ceiling inside. Lynam confirmed this. He mentioned that he had originally intended somewhat of a cathedral ceiling that would have culminated in an 8' ceiling. However, now he will have standard 8' walls with an 8' ceiling on the 2"d floor. Ayraud asked Applicant if he was originally in compliance with the ordinance. Lynam answered that he was not aware of the ordinance at the time the original plans were designed. Barnes mentioned that the original plans would have complied with the ordinance. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Ayraud mentioned that Applicant's original proposal complied with the ordinance and that the only reason he is now not in compliance is due to the recommendation of the Landmark t zBA Aug. 12, 1999 Page 7 nonconforming. This is another situation similar to an appeal heard by the Board at the July meeting. The lot is a smaller lot and is nowhere near the '/z acre minimum lot size that is found in a UE district. However, they are still subject to the UE requirements and are requesting the variance because of this. Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He pointed out the location of the existing front wall which is wherq the proposed sunroom addition would be placed. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Dan Graham, addressed the Board. He mentioned that his proposal is to add a sunroom on top of the existing front wall. Shannon asked Applicant about roof construction and building materials. Applicant answered that the sunroom would be a frame structure with double -paned glass. The top of the sunroom would fit underneath the existing gutters on the home. Shannon asked about the way the roof would be tied in and if the current slope would be continued. Applicant mentioned that the slope would continue, but there would be a curvature in it. He referred Board Members to the plans that had been provided in Board packets. Ayraud asked for further clarification on the slope of the proposed sunroom roof. Applicant provided clarification. Pawlikowski asked if any drainage problems would be created by the proposed roof line. Applicant answered that the plans had been engineered by the company who would be installing the sunroom. The plans meet all of the standard requirements for this type of construction. Several modification were made to assure that the angles were appropriate, etc. Pawlikowski asked if this was a standard sunroom kit. Applicant answered that the sunroom would be custom-made for his house. Pawlikowski asked if the work would be done by a company that specializes in sunroom design. Applicant confirmed this. Pawlikowski asked about the building material for the roof. Applicant answered that the roof would be made of glass. He added that the room itself would be 90% glass, with the remainder made up of the frames that are needed for support. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Shannon mentioned that the Board has heard appeals similar to this in the past. This discussion would not be happening had the zoning not changed. She was in support of this • ZBA Aug. 12, 1999 Page 9 Shannon asked if there was currently concrete in front of the home. Applicant answered that there is currently a garden in front of the home. The trellis would cover the garden. Shannon asked if concrete would be added. Applicant stated that no concrete would be used, only some sand and stone. Shannon asked if the trellis was mostly a landscape feature. Applicant confirmed this. Remington asked about the planter boxes that were shown on the drawings. Applicant answered that there are some existing knee -walls, but no planter boxes. Ayraud asked if the trellis would be attached to the house. Applicant mentioned that the trellis would be attached to the house. Pawlikowski asked if flooring would be added. Applicant answered that flagstone and sand were the only things he intended to use for flooring. Ayraud asked if the property line at 21' from the curb was typical for this zoned area. Barnes answered that in the Old Town areas, the property line is typically anywhere from 15' to 25' behind the curb. This varies from block to block on some streets. On almost every block in the older part of town where the street has not been widened, there are considerable setbacks. There are differences in the construction of old subdivisions as compared to newer subdivisions. In the older parts of town there are detached sidewalks that are in the City right-of-way, but in newer subdivisions there are attached sidewalks so the right-of-way line is much closer to the street, etc. The property line distance from the curb in this case is a typical occurrence in the old part of town. Ayraud asked if City Council was aware of this when the rezoning took place. Barnes answered that the zoning had nothing to do with the location of the property line. The property in this case was not rezoned. When the City did the rezoning, most of the Old Town area remained the same: NCL, NCM and NCB. Setback requirements for these did not change, they were simply rolled -over from the old zoning code. The setback requirement of 15' has been existent since 1965. This subdivision has been around for nearly 100 years and predated any zoning ordinance. Pawlikowski asked if this type of structure fits within guidelines as far as materials used, etc., for buildings within this zoning area. Barnes answered that the building itself is not a designated landmark building. The zoning code does not have regulations on the types of materials that can be used for construction in this part of town. In the previous appeal that was heard where the Landmark Preservation Commission was involved, the age of the house in question triggered a review process. The Landmark Preservation Commission does have the authority to regulate the types of building materials, etc., that can be used, but only on designated landmark buildings. 11 Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Pawlikowski, Remington, Shannon Nays: None Appeal 2266 was approved. 7. APPEAL 2267: -- Approved Address: 301 North Shields Street Petitioner: Eric Rouch, Owner Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(3) Background: ZBA Aug. 12, 1999 Page 11 The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the north property line from 15' to 8' in order to allow the construction of a new, detached, oversized 2-car garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot is a corner lot. The north lot line is the legal rear property line, but it functions as a side lot line, which would only require a 5' setback. Since Shields Street is difficult to back onto, the driveway access is proposed to be on Columbine Court, rather than on Shields. Therefore, in order to have adequate separation between the house and the garage to allow access in and out of the garage, it is necessary to move the garage to within 8' of the north lot line. Staff Comments: This is a corner lot situation where the front of the house does not face the legal front property line. This sometimes creates setback issues that the Board has dealt with from time to time. Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. Lopez mentioned that the legal front yard is always on the street, on a corner lot, that has the least amount of frontage. In this case, the legal front property line is along Columbine Court, even though the house actually faces and is addressed off of Shields Street. Lopez pointed out the approximate location, near the north lot line, where the proposed garage would be built. The north lot line in this case is considered to be the legal rear yard of the property. Code normally requires a 15' setback along the rear property line. The legal rear lot line serves as a side lot line in this case. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting a reduction in the required setback from 15' to 8'. • ZBA Aug. 12, 1999 Page 13 Pawlikowski made a motion to approve Appeal 2267 based on the hardship created by the corner lot situation. Remington seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Pawlikowski, Remington, Shannon Nays: None ' Appeal 2267 was approved. 8. APPEAL 2268 -- Approved Address: 2813 Dixon Creek Lane Petitioner: Allen Curtis, Architect Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(1) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.6 to 1 (thereby allowing the square footage of the home to be increased from 2,295 square feet to 2,595 square feet) in order to allow a dining room addition to be located over the existing rear deck and to allow a portion of the existing 3-car garage to be converted to finished living space. Petitioner's Statement of Hardshio: The existing building footprint will only be enlarged by 40 square feet since the additional floor area will occur in the existing garage and over the existing deck. Thus, the lot size tc building footprint size is almost unchanged. The home backs up to a greenbelt, therefore, there will be little visual impact. Staff Comments: The floor area of a garage is not included in the building square footage that figures into the lot area/floor area ratio. Since a portion of the expansion plans for this home include converting part of the garage to living space, the "ratio" square footage is affected, even though the footprint is not being expanded. Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He pointed out the location of the existing deck that would become part of the increased living space. With the addition, there will still be approximately 25' feet from the back of the home to the rear property line. Shannon asked if the intent of the lot area to floor area ratio was to keep a lot from being overwhelmed with building. Barnes confirmed this and mentioned that the only things that are exempted from the lot area to floor area ratio are the basement and the garage. Due to a ZBA Aug. 12, 1999 Page 15 Curtis mentioned that one of the circumstances in this case is that the family is large — 8 people. The family loves the neighborhood, feels it is a great place to raise kids, they have a huge open space behind them, etc. In order for them to get a home of similar size and scope, they would be forced to leave the area and increase their costs. Admittedly, the hardship is self-induced; however, in wanting to stay in this neighborhood, they are proposing the addition of a dining room, enlarging the kitchen and doing some revamping of the basement area. While working with this family, Curtis mentioned that they tried to keep as much of the additional space that is being proposed within the existing building envelope. The back addition would be a single story addition located where the existing deck is. Curtis explained the gable end and roof slope that would be associated with the addition. There is a blue house just to the west of this home which also has a single story addition, so the proposed addition in this case would be in keeping with the neighborhood. The 5' setbacks on both sides prohibit any building in that location. The proposed design has been done to keep the building footprint as small and in keeping with the ordinance as possible. Curtis mentioned that the owners have received nothing but positive feedback from the neighbors surrounding them. Shannon asked if the square footage would be nonconforming to the lot area to floor area ratio if only the dining room was added. Barnes answered that they are allowed 2,295 square feet without a variance, so the floor area square footage of the existing home could be increased by 225 square feet. The proposed dining room is 280 square feet, so this would be over the allowed square footage by 55'. Curtis mentioned that one of the challenges of this house is that the kitchen and eating area are very small. The proposed design increases the size of these areas, but does not encroach any further than the existing building footprint, if the deck area is included. Remington asked Curtis about any non -self-imposed hardships. Curtis answered that the area itself where there are both PUDs and regular zoning ordinances mixed creates a hardship. A property that was developed under one of the PUDs, that was virtually the same as a property that was developed under the standard zoning regulations, could do what is being proposed in this case without the need for a variance approval. Curtis mentioned that there will be minimal visual impact with the project that is being proposed. The green belt to the rear of the owners' property is probably over 100' wide before there is another fence line. Owner, James Zefferena, addressed the Board. He apologized for missing most of the meeting and mentioned that he had just returned from the airport. He stated that he is anxious to move forward with this project and does not want to leave the neighborhood. • • ZBA Aug. 12, 1999 Page 17 Staff Comments: Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He mentioned that this address is in the more - restrictive Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The Applicant in this case will be going through a two-step process for approval. The first is getting approval from this Board, and