Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/13/1999A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 13, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Breth, Dan Keating, and Diane Shannon BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: 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 Keating and roll call taken. 2. The Minutes from the April 8, 1999 meeting were approved. 3. APPEAL 2251 — Denied Address: 1110 Sycamore Street Petitioner: John Kindler, Owner Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Backeround: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east property line from 5' to 3' in order to allow the construction of a detached, one -car garage on the lot. ZBA Apr. 8, 1999 Page 2 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is a large mature tree on the west side of the home that would need to be removed in order to construct the garage on the west side. The back door to the home is on the east side, so locating the garage on the east side is the most logical location. Moving the garage over 2' in order to comply with the setback would reduce the utility of the small area between the house and proposed garage location. Staff Comments: This lot has frontage on an alley. There seems to be alternative locations where a variance would not be required, and there also appears to be room to move the garage over 2' in the proposed location. The petitioner's hardship seems to be one only of convenience. Gary Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He mentioned that the property to the right of applicant's has a retaining wall along the property line. Applicant's request would place the proposed garage 3' from that retaining wall. Lopez noted that there is alley access from the side of applicant's property. Breth asked if the alley was paved. Lopez answered that it is not paved. Shannon asked for clarification on dimensions. Applicant answered that the lot is approximately 70' x 100'. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Jon Kindler, addressed the Board. He provided Board Members with a new set of plans which included dimensions. Applicant mentioned that his main concerns regarding the position of the garage relate to the location of an existing access to his house which is located on the east side, and the position of the vegetable garden which has been designed in front of the kitchen. Applicant is also concerned that if he cannot push the garage back, it will limit his ability to more efficiently use his yard space, and will limit the amount of light that reaches the vegetable garden. The neighbor's garage sits right along the property line. Applicant did not feel that any inconvenience would be imposed on his neighbor by moving his garage closer to her property. He mentioned that he had talked with his neighbor about this and that she had no objections to what was being proposed. ZBA Apr. 8, 1999 Page 3 From a design standpoint, applicant was of the opinion that the current proposal would allow him to maximize the useable space that was available on that side of his house, which is somewhat restricted anyway. Shannon asked applicant about the dimensions of the proposed garage. Applicant answered 12' wide x 28' long. Applicant mentioned that the space between the proposed location of the garage and applicant's house would be 10'. If the required setbacks were met, the distance between the house and garage would be reduced to 8'. 3 ''/z' of this space will be lost to a walkway that will go down the east side of the house. This would leave only a 4' strip of useable land. Shannon asked applicant if it were possible to reconfigure the garden so that the garage could comply with setbacks. Applicant mentioned that this would be possible. However, applicant wanted to position the garage near to the side door of the house so that he would not have to walk all the way from the back of the lot and through the garden to get to the house. Breth asked for clarification on the distance from applicant's house to the east property line. Applicant answered that the distance is about 25'. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Shannon mentioned that it appears that applicant has a well thought-out proposal and has designed something that would work well for him; however, she could not find a hardship. Breth agreed and mentioned that there is ample room on that side of the house for the garage to be moved over the 2' that would bring it into compliance with the Code and would not affect applicant's landscape plan too much. Shannon made a motion to deny Appeal 2251 due to lack of a documented hardship. Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Keating, Shannon Nays: None Appeal 2251 was denied. ZBA Apr. 8, 1999 Page 4 4. APPEAL 2252 -- Approved Address: 925 W. Oak Street Petitioner: Douglas Newberry, Owner Zone: NCL Section(s): 4.6(E)(4) Backeround: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east property line from 5' to 3' in order, to allow the construction of a 10' x 14' and 9' high shed on the lot. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: To the west is a landscaped perennial garden that partially would have to be removed, and to turn the shed with its 14' side along the east property line would reduce the depth of parking off the alley to make it unusable. In addition, the lot width is only 40' wide. Staff s Comments: The applicant appears to have some options. The shed could be moved over 2' and a small portion of the garden removed; the shed could be reduced in size to 120 sf, with a height of no more than 8 % the shed could be turned and the fence moved to the north if needed in order to still allow room for parking behind the shed. Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. There is an existing shed on the property. The lot is very heavily landscaped. Lopez noted the proposed location of the new shed, and the location of existing fences, the perennial garden, the mulch walkway, etc. Shannon asked for clarification on current parking. Lopez answered that there is no existing parking at the rear of the property. Applicant's proposal includes plans for parking once the shed and existing fence are removed. Shannon asked if the applicant currently parked on the street. Lopez was not sure. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Doug Newberry, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he has two vehicles and currently parks in the front of his property on Oak Street and in his driveway. There is no garage on the property. He also stores a 4' x 8' trailer in the driveway. Applicant would like to get his second vehicle off of the street and his proposal would allow him to do this. Applicant's proposal would also provide him with some additional storage space which is something he needs since his bungalow -style home does not provide much in the way of storage area. • ZBA Apr. 8, 1999 Page 5 Applicant is proposing to remove the small 4' x 8' shed that currently exists, and replace it with a 10' x 14' shed towards the back of the property near the pine tree. The distance from the back gate of the existing fence, near the pine tree, to the property line, is approximately 17'. If the shed were located with the 10' side at the location of the back gate going towards the alley, there would be a distance of 18' to the back alley. Applicant's truck is 17' long. If the shed were positioned with the 14' side facing north and south, there would only be a distance of 14' to the back alley. Shannon asked applicant if he had options in terms of the size of the shed. Applicant answered that he does have size options; however, he wants to maximize as much space as possible due to the storage problem he has. Shannon also asked about the perennial garden and the reason why a small portion of the garden could not be moved. Applicant answered that the perennial garden has been just recently planted over the last couple of years. There is a garden box underneath the 20' section of privacy fence along the left side of the yard. If the shed was moved 14' in that direction, part of the garden area would have to be removed, and the existing fence and gate would have to be moved, as well as existing plumbing. Shannon asked if the perennials could be replanted in a different area. Applicant answered that they could be moved around. However, there would be a lot of work involved with moving the fence and the plumbing and rebuilding the garden areas. Keating asked if the proposed shed would be located up against the trees. Applicant answered that the shed would be located 2' off the fence. Applicant pointed out the proposed location on a slide. Public Participation: None, Board Discussion: Shannon mentioned that it appears that there are options that exist that would allow applicant to have parking and the shed and still comply with code. Breth mentioned that he could see a hardship due to a narrow lot and would be in favor of approving the appeal. Breth made a motion to approve Appeal 2252 due to the hardship of a narrow lot; applicant's lot is only 40' and this does fall under the criteria for a hardship. Keating seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Keating Nays: Shannon Appeal 2252 was approved. • ZBA Apr. 8, 1999 Page 6 5. APPEAL 2253 — Approved Address: 1825 W. Prospect Road Petitioner: Joan Welsh, Owner Zone: UE Section(s): 4.1(D)(2)(d) Background: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 20' to 5' in order to allow the construction of a new detached 2-car garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is an existing driveway at this location. Moving the new building to comply with the 20' setback would result in the need to remove a portion of the house and a portion of the patio. Up until 2 years ago, the property was in the RL zone, which only required a 5' setback, so many of the buildings in this subdivision are nonconforming. There are many mature trees on the lot that limit the possible location for a new garage. Staff Comments: Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. The.existing driveway was built along the east property line. Lopez pointed out the proposed garage location and mentioned that there is a relatively new patio, walkway and fence that have been installed which would be in the way if the garage were made to comply with code in the same location. Shannon asked for clarification on the tree buffer that exists between applicant's property and the neighbor to the east. Lopez answered that there are some bushes along the front part of the driveway. He was unsure if the bushes extended'all the way up along the driveway. Shannon asked if the garage would parallel the house or be set back. Lopez answered that the plans show that the garage will be parallel to Prospect Street, not to the house. Peter Barnes read a letter in support of applicant's proposal from the neighbors to the east. Barnes mentioned that when the City was rezoned in March of 1997 as part of City Plan and the adoption of the Land Use Code, this subdivision was placed in the UE (Urban Estate) district. This subdivision used to be in the RL zone which required only 5' setback from side lot lines. There are large lots in this subdivision. The UE zone requires considerably larger lots and larger setbacks than the RL zone requires. There are times when new zones are applied to areas that have already been developed and many nonconforming situations are created. There are a number of other detached accessory buildings in this particular subdivision that do not comply with the setback requirements of the UE zone. There may also be some existing houses in the area that do not comply with the setback requirements of the UE zone. • • ZBA Apr. 8, 1999 Page 7 Breth asked if applicant's lot size complies with the UE zone. Barnes confirmed this. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Joan Welsh, addressed the Board. She mentioned that there are 8 homes in the area that were rezoned as UE. Her lot is one of the smaller lots at 3/4 acre. The other lots around her extend to as much as 4 acres. The area is unique in that there is a rural quality even though it is within the City limits. Applicant was of the opinion that one of the reasons the property was rezoned to UE was to preserve the beautiful open lawns that are existing. If applicant's appeal was not granted, she mentioned that she might consider putting the garage on the opposite side of the house. This, however, would take away from the "open lawn" that applicant felt the UE zoning was attempting to preserve. If applicant chose to build the garage on the side of the house that is currently proposed, but changed the location so that it met required setbacks, she would either be required to pave over 20' of open lawn space to get to a garage that was located out in the middle of the yard, and install a concrete path from the garage to the home; or, move the garage closer to the house which would require her to remove the existing concrete pathway and destroy the quality of the existing patio area. Applicant mentioned that the 5' setback being requested would not destroy the quality of any part of the neighbor's yard. The neighbors, along that side of the property, have only a well and a shed. Breth asked for clarification on what is between the neighbor's yard and the proposed location of the garage. Applicant answered that there are old fences in between the two properties. There is a 4' chain link fence for part of the distance, and a broken-down wooden fence where the chain link fence ends. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Shannon mentioned that she is familiar with this neighborhood and the quality of the yards and landscaping is lovely. She mentioned that applicant has a large yard and has other options; however, felt that the proposed garage location was well placed and conformed to regulations as they were just a short time ago. Breth mentioned that he thought applicant had other options available to her. ZBA Apr. 8, 1999 Page 8 Shannon made a motion to approve Appeal 2253 for the hardship of the unusual circumstance that was created by the change in governmental regulations, where this proposal would have conformed in the past, and because the intent of the proposed location of the garage is to maintain the quality of the neighborhood. Keating seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Keating, Shannon Nays: Breth Appeal 2253 was approved. 6. APPEAL 2254 — Approved Address: 524 E. Magnolia Street Petitioner: Kirk Flory, Owner Zone: NCM Section(s): 4.7(E)(3) Background: The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from the north lot line from 15' to 9.5' in order to allow a one-story, 505 sq. ft. addition to the single family home on the lot. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This lot is extremely shallow — 50'. The existing home is only 678 sq. ft., with one bedroom, and is already 9.5' from the rear lot line, so the addition will not encroach any further. Large mature trees and an existing detached garage prevent an addition from being constructed on the east side, so the proposed location is the only feasible place on the lot for new construction. Staff Comments: Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He mentioned that the lot in this case is very long, but very narrow. Keating asked if the garage shown on the plat was the next door neighbor's garage. Staff provided clarification. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Kirk Flory, addressed the Board. He mentioned that his lot is very narrow. The existing setbacks only allow for a 20' addition, which would be very hard to comply with. The existing house already encroaches on the setback in the back. Applicant does not intend to encroach any further than what is already existing. • • ZBA Apr. 8, 1999 Page 9 Applicant's house was built in 1910 and has no closets. When the indoor plumbing was installed, the bathroom was moved into the bedroom and a three inch wall was installed with exposed pipe. This addition would allow applicant to update the house, add a bathroom, and utilize the storm cellar for storage. The house has no central furnace, only a space heater in the living room. If applicant could gain access to the storm cellar, he could install a furnace and get heat to the entire house. Applicant mentioned that the proposed location of the addition is the only logical place to build one. He would be building towards the alley and the back of a neighboring yard which has a garage in that location. He would not be building towards a neighbor's house. Mature landscaping on the other side of applicant's house prohibit him from building an addition in that area. Applicant stated that his existing home is only 578 sq. ft. and the proposed addition is only 500 sq. ft. Even with the addition, his home will remain smaller than most properties in the area. The neighbor's garage sits 6" into applicant's property and is approximately 3' from the alley, so there are other nonconforming houses in the neighborhood due primarily to the narrowness of the lots. Shannon asked for clarification on what was behind applicant's property to the north. Applicant provided clarification. Shannon asked applicant about the yard space he would have remaining if the proposed addition were built. Applicant provided clarification on this. Shannon asked applicant if he considered the possibility of having a smaller addition