Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 04/14/2005• • Minutes to be approved by the Board at the May 12, 2005 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting —April 14, 2005 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Bames (221-6760) I Chairperson: Dwight Hall u Phone: (H) 224-4029 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday April 14, 2005, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Daggett Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Dana McBride BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Andy Miscio Steve Remington (resigned from the Board) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Marcha Hill, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dickson made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 10, 2005 meeting. Donahue seconded the motion. McBride abstained. The motion passed. 3. APPEAL NO.2499 — Approved with noted exclusion. Address: 808 Remington St. Petitioner: Paul Beisman Zone: NCB Section: 4.8(D)(6)(c 8 d) Backoround The petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from the required 15' in this zoning district to 12' (8.5' to outside stairway) and reduce the side yard setback along the north lot line from 5' to 2'. A hearing on this variance was conducted on March 10, 2005, but was tabled until April 14, 2005 in order to allow the petitioner to come up with new plans requiring less of a variance then originally requested. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The lot is only 2850 sf with very little rear yard as is. Existing house is only 880 sf with a proposed addition of ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 2 1626 sf providing a total finish 2506 sf. The original March variance request was to reduce the rear setback to 7' to the house and the side setback to 3'. The new request results in the house being moved 5' further from the rear lot line, but 1' closer to the side lot line. Staff Comments At the March meeting, the Board gave direction to the applicant regarding what setbacks might be acceptable with regards to further discussion. The Board expressed that a 13' rear setback (10' to the stairway) might be acceptable, and the applicant indicated that he could comply with the 5' side setback requirement. The resubmittal requests setbacks that are different than what the Board discussed in March. Staff Presentation Barnes presented and reviewed the slides from the March 10, 2005 meeting. Applicant Participation: Paul Beisman, 808 Remington St, addressed the Board. Beisman introduced his designer and general contractor, Greg Yturiaga, 420 N Hollywood. Beisman and Yturiaga reviewed Barnes' presentation and stated that their new plan reduced the distance on the east rear side by 5' and have asked for an additional 1' on the north side. Beisman stated that last month Miscio commented that the hardships presented were self imposed because of the nonconforming structure of the property being built prior to the current code. The building to the east is a garage. The larger building is not an owner occupied property and is a rental. Beisman does not think that the addition will make an impact on the air or the light of the neighbor's house, facing south. Yturiaga pointed out the property line on the slide. Barnes made a correction to the introduction stating that the proposed addition was 1626 sf, which was proposed last month. The revised addition proposal is 1424 sf and is about 200 sf smaller. Board Discussion: Donahue had a question as to how the roof would be flashed into a window on the west front elevation. Yturiaga stated that there will not be a roof there over the addition. There will be an indentation there and the porch will be inset into the house with no roof there. Donahue noted that the change was on the floor plan. McBride asked if they have moved the addition further from the property line but the side is closer. Beisman replied yes they have asked for an additional foot to the north and they have moved it 5' towards Remington. Hall stated that the Board had put a lot of thought into finding a solution last month and had made some recommendations, which was 13' on the rear setback and to have the full 5' on the side yard setback. Hall remarked that the new proposal is in the opposite direction of the Board's recommendation. Hall noted that he was uncomfortable with the new proposal and finding a hardship or equal to or better than justification. McBride asked If the 13' rear setback and 5' sideyard setback recommendations were documented. Barnes replied yes, in the minutes it states that the Board was agreeable to have a stairway 10' and the structure 13' from the property line and keep the north setback at 5'. McBride stated that he cannot support this since it is not what the Board recommended last month. Donahue remarked that the neighbor to the north could add on to their property. They have another 11' inside the envelope within code on the side yard that they could add on to, which would make the houses 7' apart. Yturiaga apologized for misunderstanding what Miscio recommended last month. Yturiaga asked if they changed their plans to the Board's original recommendations of 13' and 5', If that would be workable. Hall replied he was comfortable with last month's recommendation. McBride noted that the Board was expecting to see a plan with 13' and 5', which would be nominal and inconsequential. Donahue noted that the Board was uncomfortable with that 2' sideyard. Beisman asked If the Board would consider a 1' variance to the north, making it a 4' setback. Hall replied that the Board did not want to haggle and wanted to consider what was best for the public interest. Hall stated that the 5' setback is important. Hall referred to Donahue's comments about the neighbor having the option of building up to 5' of his property line. When the Board has granted a variance of less than the 5' setback in the past, it was because it abuts a street corner or an open space with no impact or chance of impact to anyone. ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 3 This appeal has a significant chance of impacting someone. McBride noted that the Board has to have a reason • to grant a setback variance. There is not a hardship just because you want it because the site is small. Yturiaga again asked if they changed their plans to the Board's original recommendations of 13' on the rear yard and 5' to the north If that would be okay. Hall stated that last month you said you needed room for a garage. What was recommended last month after an extensive conversation was that if we went with 13' you could get your garage in there and not go into the front setback and keep the 5' compliant on the side. There would still be enough room to get your car in and be workable. Barnes read from last month's minutes, which had just been approved. The Board was agreeable to have the structure 13' from the rear lot line. The applicant stated that would be difficult to fit a car in the garage and asked to have 2' towards Remington, reducing the front setback by 2', keeping the north setback at 5'. The Board agreed but added that if alternatives do not work, be able to explain why not at the next appearance before the Board. Barnes noted that the Board gave directions at 13' in the rear, 13' in the front, and 5' on the sides. What they have come back with is 12' at the rear, 15' at the front (no need for front setback variance), and 2' on the side instead of 5'. They have not taken advantage of the front setback that the Board talked about being possibly agreeable. Having 12' in the rear may be better than having a front setback variance. Some options the Board might have are to deny everything, grant the rear at 12', and deny the side setback. Or grant the variance at 13' in the rear. Having a 5' setback on the side would not need a variance. Or table it again. Board Discussion: McBride suggested approving the 13' rear setback. Dickson stated that we have to deny this request as written. Hall recalled last month's discussion of the front yard setback options. The Board discussed impacts of the side setback on the neighbor. Towards Remington is open space because of the street. The impact of 3' into the rear setback is fairly nominal. Donahue would be comfortable with 12' on the rear. • Beisman asked if he was clear with hearing the Board discuss no setback variance on the north and 12' on the east. He was correct. Hall inquired of Barnes the best way to word the variance. Barnes replied that the Board would approve the rear setback from 15' to 12' and deny the request to reduce the sideyard setback. Eckman commented that the denial of the sideyard setback would need a reason, such as that it would be detrimental to the public good or there was really not a hardship. McBride made a motion on Appeal 2499 to approve the applicant's request for a 12' backyard setback and to deny the 2' sideyard setback request. The granting of the reduction in the backyard setback would not be detrimental to the public good, with the reason being it is nominal and inconsequential. The reason for the denial of the sideyard setback is that there is no reason to grant the 2' north side setback variance, there is no hardship, it is not an equal to or better than situation, and it is consequential and detrimental to the public good. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall and McBride. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2502 - Approved; Address: 1113 W Olive St. Petitioner: Dennis Sovick Zone: NCL • Section: 4.6(E)(2) and (3) Background: The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 15' to 7' (3' to the covered entry), would reduce ZBA April 14, 2005 -Page 4 the required rear yard setback from 15' to 8', and reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 3 to 1 to 2.5 to 1 (an approximately 140 square feet of additional floor area) in order to allow the construction of a new home on this former substation lot. This variance request was originally to be heard on March 10, 2005, but was tabled to April 14, 2005. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: The Board has granted similar variance requests for this lot a number of times in the last 10 years; however a building permit has never been issued pursuant to any of the variances. The Board is being asked once again to consider allowing a home to be constructed on the lot. The alley along the side lot line and the extra 15' of land between the front property line and the street makes this lot appear larger than it really is. This may help to offset the extra 140 square feet of floor area. Staff Presentation: Barnes stated that variances on this property have been considered 8 times since 1982, mostly for lot area to floor area ratios and setbacks. The 3000 sf lot was originally a City substation that was abandoned about 25 years ago. Olive St is along the front of the lot. There is an alley along the east side of the property. Washington Elementary School is across the street. The property line is about 15' beyond the curb. There is a right of way area which adds additional open space appearance to the lot. The proposal is to reduce the front setback to T, the rear setback to 8% and the depth of the lot is 50'. Barnes presented slides showing the shallow lot. Applicant Participation: Dennis Sovick, 750 Hopple Ave, addressed the Board. Sovick is the designer and builder and has been building in town for about 30 years. Sovick remarked that he is adept at fitting houses on infill lots. Sovick has known the owner of the property for 15 years. What is unique about this property is that there are no other houses that face Olive St, other than one house at the end of the block that sits way back on the lot in trees. This house will not be aligning with other houses and an offset sidewalk would not go anywhere. The design of the proposed house will fit in with the rest of the neighborhood's traditional elements. The closest cross streets are Shields St and Scott Ave. Sovick noted that he would pull a building permit and move ahead as quickly as possible after the approval of this variance. Donahue asked for clarification on how the facade of the house would fit the neighborhood. Sovick replied that there will be a hip roof on the front entry porch. They do not want a front load garage and will have a garage that will be accessed from the alley. The house is a bungalow type with a lower level basement that sits below grade. The house is not traditional but will work. It will have outdoor living space and patio on top of the roof since the yard is so small. Dave Theobald, 1122 W Mountain Ave, addressed the Board. Theobald is having this house built for his family and will move into it. Theobald teaches at CSU. He and his family have lived a block and a half north of this lot for 4 years and really like the neighborhood. They like the design having a hip roof and flat elements. There is a flat roofed bungalow near City Park. Board Discussion: Hall questioned the sidewalk requirements. Barnes stated that sidewalks would be an Engineering Department decision. A sidewalk that does not go anywhere might be waived until later; the sidewalk may be attached to the curb; or may have an agreement with the property owner that at such time that other sidewalk improvements are required along that block face then they would have to participate. Hall noted that then we really do not know what that would look like. Hall inquired about what possibly could be done to the back half of the lot of the plot adjacent to the south that has a house to the front end of the lot. Hall was concerned about impact. Barnes replied that they do not have enough lot area to build another house in the backyard, but could construct a detached accessory building not to exceed 600 sf, such as a 3 car detached garage. ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 5 Hall remarked that this proposal is a great use of this lot and is in favor of this appeal. Dickson noted that this • proposal is well thought out with a driveway and side loading garage. The front setback line satisfies concerns of light and space and has no other houses to line up with. McBride commented that he was uncomfortable after telling the last applicant's that their hardship was self imposed. McBride asked Barnes why the variances for this property were approved in the past and why they cannot just carry forward. Barnes stated that zoning variances expire within 6 months of approval if a building permit is not obtained. The last appeal did not ask for a front yard variance, was granted a variance to reduce the rear setback and denied a side setback. This appeal is not requesting a sideyard setback variance. This lot has been divided and what is the rear now originally would have been the side and they would have only needed 5' sideyard setbacks. Since the house faces Olive St, they setback along the alley is 5' and they have 12' and a utility easement. Hall commented that the differences between the 2 proposals are that in this appeal the house being proposed is positioned on the best location of the lot with minimal impact on the existing structures. It is a unique situation as it is a very small lot. The previous appeal was impacting adjacent structures. This appeal is not. Hall is in favor of granting this variance. Dickson noted that there is open space and no houses crowding this property which create more light and space. Donahue asked Sovick about the 3' solar space on the plans. Sovick commented that this is still in design development. It is a 2 story with mini sun space where you can pull hot air into the house. There are trees nearby that will have to be considered for solar input. Donahue remarked that it was basically a light well that brings light down into the space. • McBride asked if it was unusual or typical to have the property line 15' back in Old Town. Barnes stated that it is common for that that particular block. What is typical is that there are a lot of non -conforming buildings in Old Town. Sovick mentioned that he has done houses on Grandview. He put the last 2 houses 18' from the curb on 6000 sf lots, and it works well. Sovick noted that every lot is different in Old Town. Barnes stated that the south lot behind this property cannot be subdivided. It does not have enough space to have 2 legal lots and the code says you cannot subdivide the lots so as to create a new lot in the rear portion of the lot. The subdivision rule has been in place for a year. McBride noted that he is in favor of this appeal. Hall remarked the shallow depth of the lot created a hardship. Donahue made a motion to approve Appeal 2502, finding that granting a variance was not detrimental to public good under the hardship clause finding that the lot being 50' deep and shallow. The variance requested is for a 7' setback off the front property line in lieu of the required 15'. There are mitigating circumstances. The front property line is set 15' off the street curb so the setback is actually 22'. The street right of way presents open space as well. They are also requesting an 8' rear setback and because of the shallowness of the lot, a hardship is presented. The adjacent property owners cannot build in the rear of the property and the existing property to the west will not be impacted. Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall and McBride. Nays: None. 5. APPEAL NO. 2503 - Approved with conditions 938 W Mountain Ave •Address: Petitioner: Jamie Haggard Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) and 4.6(D)(1) ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 6 Backaround The variance would allow a second story addition with a window dormer height along the west property line of 19'6" which would require a 6 ft sideyard setback. The house currently sits at 5' 8" from the west property line. The variance would also allow a decrease in the lot to floor area ratio from 3:1 to 2.45:1. The lot contains 7837.5 square feet. The proposed addition and an existing accessory structure contain 3200 square feet which would require a 9600 square foot lot. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The second story window on the west side is an egress window for the bedroom and that is the only place for a window to be located. The house is similar in design and lesser square footage than similar homes in the area. The design of the house has been professionally designed to fit the character of the Old Town area. A single story addition could have been added thus covering more of the actual lot area. By adding the second story, less of the lot will actually be covered. Staff Comments The applicant has also submitted a building permit application for a new 600 sq. ft. detached garage. The Board may want to limit the size of the new garage in order to reduce the floor area on the lot, thus requiring less of a lot area to floor area ratio variance. Staff Presentation Barnes presented slides. Barnes remarked that from the aerial view, the property line is not quite accurate. The picture looks like it is right on the lot line, when actually the house sits 5'8" from the west lot line. In the proposed addition, it would require that the setback of the new construction be 6' from the lot line. So, we are looking at about a 4" variance on this side of the house. Hall inquired if City staff had more discussion about the floor area to lot ratio in the NCL, because this issue is seen so frequently. Barnes, replied no, not yet. City Council adopted a moratorium ordinance on new carriage houses in the back, which also ended up with new detached accessory buildings standards as well. Staff wants to wait awhile to analyze what is going on with these new standards that have been put in place to see what impact that might have before we are willing to discuss changing the code. Applicant Participation: Gina and Jamie Haggard, 934 W Mountain Ave (owners of the adjacent property 938 W Mountain Ave), addressed the Board. Haggard asked to see the satellite view of the property again. They wanted to build an addition with the bedrooms all being on the same floor. Haggard commented that the big tree in the picture is not there anymore. The tree went down in October, close to Halloween. It fell on the house, which moved up their plans. They hired Sue Froseth, an experienced Old Town architect to design the proposed addition and the garage. The design has kept the Old Town character of the street. They really like their neighborhood. They do not want an addition or garage that looks like an ugly box or freight train look. They want to keep the brick around the house and not lose the character of the back wall. Hall noted that the proposal is going straight up but, because of the height, that additional foot setback is needed. Haggard's foundation is currently at 5'8". There is about 4" encroachment into the 6' setback requirement because of the height of the addition. Haggard remarked that the neighbors to the left had already done an addition with a porch so they would not be doing any future building that would encroach on their house. Haggard commented that the window in question is on the west elevation. Donahue noted that the drawing shows two windows. Haggard remarked that two windows were needed in the addition to keep the character of the house. Larger second floor windows would not fit the neighborhood and would also need changing the front windows on the house to match. They are trying to get a second story with a low profile. Hall asked if anyone in the audience was opposed to this appeal. Barnes noted that Karen McWilliams from the Historic Preservation Office had some comments, but was making copies of the drawing of the garage. ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 7 • Hall asked Haggard If they had met with the Landmark Preservation Committee. Haggard replied, no not yet and that he was confused with the whole process. The garage had needed a conceptual review. They changed the garage plans to a lower eave height which is actually shorter than on the submitted plans and there would not be any water in the proposed garage. Barnes asked Haggard what the new save height was. Haggard replied that the new save height would be less than 13', and the proposed plans show 13'10", so it would be lowered about a foot. Haggard commented that the garage had been designed to match the house. The proposed garage is a 3 car garage with a woodshop and loft area for storage. He has a home office and needs lots of room for storage. The upper part of the garage has T walls and mimics the roof line of the main house. Barnes noted that the square footage of the lot is 7837.5 and they would need a 9600 sf lot to accommodate all the requested square footage. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Office, Advanced Planning Department addressed the Board. McWilliams stated that they had some concerns, not particularly with this project, but with all the projects of this type that are going on in the old part of town where the floor area to lot size is constantly being eroded. This sort of thing is incremental; where one property is allowed to do it and then someone uses that argument for the next property and the next property and so on. Overall, it has a fairly tremendous impact on the historic character of the Old Town areas. Eventually, the impact is sufficient enough that the areas lose their ability to be designated as a district, which does not require all that high of a standard. If they lose that ability to be designated as a district, the property owners lose the ability to get some very substantial financial incentives for maintaining the homes. The qualities of life on the homes that are immediately adjacent are impacted. Her office is becoming very concerned about reductions in the lot size, or in this case, an increase in the building size square footage and reduction of the minimum lot size requirements. • Hall noted that if the garage were not allowed that there would be a really nominal impact in terms of 4" into the setback. But, the more substantial issue is the floor area to lot size ratio. McWilliams agreed with that issue of concern. Hall asked McWilliams if, in theory, the size of the garage was scaled down if that met the goals that McWilliams is trying achieve? McWilliams stated that the total quantity of how these homes are being popped up is becoming overwhelming. McWilliams shared an example of a neighborhood that traditionally was one, one and a half stories. The new buyers now wish to go to two, two and a half stories. And each one is coming in for a variance, because they do not meet the required lot size. The overall impact of having all of these homes go up has that spill over effect in numerous ways. Reducing the size of the garage is nice. But actually, our preference would be for more of the construction to be back towards the alley, where it will maintain the street fagade and the street line and have those homes not be quite so big and overwhelming. Then the alley homes could have increased density in the back where they are less visible and tend to have less impact on the neighbors. There's less impact on the alley. Hall asked if McWilliams preference would be that they did a longer single story home than adding on a second story. McWilliams replied that the preference would actually be a one story addition that would fit the criteria, provided, of course, it was designed and took into account some of the historic character. But, again it is not so much this particular house. It is the whole concept of reducing the 9600 sf lot requirement and doing this for this property. We see it over and over where other properties come in and say, well the home two houses away got the variance. Why can't we? Haggard asked to see the satellite photo again and pointed out that the house on to our left is a two story house. The house on the west side is a two story house. The next house is a two story house. The next house is a two story house. The next house is a two story house. So, as far as that block of Mountain, you are looking at a row • of two story houses. Haggard commented that they also had signatures from everybody within the 150' radius of the property line according to the Assessor's Office, except for a couple people that own rentals that are outside the area or live in Pueblo. They showed them the plans and let them have any feedback. And, nobody's here opposing the appeal and everybody signed the petition, if you would like to see that too. ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 8 Hall stated that Haggard could give the petition to Barnes. Dickson asked if the petition could be submitted as evidence. Barnes replied, yes, that in lieu of letters that get mailed to us we do have people bring petitions at the appeal time. The petition says, "After reviewing the architectural Illustrations for 938 W Mountain Ave, I do not have any concerns with the planned garage and second story addition to the above said property." Haggard noted that If an addition was added out the back they would lose the character of the brick and a large amount of the back yard. They want a little sunroom. Mountain is a busy street. They want the kids to play in the back yard, not out in the front. Board Discussion: Dickson commented that we have an issue with the request of almost 600 sf over what is allowed. McWilliams would prefer a one story addition. The accessory buildings in back are fine, it's more of the front that they are concerned with. Dickson asked McWilliams about the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation District and funding. McWilliams stated that there is not currently a historic district in this area. There is a Landmark Preservation Commission. When a property is 50 years old or older, and is proposing alterations, that part of the review process is that the plan comes to Historic Preservation staff if the building is individually eligible, as this one actually is. Then the review process would take the plans for an addition or alteration through a public process, which culminates with a hearing in front of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Now in terms of the funding: when there are several properties in an area or an individually eligible home that wants to be designated, which this one probably does not, when they become designated, they become eligible for financial incentives. If they don't want to be designated, then they won't be. Dickson asked if they are not designated if they can do whatever they want within the code and that Historic Preservation is just a guideline. McWilliams replied, once they go through that public hearing in front of that Landmark Preservation Commission, then they can do whatever they want. They have to go through the hearing, but they don't have to go along with recommendations. It is a delay process only, not a prohibition process. We delay them, do the public hearing, and see if there are issues and then they can go ahead and do the work. They do not have to follow the recommendations. Dickson asked If Haggard had been through that process. McWilliams replied, no, they have not submitted plans for this house at all, and they will need to go through that process. Hall noted that he did not have a problem with the window. Dickson agreed that the window was a minor and inconsequential issue. Hall commented that the floor area ratio has more substantial and legitimate issues to be addressed there. Donahue, Dickson, and McBride had questions about the floor above the garage for lofted storage and whether that loft counts as additional square footage. Barnes stated that if the ceiling height does not exceed 7.5" it does not count as floor area. This garage has to comply with the new design guidelines for that type of building and has a maximum eave height requirement. That is why they have indicated that it will be lower than the drawing. They will have to resubmit their plans for review. Haggard commented that his wife had to leave the meeting. (9:55 a.m.) If the eave height is over 13' and has plumbing, then it has to go through a public hearing. Haggard did not realize that when they designed the garage, so that is why they have taken all that out and lowered the save height. Barnes stated that in the house everything counts as floor area except the basement. In the detached building that's where the 7.5' comes into play, and the garage is included in the floor area ratio. Donahue remarked that the garage is basically what's kicking us over the floor area ratio by 600 sf. A little less than 1300 sf is proposed to be added to the second story of the existing house. ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 9 Hall commented that if we deny this, they could essentially build a house the way they want it and just not do the • garage. Hall noted that he was unsure If the Board would be advancing the cause by pushing them in that direction. McBride stated that the floor area ratio is an attempt to keep the volume of the houses in the neighborhood down. He would be more inclined to grant a variance if the garage was not quite so big. It almost looks like a two story garage, even bigger than the 600 sf variance that they are asking for. It is 600 plus, even though some of it can not be counted as living space, it is voluminous. Donahue mentioned that is a bulky 600 square feet. Haggard commented that some of the garage additions in Old Town are a box with a straight roof, which looks like the new developments down south, and does not fit the character of Old Town. Without a variance, he could put up a box, but has spent a lot of money on an architect. The first thing that was designed was the garage to match the house. Getting off street parking, and having space in the back to park your car is more than just a convenience. It is almost a necessity to avoid damage to vehicles. Haggard has had a lot of damage to vehicles. The garage has been designed with one stall for his wife, one for Haggard, and one stall for storage and woodshop. Currently there is a one car dilapidated garage on the property. The new garage has to be placed to the west because the power comes in under that garage, or right on the side of it. They do not want to take out the cherry trees. The neighbor has a garage that's in that northeast comer, which can not be seen in the pictures. Haggard noted that the dilapidated garage is on the property line. So, to redo the garage, it has to come 5'-6' off of the line. Dickson inquired about the setback requirements for the proposed garage since it is on an alley. Barnes replied that setbacks from a normal alley are 5'. Dickson commented that she liked Haggard's designs for the garage and house, but there is a square foot problem. • The Board discussed whether the other houses nearby were complying with the floor area ratio. Haggard commented that the house to the right, which has a finished basement, and the house they are living in are close to the size of the proposed plans. Dickson stated that is the issue here. The proposed addition would fit very well in the neighborhood, but that is not the precedent that Historic Preservation wants to see, and your plans are over the size of the rules. Haggard remarked that the houses to the east keep getting bigger. The house they live in has an existing garage and a chicken coop which probably are not compliant. Donahue asked if the basement area is accounted for in the floor area ratio. Barnes replied no, a basement in the principal house does not count. If they were to build an alley house, or if they had a basement in the proposed garage, that would count in the ratio. Hall stated that in terms of the floor area ratio, the Board could do several things; they can say it's a hardship because it's some extraordinary situation, like the last case which had a very small unusual lot. But, this is not an unusual lot. It is hard to find a specific hardship here. Or, the Board can say that it's equal to or better than, but again, it is hard to find that it would be better or equal to a 3:1 ratio. Hall asked how the Board can justify this variance based on the rules, because the rules have to be honored. Haggard replied that he understood. His main drive was to get all the bedrooms all on the same floor. The house is currently a two bedroom house and if they went out the back, and not even do a variance, then they would lose the whole character of the back of the house with the brick and the yard. Hall noted that they would still run into issues with the floor area ratio If you went out the back and if they did this garage. Hall mentioned that he thought it was a well conceived plan, but was trying to figure a justification for the variance. If the Board were to say no, they could not find a reason, what would happen to this property? Would you repair it as is? Haggard replied that he did not know. They had been planning for six months and had not thought of the possibility of not getting the variance. • Dickson stated that there are also issues with the garage. The pro of the garage is that they contain and protect all of their vehicles, and we do not have to look at all the vehicles on the property. But on the other hand, it is a huge mass that's going up. There are plenty of houses on Mountain that do not have garages, or just have ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 10 minimal one car garages. That is probably not what the owners want; they probably all would like to have bigger garages. Haggard shared that the garage was designed to match the front. They could still build a box out back, that did not match the character of Mountain Ave., which did not need a variance. Hall noted that it did seem a bit limited in what Haggard could do. In theory, if Haggard did the house the way they wanted, then the garage could not be very big to be compliant. Dickson remarked that maybe the three car garage is not something that needs to happen. McBride agreed and commented that it would be more acceptable if this were a two car normal looking garage at 400 sf or 450 sf, without this volume over the top of it. Again, the purpose of the floor area ratio is to try to decrease the volume of things, and while, It is kind of a loop hole, you get to build up as high as you want if you do not call it a floor, but you are increasing the volume of structures on the lot. Haggard remarked that if the proposed garage was turned 90 degrees, it would look a lot narrower too, but we were just trying to have three cars access. Hall stated that It was the floor area ratio, whether or not it had a flat roof on it. Donahue mentioned that the mass would still be there in three dimensions. Dickson commented that the west elevation is real minimal looking compared to the north and south. Hall asked the Board if they would be potentially in favor of tabling this and giving the applicant time, assuming he would be in favor of that, to come up with another idea that might be closer to the required square footage. Donahue commented that there were several pieces to this. There was the 4" variance on setback of the second story, which is nominal and inconsequential, that If everybody is in approval, they could approve that piece of it. And then, the portion which addressed the mass of this garage, that puts them over the floor area ratio, could either be denied or tabled. Hall fully agreed. Haggard stated that the other problem they have is that the house is leaking everyday. Every time it snows, every time it rains it is ruining plaster every day. The house can not be lived in or be occupied right now, because the house is destroyed inside where that tree went down and was sitting on top of that house. McBride and Donahue suggested approving the house to allow them to go forward and to not approve the garage. Hall noted that the reason he suggested tabling it was to give the applicant more options. Dickson commented that if the Board let him know the direction they are leaning toward, they could give Haggard the choice. Hall stated that the Board was struggling with the floor area ratio and trying to find options for him. Hall asked for Haggard's opinion. Haggard shared his frustrations with getting caught on the square footage number when his design would fit the neighborhood. Haggard mentioned other three car garages nearby and asked if the proposed garage was under the square footage, would everybody approve it? Hall and Dickson replied they thought the answer was yes. Hall again stated that the Board needed to justify why they were moving outside of the code, that this change with this mass was not nominal. Hall did not hear anybody opposed, in theory, to the design. It was the floor area ratio that they are struggling with and how to improve that situation. McBride repeated that he would be inclined to approve of a normal height eave on a two car garage in the alley and grant a variance that was not quite so much as this one. But, he had a problem voting yes on this one. Hall noted a consensus from the Board. Hall informed Haggard that the Board could basically go in two directions here. They could table it, which would give Haggard time to come up with different options. They could probably approve the house and not approve the garage. So then Haggard could comply with the floor area ratio, but would have to figure out the garage at a future time. ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 11 Haggard replied that he would rather have the house for now because the house is getting destroyed day by is day. He has buckets all over the place and wants to get started. He will deal with the garage later. Hall asked if the Board was okay with that and if anyone wanted to make a motion. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal 2503 finding that granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. There are two issues here; the one request is for the sideyard setback is required to be 6' and it would be at 68". We believe that the difference would be nominal and inconsequential. We would approve the house remodel as proposed on these drawings. However, we would not approve the garage as submitted on these drawings, because of exceeding the lot area to floor required ratio. Barnes interrupted to state that because there is an existing garage there; you want to grant a variance to allow the house as proposed, with the existing garage. This would then mean that you would grant a variance on the setback and the lot area to floor ratio to whatever it would be with the addition as shown and the existing garage. Dickson continued, so, with the addition as shown and with the existing garage and it's square footage and placement as shown. Barnes added, so that is the variance, to reduce the lot area to floor area ratio from 3:1 to whatever it is with the house as proposed and the existing garage, which will not be as much of a variance as what Haggard has requested. Dickson continued, we recommend approval with Peter Barnes' immediate comments. McBride seconded. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, and McBride. • Nays: None. Haggard asked another question wanting to know if he had done the garage first, and it looked like the proposed garage, would the Board approve the variance to build a house that matched the garage? Hall replied that he had no idea. Haggard commented that the back porch is coming off, which loses the square footage off of that 100-200 square feet. Donahue remarked that the drawings show that Haggard was adding off the back as well. Hall stated that Appeal 2503 has been approved with conditions. 6. APPEAL NO. 2504 - Approved Address: 2943 Sagebrush Dr Petitioner: Stephen Guild Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(d) Background The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 4.7 feet in order to allow a 10 foot garage addition to the front of the existing garage and a 13 foot hobby room on the back of the existing garage. The north wall of the addition will line up with the existing north wall of the garage, which is already only 4.7 feet from the side lot line. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The building is already located at the proposed setback, so no further encroachment is proposed. The home • was built with a one -car garage, and a two car garage is desirable. See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 12 None Staff Presentation Barnes stated the only thing that is being requested is a setback along the side lot line on the north from 5' to 4.7' in order to allow an addition on the front and the rear to line up with the existing wall. The information submitted comes right off a survey. The original permit was issued showing a 5' sideyard setback. The house was constructed less than that, at 4.7', so they are stuck with the existing setback. Barnes presented slides. Hall asked If it was a mistake during building and it was not caught. Barnes stated that this house was constructed about 10 years prior to the City requiring Improvement Location Certificates or surveys. Donahue asked if Barnes knew the distance of the adjacent property. Barnes replied that is has to be a minimum 5', but we already know this one did not meet that. Perhaps the applicant has measured that. Hall commented that if they were at 5' that the applicant wouldn't be here today for any other issues. Barnes stated that was correct, that if the house were located at what was required and they were proposing the same addition, they would be in compliance. There is no lot area to floor area ratio requested here or anything else. Donahue noted that fire ratings are 3', so that is not an issue. Applicant Participation: Stephen Guild, 2943 Sagebrush Dr, addressed the Board. Guild is the original owner of the property. Guild had no idea of setback requirements on that, but has always desired a two car garage. The variance is only required because the house was not put on the plot in the original desired location. It would create a hardship if he were compliant within the guidelines to have to build 2" south of the setback line as it would ruin the architectural look of the house. It would effect the property value if built that way with an intrusion into the setback that exists. Hall asked how long would the addition wall be in the front of the garage all the way back. Guild replied that it would be 23' longer, including the hobby room in the back. Barnes stated that it looked like it would be about 45' with just over 22' existing and then about 23.5' new. Board Discussion: Donahue noted that he found this nominal and inconsequential with a small impact of 3" Dickson remarked that it would be much more desirable to follow the existing side, versus a 3" bump. Hall, Donahue, and McBride agreed. Hall noted that this was an unusual circumstance, not something that the owner created. Hall commented that nominal and inconsequential would work very well for this situation. Donahue noted that adjacent property owners had been notified and were not here expressing any concerns. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal 2504 for the following reason; the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. Based on the nominal and inconsequential standard, the variance from the 5' requirement to 4.7" is nominal and inconsequential. It would be much more aesthetically pleasing to do the remodel following the existing side building line. It is not the owner's fault that the original builder went over by several inches. No one has expressed concern with it. It is not over in any other manner of square footage. It is nominal and inconsequential. Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, and McBride. Nays: None. 7. APPEAL NO. 2505 - Approved. Address: 350 E Horsetooth Rd Petitioner: Dave Sitzman Zone: C ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 13 Section: 3.8.7(G)(2) • Backoround: The variance would allow a new monument sign to be constructed at a zero setback from the lot line between The Marriott Hotel and the Horsetooth One Office Building instead of the required 15 feet from this side lot line. The sign will advertise the Marriott and the restaurant in the hotel, and will be 7.5' tall, containing 16 sq. ft. of signage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: The applicant could simply adjust the location of the lot line by moving it east 15', thereby allowing the new sign to be placed in the proposed location without the need for a variance. However, moving the line on paper would not change anything, therefore this proposal promotes the intent of the Code equally well as would a proposal that complies with the Code. The intent of the code is to ensure that freestanding signs along streets are at least 30' apart. The proposed sign will be 97' from the existing freestanding sign on the lot to the east. Staff Presentation: Barnes stated that the sign code requirement is that any free standing sign has to be a least 15' from the interior side lot line. The purpose of that standard is to make sure that there is minimal spacing between free standing signs along streets, ensuring that signs are at least 30' apart to help minimize street clutter. The request is to allow the monument sign to be placed right on the lot line between the Marriott Hotel and the office building to the east. The proposed sign is v-shaped with the point of the v right on the lot line. There is a common area. They could do a lot line adjustment and move the lot line over and not need a variance, but that would require an attorney and would not change anything visually with the respect to the passing motorists or pedestrians. • They have chosen to ask for a variance and keep all the common areas as currently platted and in ownership parcels. Barnes presented slides. Hall asked if they moved the sign as far west as possible would they still be 30' apart. Barnes replied that because of the sidewalk and the width of the driveway, it could be close to a 30' separation. They might not want to put a sign right next to the sidewalk, as pedestrians walking by could kick or throw things at it. Donahue asked if this would comply with sight distances for vehicles. Barnes replied yes, it would. They are proposing to locate the sign to be set some distance far enough to be out of our sight distance triangles. Applicant Participation: Dave Sitzman, 2719 Beaver Ct, addressed the Board. Sitzman remarked that this appeal is easier than Old Town setbacks, and is just a technicality that was not envisioned in terms of how the code was set up. The parcel that we are within 15' of is not a building parcel. It cannot be built on as it is common area that is held by an association for the benefit of all the owners around there. The common area is just a little strip from the center line to the curb on the other side and it goes around the building. The proposed sign is 15' from that common area and is right on the lot line, but really over 30' from the property line of the other office building. Even if the other office moved their sign as far over as they can to where they were 15' back from their property line, there would still be 45-50' of separation. The other office building now has a sign in the best location, and probably would not want to move the sign to the west. Donahue noted that the sign on the site plan straddles the property line and asked If both parcels were owned by Sitzman's organization. Sitzman stated that the Marriott Hotel parcel is owned by a partnership that Marriott is the general partner of. The other parcel is owned by Arena Management Co, that the Marriott has 100 percent control of, but all the property owners in there would have a vote on anything affecting the common area. The Marriott has the controlling vote of the association. The other parcel can never by built on, no matter who is in charge of ft. • Donahue asked if the City has regulations about the sign being on two different properties. Z BA April 14, 2005 - Page 14 Barnes stated that would be an issue the owners would have to resolve Hall asked if the sign were under the allowed square footage. Barnes noted that the sign is in compliance with regards to height, size, and setback; everything other than this location relative to the property line. The allowance would come off the common area. Sitzman commented that common area parcel could be merged with the parcel the Marriott already owns. But, that would not change anything as far as it would still be common area, parking lot, and still be subject to the same overall control by the association. There are a number of insurance and legal reasons for them to hold It in this other entity. It would be a burden of hundreds of dollars and more months of time to change it. Board Discussion: McBride remarked that he was in favor of this appeal. Hall noted it to be equal to or better than what the code intends. Dickson agreed. Donahue mentioned that there would still be a separation of signs without causing clutter along the arterial street. Dickson commented that the property is virtually under one ownership. Barnes stated that the property to west is the Marriott. This would count as a Marriott sign and they can have only one sign on Horsetooth. They would not be allowed another sign on the west. It would be self-regulating. Hall made a motion to approve Appeal 2505. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. This is an equal to or better than reason based on the fact that there is a natural buffer, because of the lots that are there, between this sign and the next legal compliant sign. The intent of the code is met; keeping those signs as least 30' apart. Dickson seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, and McBride. Nays: None. 8. APPEAL NO. 2506 — Tabled until survey is done. Address: Mark Knapp Petitioner: 124 N Sherwood St Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 5 feet to 2 feet 8 inches in order to allow a 2 story, 10 foot by 12 foot addition on the northeast comer of the house. The north wall of the addition will line up with the existing north wall of the house. The addition will not be as tall as the existing building. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The existing kitchen ig very small. If the addition were constructed to comply with the 5' setback, it would only be about 7.5' wide and wouldn't line up with the existing interior walls. Such a kitchen would not be very functional Staff Comments None. Staff Presentation Barnes referred to a letter from Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Office, regarding this appeal and their support of it. The existing wall of the building along the north lot is already noncomplying and is 28" from the wall to the property line. Barnes presented slides. ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 15 Dickson asked if the lot to floor area ratio was compliant. Barnes replied yes. • Hall asked for clarification of the proposed plans. Barnes stated that the two story addition on the left elevation would be lower in height than the existing height of the wall. Applicant Participation: Mark Knapp, 118 N Sherwood St, owner of 124 N Sherwood St, addressed the Board. Knapp wants to build a 10'x12' two story addition. The eave height of the addition will be the same as the eave height of the current home. The fence post is inside the property line. The lot line is approximately even with the concrete driveway. Knapp did find pins in the front end and back, and the best they could tell they were about 2'8" off the line. If they moved the foundation in and cantilever over, they would not need a variance. But, there are issues with putting plumbing in cantilevers. Knapp was asking to have the foundation even with the existing house and to go up from there. Knapp stated that they had gone through Karen McWilliams and Historic Preservation, and the house is in the process of being designated as a historic landmark. The house received the final approval on the previous night. The plans that were approved go before the City Council for a first vote on the 19a'. Everyone that has seen the plans has approved of them. Hall asked if it were correct that Knapp could potentially cantilever the wall. Barnes replied that you cannot cantilever the whole side wall of a house, but are allowed to cantilever bay windows, and similar size cantilevers. With this 10' or 12' addition, they could build a foundation wall at 5' and then cantilever 2' into the setback for a small portion of the wall that could go up the two stories. So, it would be 4" away then what is being requested. Sometimes there are two story bay window type architectural features. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Office, addressed the Board. McWilliams stated that this is how an isaddition should be designed on a historic building. There is no impact on property owners on either side, and it is tucked back as much as possible. The addition will increase the livability of this house, which Historic Preservation is very much in favor of. It does not increase the massing of the buildable space and volume of building to the lot line. This proposal went to Landmark Preservation Commission on the previous night for final approval and were supported. This is slightly different because this home is being designated as a Fort Collins landmark. When homes are designed as landmarks then the Landmark Preservation Commission does have final approval on all the alterations or additions that are being made to the exterior. Knapp did take the plans to them early on in the process to help design and develop the plans. Hall asked if anyone in the audience was opposed to this appeal. Jan Krucky, 128 N Sherwood St, owner of the adjacent property of 126 N Sherwood St, addressed the Board. Krucky shared his concerns specifically with the effect of the light and blocking. Krucky also was concerned with the determination of the property line. He noted that according to his records and improvement location survey that the property line was somewhere between the edge of the concrete driveway and the house. Krucky stated that it is already crowded. He asked if this exception was allowed how would it work for the property on the north side if they wanted to extend. Then there would only be a 5' space between the houses. There is also a garage just east of the proposed addition. The Board reviewed the slides. Krucky noted the property lines in the overhead images. Hall remarked that the overhead images are not completely accurate. Hall asked Krucky if he knew how close the addition would be to the garage. Krucky replied no, that the only information he had received was the letter from Zoning sent to the adjacent property owners informing them of a variance being applied for. Krucky guessed the garage was about 14-15' from the existing corner, and possibly that one car could be parked in front of the current garage. • Knapp stated that the 12' back would be about 3' towards the house from the window on the little stairway addition. From the back of the lot to the front of Krucky's garage is probably 15' to 20', but he was not sure. ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 16 Krucky commented that there have been situations with a car running in the driveway and it is very close to the house. The distance between the edge of the driveway to the side of the house is approximately 25. Krucky noted that the existing metal fence is roughly a foot to 14" from the house. The wooden post, mentioned by Knapp, has been added there within the last year. Krucky is not sure that that is really the property line. Krucky stated that he did not want to start a dispute where the whole block of this old neighborhood would have to be measured. His concern was If this variance is allowed, what would prevent the Board from also granting a future variance from the property on the north side. Board Discussion: Hall stated this Old Town appeal was tough for him since the addition makes sense to the relationship of the house, but the neighbor's concerns are also very legitimate. McBride commented that if the proposed addition were to comply that it would simply be 2' farther over. The impact between it lining up and the impact with it not lining up is 2'4". It is a minimal impact with it complying with the setback or not complying. Dickson remarked that it is additional mass being added either way. The addition is going up two stories either way. The question is does it come out that additional 28" or not. Hall asked Barnes if it is because it is in NCM that the setback is not more than 5' on the second floor. Barnes replied that the NCM also requires a 5' setback for the first 18' of wall height and then as it get taller more of a setback is required. The wall height at the existing peak is much taller than 18', but the height of the proposed addition is 17'6", so the 5' setback applies. McBride stated that architecturally there is another a way of doing this. What I believe Barnes is saying is, if the foundation of the main wall of the addition were placed at the setback that you could cantilever a bay off of that 2'. In that case, it would only be 4" of difference of where the exterior face of the addition would be. Legally Knapp could build a wall 2'4" back and then cantilever a bay out 2'. Then the difference between what he is proposing here and that scenario is 4". Barnes replied that the wall, not the foundation, above grade as being proposed would be 2'8" from the property line, assuming that the property line is as shown here. If they use this allowance in the code, put the foundation at the required 5' setback, we would not allow them to cantilever the whole north wall of the house, but they could cantilever a bay 2' beyond that. With that construction method, then the wall would be 3' from the lot line instead of 2W. The plans show a two story addition with a kitchen on the main floor and a bedroom on the top floor. The Board probably knows structurally whether the second floor could be supported with a 2' cantilever. Donahue commented that it would depend on how it was framed. McBride noted that the cantilever would occur in the floor joist on both floors. There is not anything structurally impeding them from doing that. Donahue mentioned that the house is being designated as a Fort Collins historic landmark. McWilliams stated that If the plans change the applicant's would have to resubmit the new plans for review. McWilliams noted that this house is a rare example of a prairie style home. Fort Collins does not have many homes of this prairie style, with geometric detail, windows, stucco, very long porch and lots of details. This house has a side gable variant typical of a Chicago prairie home. McBride remarked that he hoped the historic designation could still be maintained if the a bay cantilever was used. McBride mentioned that either way, Krucky would be impacted. Krucky noted that he did have an ILC and the person that did his survey said he could not find the pins and had used a reference point. Knapp stated that he has found two pins on the right side of his property and in between these two properties. He measured over and ran a string from front to back and was confident of the location. Eckman stated that we are guessing at the property line and should table this appeal until a survey could be done. Eckman was confident that a surveyor could accurately survey the lot. Barnes and McBride agreed that a licensed surveyor should be able to find the property line pins. McBride suggested that the two parties share the expense of a surveyor. ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 17 • Dickson asked if the inspector inspecting the footing and foundation would do that measurement. Barnes replied that the inspector would request that the property line be found. McBride noted that he would not have a problem approving this appeal if the property line was verified by a licensed surveyor Dickson commented that usually in the past the Board has assumed the drawing was correct. Barnes stated that typically we do not have a dispute with a neighbor over the property line. Eckman stated that the Board could choose to believe the applicant or the neighbor or could request that this appeal be tabled until a survey had been completed. Krucky remarked that he does not know where the property line is but it is 2' from his garage. His ILC copy is different than this proposal. Barnes stated that if a variance was approved for 2'8", and that was not correct, that the variance would be invalid and they would have to come back to the Board. Hall commented that there was not much difference between the 2'8" or 2'4" discussed. Dickson mentioned that maybe they should just approve this appeal. McWilliams noted that they always prefer to have additions set in. Having a smaller kitchen would still be a historic space, but would leave them with a really small kitchen. Knapp commented that it is a small house with three small bedrooms. He would have trouble putting kitchen cabinets in a cantilevered bay. 0 The Board discussed which standard to use to approve this appeal as is. Barnes stated that the Board would have to find that this appeal is equal to or better than existing code and can not grant anything but 2'8" because there has not been written notice sent to the adjacent property owners for anything else. Eckman and Barnes suggested, that since an uncertainty over property lines has been raised, tabling this appeal until a survey has been completed and the neighbors have had a chance to talk. Hall asked Knapp how would Knapp feel about tabling this appeal. Knapp replied that this house is a rental and it would be a problem tabling this appeal. Knapp did not understand the issue since the addition lines up with the existing house. Barnes noted that the if the variance were granted at 2'8" and the survey confirmed that was correct, then everything was okay. But, if the survey would show anything other than 2'8", then the variance is void. Barnes stated that, If the variance of 3' is approved, that what they are proposing complies with the code equally or better than the intent of the code. Knapp commented that getting a survey would be a big expense. Knapp said he did not understand since we are hung up and haggling over 4". Hall remarked that he agreed, but there was a dispute over the property line. Eckman stated that it could get even more complicated if the neighbor would file an appeal to the City, which would delay Knapp even more. Hall noted that while not ideal for Knapp it would be to his advantage to table this appeal until verification of property lines done by a survey. • Barnes stated that the neighbor is impacted by granting a variance. By tabling this appeal, the neighbors will have the opportunity to talk this over and avoid this conflict in the future. The Zoning Board of Appeals does not require surveys unless disputed by a neighbor. ZBA April 14, 2005 -Page 18 Hall made a motion to table Appeal 2506 until a survey could be completed since a neighbor had a protest over the lot line. McBride seconded the motion to table the appeal. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, and McBride. Nays: None. 9. APPEAL NO. 2507 - Approved. Address: 408 Wood St. Petitioner: Diane Reiser Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(2) Background Variance is requested to reduce the required 15' front yard setback to 14' in order to accommodate an 8' x 21' 7" open front porch with hip roof. The house was built in 1916 and the original porch is approximately 15' 1" from the property line. Porch will be widened but does not require any sideyard setback variance. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The existing porch requires replacement due to condition. Owner would like to add 1' 1" to the porch depth to accommodate more room on the porch. Contextually, there are other single family houses in the block with front yard setbacks less than 15' as evidenced by submitted contextual drawing. Staff Comments This proposal could satisfy the "nominal and inconsequential" standard in that the requested 1' setback reduction is nominal when considered in the context of the neighborhood. Additionally, since the front lot line is 20' behind the curb, the porch will still be 34' from the street. Staff Presentation Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Applicant Participation: Diane Reiser, 408 Wood St, addressed the Board. The porch corner is crumbling and needs to be reconstructed. The new porch has been designed by Dick Anderson and is similar to other porches in this Old Town neighborhood. The large tree in the yard is to stay there so the drainage for the house is not affected. Board Discussion: Hall noted that this variance would be nominal and inconsequential. Donahue asked for clarification of the front yard lot line being 20' behind the curb. Barnes stated that the old city streets were platted with certain streets requiring more space in front. This street was platted in 1884. Considering the river being located to the north, this street would not be widened in the future. Dickson inquired how difficult it would be for the porch to be brought in 1'. Reiser stated that her intent of widening the porch was to accommodate a table and chair more easily. Reiser mentioned that a sense of community would be created if people would use their front porches. Hall commented that he was in favor of this appeal as there was no negative impact to the neighbors. Dickson and McBride agreed. McBride made a motion to approve appeal 2507. Granting the appeal was not detrimental to the public good. The impact was nominal and inconsequential considering the existing distance between the existing sidewalk and curb now. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, and McBride. ZBA April 14, 2005 -Page 19 Nays: None. • 10. APPEAL NO. 2508 — Approved with conditions. Address: 2602 S Timberline Rd. Petitioner: Jim, Liley, Gordon Signs Zone: NC Section: 3.8.7(E)(13) Background: The variance would allow a 20.9 square foot individual letter sign to be placed on the King Soopers pharmacy drive -up canopy. Specifically, the proposal is to install a sign on the south fascia of the drive -up canopy that is large enough to be seen from the perimeter entrances into the shopping center in order to direct pharmacy customers to the location of the drive -up, thereby reduce the possibility of customers driving around the parking lot looking for the pharmacy window. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The pharmacy drive -up canopy is attached to the King Soopers building, but is located about 600' from the parking lot entrance off Custer. This sign is considered an on -site traffic directional sign, and is not advertising any brand name or corporate identity. The Code limits the size of such signs to a maximum of 4 square feet. A sign of that size would not be visible from many parts of the parking lot. The _proposed sign would help to provide clear direction to customers as soon as they enter the development. Staff Comments: None. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides and noted that signage is more restrictive in residential areas than in commercial • areas. The proposed sign is for the King Soopers Pharmacy which is still under construction. The proposed sign is larger than the 4 square feet that code allows for a directional sign. A directional sign in this location would be impractical because of the parking lot involved. Starbucks and a bank will have signs on the King Soopers building itself, but they will not be directional since they are inside the building and do not have drive -ups. If the proposed 20.9 sf sign was really only 4 sf it would not need a variance. Dickson asked if the problem then was the wording containing "drive -up". Barnes replied yes, if just said "pharmacy", it would be allowed, but then it would not direct or help customers find the drive -up window. Applicant Participation: Jim Liley, Gordon Signs, addressed the Board. Liley noted that it was difficult for the code to anticipate a grocery store having a drive -up. Liley showed the Board other drawings of the Windsor King Soopers which has 14" letters. Liley stated that if the proposed sign was only 4 sf that the letters would only be 4" tall and would be hard to see because of the size of the large parking lot. Liley was concerned about the effectiveness of the sign being seen V the letters were smaller. Dickson commented that the sign is directional since there is not an arrow or any other identifying device. Barnes remarked that this drive -up facility is unique. The issue is that it is a canopy sign. This is more complicated since the pharmacy is part of King Soopers rather than an independent store. Board Discussion: Dickson acknowledged the issue of the word "pharmacy" being repeated in two signs. The code would require all the King Soopers signs to be located in the central area. Dickson agreed with the applicant that the sign • needs to be directional for directing the customers to the drive -up and that a 4 sf sign would not be adequate. Dickson considered using sign option 3 for fueling stations in neighborhood sign districts, which would fit the space and not be overwhelming. ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 20 Liley mentioned that there is a visibility chart that suggests that 14" letters are designed for 250' of visibility. The main King Soopers sign has 4' "K" and other lettering of 17" for food and pharmacy. Liley noted that there was more than one entrance into the parking lot; Timberline, Illinois and Custer. The Starbucks sign on the side of the building has 12" letters Dickson asked if this sign needed a minor amendment. Barnes replied yes, that Liley had already applied for a minor amendment. Dickson noted her opinion that this proposed sign should be subservient to Starbucks, and that 10.5" lettering would be an adequate solution. Hall stated that using the hardship standard would work because the code does not address this drive -up situation. Barnes stated that this was a hardship because It was an unusual situation. It is unusual for an attached drive -up to this size of a building. If they were not in a neighborhood sign district they would not need a variance. If the sign were in a different zone and qualified as a fuel service canopy then the equal to or better than standard could be used. The Board discussed the square footage and lettering of an acceptable sign for this location. Barnes suggested making the sign 12 sf, which would give the applicant a choice of lettering. The Board was in consensus of approving a 12 sf sign. Liley was okay with a 12 sf sign. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal 2508. Granting this variance is not detrimental to the public good. A pharmacy drive -up sign is allowed at this location up to 12 sf, due to a hardship of the large size of the building and parking lot. Customers need visible signage to direct them to the drive -up. A sign of this size would not be overwhelming. Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Hall, and McBride. Nays: None. Alison Dickson left the meeting at 12:30 p.m. 11. APPEAL NO. 2509 - Approved Address: 4100 Harbor Walk Dr. Petitioner: Cherie Bidwell Zone: RL Section: 3.5.2(D)(5) Background The variance would allow a detached accessory building to be larger than 800 square feet. Specifically, the variance would allow a 1650 square foot detached building in the rear of the lot. The building would house an indoor pool, bathroom and hobby area. Petitioner's Statement of Hardshto Attaching the building would require a steeper pitch to match the house. This would make it much taller than if it were a detached building as proposed. The proposal, behind the existing fence, would not be too visible from the street. The property backs up to open space. Staff Comments The Board has usually granted variances for large detached buildings when the lot area is considerably larger than the average size suburban lot. This lot, with 18,461 square feet, is not as large as the other properties that have received variances, but it is about twice as large as the average size lot and does abut open space. Staff Presentation Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. ZBA April 14, 2005 - Page 21 • Applicant Participation: Rod Conahan, owner of the 4100 Harbor Walk Dr property, addressed the Board. Conahan stated that his daughter, that lives at 4100 Harbor Walk Dr, was involved in a serious car accident six months ago. His daughter has spinal problems. Conahan shared letters from doctors showing a prescription for home exercise and aquatic therapy. He stated that it is hard for his daughter to travel. Conahan's other daughter, a Workmen's Comp attorney, was going to explain this, but due to the length of this meeting had to leave early. Conahan noted that he preferred a low profiled detached building which will have a 31' long 5' deep pool for exercise. An attached addition would have to have a 12-12 pitched roof and would be more intrusive looking. Conahan has talked with one neighbor that has no objections with a detached building. Conahue commented that his daughter is 21 years old and does ongoing therapy several days a week, possibly continuing for the rest of her life. Cherie Bidwell, the general contractor, has designed the building to stay with the traditional English Tudor style of the main house. The low profiled building will have a 6-12 pitched roof. There is a 5.5' privacy fence along Lemay Ave. The existing playhouse will be removed. Board Discussion: Hall asked if they would need a variance If this proposal area was attached to the house. Barnes replied that a 6,000 sf addition on the house would be allowed without a variance. McBride questioned whether the glass roof met code and would be inspected. Barnes noted that the issue with reflective surfaces does not apply to single family residences. Conahan stated that the building will have greenhouse glass designed to handle snow load, hail, etc. Hall and McBride expressed no problems with this appeal since the lot is very large. • Hall made a motion to approve Appeal 2509 stating it would not be detrimental to the public good, using the equal to or better standard. Having the detached building is equally good since it is a large lot with open space. This variance meets the intent of the code, allowing adequate light and ventilation between structures. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Donahue, Hall, and McBride. Nays: None. 12. Other Business: Barnes noted that if Appeal 2506 had not been tabled there could have been consequences and that the neighbor could havb,filed an appeal with the City protesting the lot line, which would then require a survey and create an even longeX delay. The e i � adjour a at '2:50 p.m. fight Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator f fSo� 3_.') J