the second is getting a minor amendment from the City's Planning Department. Under the PUD requirements, sign locations are determined by the Planning Department. The signs, in this case, have been located in areas that were not approved by the Planning Department. Lopez reviewed the location of the signs. The signs in this case do not meet the projecting wall sign requirements because of their size and because they are more than 12" from the building face. Shannon asked if the signs were already in place. Lopez confirmed this. Ayraud asked if the signs replaced existing signs. Lopez mentioned that these are new signs on a new building. The signs were supposed to be located elsewhere on the building; but, the locations were changed and the signs were installed at 45° angles for visibility reasons. Ayraud asked for clarification on where the signs were originally supposed to be located. Lopez provided this clarification. Existing landscaping caused some of the problems related to visibility. Shannon asked if the signs met square footage requirements. Lopez confirmed this. Shannon asked about possible locations for ground signs. Lopez mentioned that there were various options that the Applicants could choose from. Shannon asked if a ground sign would be required to be the same size as the signs in question. Lopez mentioned that the size would have to meet the requirements that have been predetermined for this sign district. Barnes added that the size would have to be determined based on other signage that existed in the development. It was assumed that a ground sign in this case could be larger than the wall signs. Ayraud asked about the amount of signage that remained on this property. Lopez provided clarification on this. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Marie Lock, addressed the Board. She mentioned that when they originally pulled permits for these signs, the plans showed the signs mounted flush against the building walls. At the time the signs were installed, the owner determined that the proposed locations did not provide enough visibility and the signs were relocated. 11 10. APPEAL 2271 --Approved with Conditions Address: 1305 West Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Fred Gile, Owner Zone: NCL Section: -4.613)(1) Background: • ZBA Aug. 12, 1999 Page 19 The variance would reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.28 to 1 in order to allow a 330 square foot 2"d floor addition above the rear portion of the home, thereby allowing the squre footage of the home to be increased from the allowed 2,333 square feet to 3,081 square feet (the existing floor area is already non -conforming at 2,751 square feet). Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See Petitioner's letter. Also, the addition constructed in 1989 was designed with a foundation to accommodate a 2"d story. The owner is just now planning the addition and found out that the code requirements changed in 1991. The building footprint size will remain unchanged. Staff Comments: Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He pointed out the location of the proposed addition. Shannon mentioned that the house next door appears to be quite large. Lopez confirmed this. Ayraud asked for clarification on whether the proposed additional square footage was being added to the top of the home. Lopez confirmed this. He asked for clarification on the already non -conforming square footage. Barnes answered that this property is in the NCL zone in the older part of town. In approximately 1996, City Council adopted the East Side/West Side design standards. These standards dealt with the NCL, NCM and the NCB zoning districts. A number of changes were made to the code, one of which was to require that the floor area of garages count in the lot area to floor area ratio in these older parts of town. What used to happen is that larger lots were split and two houses would be built on one lot, etc. The houses typically had detached garages. Now, there are many different lot sizes in the older part of town, and very narrow lots. People started increasing the size of the detached garages that were being built and most of the lots were being used up by building surface. Due to this, the decision was made to include the floor area of garages and other accessory buildings, i.e., storage sheds, that exceeded 120 square feet. • • ZBA Aug. 12, 1999 Page 21 Shannon stated that the proposal does maintain the same building footprint. If the garage square footage is removed from the lot area to floor area calculations, the square footage is still over what is allowed, but not by a lot. Remington stated that he would like to assure that the siding be consistent on all building structures and asked if this would be a reasonable condition that could be added. Paul Eckman stated that he thought this could be added as a condition since it would affect the visual aesthetics of the neighbors. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal 2271 based on the hardship created by the zoning changes that were implemented while Applicant was in the middle of his construction project, with the condition that consistent siding be used on the building structure. Pawlikowski seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Pawlikowski, Remington, Shannon Nays: None Appeal 2271 was approved with conditions. 11. Other Business: A. Code Changes relating to PUDs: There was some discussion on areas where there are developments that are governed by both PUDs and standard zoning regulations. Barnes mentioned that two years ago new codes were adopted that amended the minor amendment process so that minor amendments can only be approved if what is requested does not deviate from the standards of the code, i.e., setbacks, any more than to the extent of the original deviation that was authorized under the PUD. Any request that deviates from what was authorized under the PUD, must now come before the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. This should help eliminate some of the inconsistencies that have occurred in the past. B. 224 Wood Street: There was a question as to whether there is a distinction between landscape and structure additions. Barnes answered that the trellis addition in this case was considered a structure addition since it was going to be attached to the building. Had the trellis been detached, no building permit or variance would have been required. There was a question as to how much separation is required before something is considered detached. Barnes provided clarification on this.