so it would conform to the required setbacks. Applicant answered that the 20' that is allowed, due to the narrowness of the lot, would prohibit him from adding on an additional bedroom and increasing the size of the bathroom. His existing bathroom is 2 %2' x 6', including a shower. There is no closet for storage, etc. There is currently a stackable washer/dryer in the kitchen. Applicant intends to move this into the larger bathroom that is being proposed as part of the addition, so he can more fully utilize his kitchen area. Barnes added that applicant reduced the size of his addition by 150 sq. ft. from what had originally been proposed at the time he applied for his variance. Breth asked if applicant had considered going up. Applicant answered that the roof line would allow a pretty nice second story. However, most of the houses in the neighborhood are one-story and applicant thought that his proposal would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. Going up also seemed to applicant to be a much bigger project than was necessary. Applicant mentioned that his proposal meets the front and side setbacks. The only place he is encroaching into the setback is in the back where no one will be impacted. Bames mentioned that coverage on the lot has been an item of discussion. In this particular zone, the lot area has to be at least twice as large as the floor area of the building. Applicant has a ratio of 4:1 with the addition. • ZBA Apr. 8, 1999 Page 10 Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Shannon made a motion to approve Appeal 2254 for the hardship created by the shallowness of the lot. Breth seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Keating, Shannon Nays: None Appeal 2254 was approved. 7. APPEAL 2255 —Approved Address: 4809 S. College Avenue Petitioner: Gardner Signs by Neil Hughes Zone: C Section(s): 3.8.7(G)(6) Background: The variance would increase the number of freestanding signs allowed on a lot that has only one street frontage from one sign to two signs. Specifically, the variance would allow Spradley Barr Ford to construct an additional 60 sq. ft. freestanding sign to be located in their parking lot 500' west of College Avenue. The new sign would advertise "used cars". The existing "Spradley Barr" sign along College Avenue is the one freestanding sign that is allowed. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Used cars are displayed in the rear portion of the lot. The sign is intended to be an "on - premise directional sign" in order to bring the customers that come into the front lot area towards the back. The sign is 500' from College, so it is not intended to be an advertising sign for passing motorists. Smaller on -site directional signs located in the front would clutter that area and be lost among other small signs, cars, and landscaping. It is important to give clear direction to people as to where the different product lines are. The intent of the ordinance to limit sign clutter along the street is still being met. ZBA Apr. 8, 1999 Page 11 Staff Comments: Lopez presented slides relative to this appeal. He mentioned that directional signage is allowed; however, it is limited to no more than 4 sq. ft. Applicant's proposed sign is much larger than that. Shannon asked if the driveway was privately owned. Lopez confirmed this. Shannon asked if the intent of the sign code was to reduce clutter. Barnes answered that there are two elements in the sign code that deal with limiting the amount of sign clutter that appears along streets. One of those requirements is to ensure that signs are set back 15' from a side lot line which establishes some separation between signs on different properties. The other requirement is that there can only be one sign, per property, per street frontage. Shannon asked if the sign was lighted. Applicant mentioned that only the letters on the sign are lighted. Shannon asked if this would be lit at all times. Applicant answered that they would be lit only during evening hours when the facility is open for business. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Neil Hughes, a representative of Garner Signs, addressed the Board. He provided information to the Board he collected from a photo survey he conducted showing different locations for the proposed sign. He also commented on visibility difficulties that are encountered by customers due to existing mature landscaping, etc. Breth asked for clarification on the height of the sign related to the existing building. Applicant answered that the height of the sign is 19' overall. The height of the building is approximately 25'. Public Participation: None. Board Discussion: Breth mentioned that since the proposed sign will be located 500' from the street, he did not feel that it would be conspicuous and thought it would still achieve its intended purpose. He had no objections to what was proposed. Breth made a motion to approve Appeal 2255 for the hardship stated. Shannon seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Breth, Keating, Shannon Nays: None Appeal 2255 was approved. • • ZBA Apr. 8, 1999 Page 12 6. Other Business: A. Land Use Code Changes: Staff has seen instances in the past where UE setbacks have created some concern on already developed subdivisions. For the fall Land Use Code changes, staff will be proposing some sort of exception to the setbacks in the UE district for subdivisions that have already been developed. Draft language will be submitted to the Board for feedback once it has been developed. B. Staff Liaison: The new City Council has appointed new Council liaisons. Karen Weitkunat is the new Council liaison to the Board. She briefly spoke with Board Members. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m. Dan Keating, Acting Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator