HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/08/1998A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, October 8, 1998, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert Gustafson, Dan Keating, Kathryn Krause, and Diane Shannon
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Martin Breth, excused; Eva Lieser, excused; and William Stockover, excused.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Delynn Coldiron, Staff Support to Board
AGENDA:
1. ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Keating and roll call taken.
2. The Minutes from the September 10, 1998 meeting were approved.
3. The order of the meeting's agenda was changed to first address Other Business items.
Peter Barnes mentioned that there are approximately 70 code changes being proposed to City
Council. These changes are scheduled for Council review in November. Most of the
proposed changes relate to policy issues, but there are a few housekeeping -type changes as
well.
The code changes listed in the September 22, 1998 memorandum, which was provided in
Board Member packets, are the ones Zoning staff have been involved with. Barnes asked for
Board Member feedback on these items.
• • ZBA
Oct. 8, 1998
Page 2
Item #147 — Dos day-care facility: This item was accidentally left out of the list of permitted
uses when the new code was drafted. This item is essentially a housekeeping item which
adds a definition for a dog day-care facility, and identifies the zones where this use will be
permitted.
Item # 166 — Non -Conforming Home Occupations: The confusion that exists when a property
is annexed into the City and has an existing home -occupation which is allowable in the
County, but is a non -conforming use in the City, prompted staff to draft the proposed change
to the code. The proposed change is an amendment to the non -conforming use section of the
code and clarifies the fact that a non -conforming home -occupation business activity shall be
considered to be abandoned immediately upon the relocation of the occupants of the dwelling
who were conducting the business, or upon cessation of such business. A variance would
have to be obtained to allow for home -occupation activity in the detached building if any of
the following were to occur: 1) the current owners stopped the business for a period of time
and later decided they wanted to revive it; 2) the current owners wanted to change the type of
home -occupation activity; or 3) new owners wanted to continue an already existing business
and/or start a new business on the premises.
Item # 189 —Exempt Floor Area: This issue was prompted from the recent variance request
that the Board heard where the applicants asked for a setback variance for an addition they
wanted to build, as well as a variance on the floor area to lot area ratio since the floor area
that they wanted to add onto the second floor put the total square footage of the house over
the 3:1 ratio that was allowed in their zone. The applicants' submittal for a building permit
did not comply with the variance that was granted and they were initially denied a permit.
They eventually made some changes in order to assure compliance, but ended up submitting
plans for a 1,400 sq. ft. garage, which square footage is not accounted for in the 3:1 ratio
computation. These plans were 80% larger than those submitted to and denied by the Board
as part of the applicant's 3:1 ratio variance request. Even though neighbors were extremely
opposed to the applicants' addition, staff could not deny the new submittal due to limitations
of the current code.
In the 1960s, when the 3:1 ratio was developed and garages were exempted, in total, from
being counted as floor area, people generally had one -car garages. Staff, at that time, wanted
to encourage people to get their cars off of the street and did not want to discourage the
construction of additional garage space by counting the garage space as floor area. Two -car
garages became customary, which are now, quite commonly, becoming three -car garages.
Garages keep getting bigger, building footprints keep increasing, etc.
Staff examined a lot of plans that have come through for three -car garages. The plans varied
anywhere from 600 sq. ft. up to 800+ sq. ft. Typically, though, they were about 700 sq. ft.
The proposed code change recommends that the first 720 sq. ft. of a garage not be counted as
floor area. This would allow a person to have a three -car garage and not be penalized for it.
If a garage gets any bigger, the additional square footage will be counted as floor area.
• • ZBA
Oct. 8, 1998
Page 3
Staff does not expect that this will affect a large percentage of the permit applications that are
received, but it will address situations similar to the one above.
There was a question on what happens if a three -car garage is not rectangular in shape due to
architectural enhancements. Barnes mentioned that staff does not want to discourage design
creativity and breaking up large masses of building. Applicants who want to do this will
generally have bigger lots to begin with and most likely will fall within the required 3:1 ratio.
Those who do not fall within the 3:1 ratio have the option of asking for a variance, and can
explain their design enhancements and the extra area that is needed to do this, etc. The Board
would have a chance to determine if this constitutes an extraordinary circumstance and
whether or not to grant the variance. What staff wants to avoid is for people who are on
older, more average -sized lots, to add large additions to their garages and come up with a 3 '/2
or 4 bay garage and end up with a majority of their lot covered by building.
There was a question on how the 3:1 ratio is calculated. Barnes mentioned that the ratio
includes everything but the basement and garage. Under the proposed changes, the ratio
would include everything but the basement and 720 sq. ft. of the garage (attached or
detached).
There was a question on whether or not exterior measurements are used for the gross floor
area calculation. Barnes answered that the code defines gross floor area of a building as
measured along the outside walls of the building and including each floor level. Therefore,
the outside walls of the building, together with stairways, etc., are including in this
measurement.
There was a question on the purpose of this code change; is it to limit the size of the garage
or amount of building coverage on a lot. Barnes answered that the purpose of the code is to
limit the size of the building. Staff does not care about the size of the garage; only about the
amount of building coverage on the lot.
There was a question on whether or not the code addresses other accessory buildings and
structures on lots. Barnes answered that in three zones (NCL, NCM and NCB) this has been
addressed. In these three zones, the floor area definition includes the entire floor area of a
garage and of any detached building larger than 120 sq. ft. This was done a couple of years
ago when the East Side/West Side Neighborhood Design Standards were adopted. City
Council was quite concerned about people overbuilding in the old part of town since that is
predominantly where there are a lot of detached garages and other detached buildings
because the houses tend to be smaller. The UE (urban estate) zone also has a limitation on
any detached buildings.
There was a suggested grammatical change for 5.1.2 (page 7), bottom of first paragraph --
change "exist" to "exit," and for page 11, six lines up from the bottom of paragraph 189 --
change "know" to "no."
• • ZBA
Oct. 8, 1998
Page 4
Grantine of Zoning Variances: The new code, which was adopted last year, currently states
that "all hardship variances which apply to the issuance of a building permit shall be valid for
a period of time not to exceed six months from the time such variance is granted unless fully
and properly acted upon and completed." The old code stated that a permit had to be
obtained within six months from the date of an approved variance.
There is some confusion with the wording "...unless fully and properly acted upon and
completed." Someone could say this means that a building permit must be obtained and
construction completed within six months. There is some concern about what would be an
appropriate response from staff should construction not be completed within that six months,
i.e., should a stop work order be issued?, etc.
The proposed code changes clarify what actually has to be done within six months. It states
that "....shall be valid for a period of time not to exceed six months from the time such
variance is granted unless properly acted upon by the obtaining of all necessary permits."
Therefore, the new wording requires the applicant to obtain all necessary building permits
within six months. An additional sentence is proposed to allow the granting of one six-
month extension by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The pre-LUC code wording stated that a variance was good for six months unless otherwise
stipulated in the minutes, so sometimes applicants would ask for additional time if they did
not think they could obtain a permit within the six month timeframe. This is no longer
available under the proposed code. If an applicant cannot get a permit within the six month
time frame, they are required to come back to the Board and ask for an extension. This is
being proposed since situations and circumstances in a neighborhood can change within the
six month timeframe.
There was a question on how long it typically takes for a person to obtain a permit. Barnes
answered that if someone wanted to build an addition on their house and obtained a variance
to do so, there is a two week appeal period where no building permit can be issued in case
some interested party wants to appeal the decision made by the Board. Applicants can
submit their plans even before their variance hearing and the project can be reviewed and
approved by everyone so that when the two -week appeal period has expired, and there are no
appeals, they are able to get their permit the same day. Depending on the type of project and
the City processes/ procedures that are required, however, it can take up to a year before a
permit can be issued for more complex development projects.
There was a question on why there is a six month expiration period, if there are times when a
permit cannot be obtained before a year due to the City's procedures. It was suggested that
the language be changed to allow applicants a year to obtain a permit. There was some
feeling that there are going to be an increasing number of situations where additional
engineering, utility and site development work is necessary, making it difficult to obtain a
permit with the six month timeframe.
• • ZBA
Oct. 8, 1998
Page 5
Barnes suggested some options to the Board. One option is to change the language to reflect
that a variance shall be valid for a period of time not to exceed twelve months. There are
some concerns, in this case, as to whether it is appropriate to have a project drag on that long.
The Board, on a case by case basis, could grant a variance with the condition that a permit be
obtained within three months, or some other time period agreed upon by the Board. Another
option is to continue with the language that a variance shall be valid for a period of time not
to exceed six months, and add the language that used to be there "unless otherwise stipulated
in the minutes." This would allow the applicant to request a longer period of time at the
hearing if there are extenuating circumstances that necessitate the need for the additional
time. There is some concern that this gives the Board the authority to grant someone an
unusually long time period within which to obtain their permit and complete the authorized
work.
It was mentioned that most other cities, including the county, have a one year time limit on
variances. Attorney Eckman mentioned that if the language was changed to give an
applicant a time period not to exceed twelve months, the Board could, on a case by case
basis, decrease the amount of time within which all necessary permits would have to be
obtained for those projects where twelve months seemed too generous. A six month
extension provision would give the Board yet another option, and would allow an applicant
up to a year and a half to obtain a permit and complete a project.
There was some question on how the Board would be able to determine whether a project
would take three months, six months, or a year to complete. It was mentioned that guidelines
might be helpful. It was also suggested that the wording that allowed the applicant to ask for
additional time at the hearing be reinserted to help address this issue.
There was a question on whether it was possible to stay with the shorter six month time
frame and then add time to it if needed. Eckman agreed that this would be an option, and
added that instead of having the ability to grant only one extension, language could be
suggested that would give the Board the flexibility to grant two, if needed.
Barnes suggested that the proposed language state that the variance shall be valid for a time
not to exceed six months, unless otherwise stipulated to in the minutes, but, in no case, can it
exceed twelve months. This way it avoids having applicants ask for a two-year variance.
There was a question as to whether or not there are times when a two-year variance might be
appropriate. Barnes answered that there are times when conditions have been placed on a
project, i.e., the temporary parking lots that the City is building where they asked for
variances on the interior landscaping. The Board approved this with the condition that the
variance is only good for two years. This situation is different than stating that an applicant
has two years within which to get a permit.
Board Member Keating was in favor of Barnes' suggested language that a variance shall be
valid for a period of time not to exceed six months, unless otherwise stipulated to in the
minutes, but, in no case, can it exceed twelve months.
• • ZBA
Oct. 8, 1998
Page 6
Barnes mentioned that leaving in the language on a one-time extension would allow an
applicant up to a year and half to obtain their permit.
Board Members were in agreement with this. Barnes mentioned that Eckman would draft the
appropriate language.
4. APPEAL 2237 —Approved:
Address: 320 N. College Avenue
Petitioner: Schrader Oil Company, Owner
Zone: T
Section: 2.92(k)
Back rg ound:
The variance would allow the 6 month expiration term for Appeal #2214 to be extended for
an additional 6 months. Specifically, Appeal #2214 was approved on April 9, 1998 in order
to allow the construction of a car wash building to be used in conjunction with the Schrader
gas station and convenience store located at 320 N. College. The code requires that the
permit for the car wash must be obtained by October 9, 1998, or an extension be approved.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
See Petitioner's letter.
Staff Comments:
Board Member Gustafson excused himself due to conflict of interest on this issue.
Bames presented slides relative to this appeal. He mentioned that this variance was initially
approved on April 9, 1998, which means that it expires tomorrow (October 9, 1998). In order
for someone to be granted an extension, they must ask for the extension while the variance is
still valid. After the expiration date, an applicant would have to ask for a new variance.
Petitioner's variance is still valid and they are asking for an extension in order to allow them
to continue through the process to obtain a permit to construct a new car wash to be used in
conjunction with the current gas station and convenience store located at the corner of
College and Willow.
Ten Bears Barbecue is located at this site, which used to be the Scout Cafd. The proposal
includes a face change on the existing building and elimination of the auto repair portion of
the current business, in order to extend the convenience store operation into that area of the
building. The Ten Bears Barbecue building will be demolished and a car wash constructed in
its place.
• • ZBA
Oct. 8, 1998
Page 7
Barnes reviewed a portion of the meeting minutes from the April, 1998 meeting starting at
the first full paragraph at the top of page 6. In response to a question from Board Member
Keating, Barnes answered that "under 4.9 the Board has been asked to grant a variance to
allow the installation of a permanent structure to be used in connection with the use of the
property. The granting of this variance would allow the applicant to build a car wash. This
does not vary any requirements that the applicant is subject to under the Land Use Code
regarding building and site design standards." This meant that the applicant was responsible
for designing the rest of the site and assuring compliance with any related requirements.
Because a new building is being constructed, the Stormwater Utility department, the
Engineering department, the State Highway department, and others had to be involved in the
initial project stages. The City also had to review the submittal to assure compliance with
landscaping standards, etc.
Once the applicant obtained the variance in April, the process of developing plans, etc., was
started, which took some time. The City then had to take the submittal and route it to the
various departments and agencies for review. This process generally takes approximately
three weeks. It takes another week to put together correspondence to the applicant which
incorporates the myriad of comments obtained by the various departments/agencies. The
applicant then has to make the revisions, resubmit the plans, etc. The process can take
anywhere from 2 to 9 months or longer.
Applicant is here now to ask for an extension. They are in the process of submitting
revisions for the City for review.
Applicant Participation:
Attorney Brad March addressed the Board on behalf of the Petitioner. He apologized for the
delay, but was under the understanding that Board Member Gustafson would be able to
present this appeal.
March mentioned that this variance is somewhat unique in that it came out of the T
(transition) zone. This property included not only this site, but also the Schrader Oil site all
the way back to Sears Trostel and over to the old depot. The reason that the variance was
requested was because the City had extended railroad tracks and moved other tracks on the
Schrader site. The Schraders had anticipated, under the old code, to remodel their site and
had not been able to do that. As a result, Schraders came in under the T zone when the new
City Plan was adopted.
The T zone allows the Schraders to come to this Board to request variances to modify their
site which is what was done. The reason the project has not been completed with the six
month timeframe is because the City and Schraders agreed that the City would provide a
survey of the entire Schrader site which was necessary to prepare plans. Unfortunately, that
survey was not obtained when expected. Further negotiations were required with the City
Attorney's office, and the survey was ultimately obtained. This process took two to three
months and was complicated by condemnation issues and a variety of other things. At this
• ZBA
Oct. 8, 1998
Page 8
point, it is March's understanding that the first set of comments from the City have come
back, have been reviewed by Schrader, and can be addressed relatively quickly. It is unlikely
that this project will take another six months.
There are most likely other variance requests on other parts of this property that the Board
will hear as the condemnation action proceeds.
Board Member Shannon asked how much longer it was anticipated this project will take.
March answered that there should be no reasons that all necessary permits cannot be applied
for and approved within the next six months. There are still some issues that have to be
worked out with the railroad in conjunction with condemnation efforts. The City is having
some difficulty getting conveyance of some of the tracks. Personnel from the City
Attorney's office and March have had recent discussions over this issue. It is not anticipated
that this issue will slow down the current process.
Public Participation:
None.
Board Discussion:
Board Member Shannon mentioned that it appears that this situation has been caused by
complications that were outside of applicant's control and mentioned that she would be in
favor of granting this extension.
Board Member Krause made a motion to accept the extension of Appeal #2214. Board
Member Shannon seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Keating Krause, Shannon
Nays: None
Appeal 2237 was approved for a six month extension.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 a.m.
Dan Keating, Vice Chairperson
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator