Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/12/19850 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 12, 1985 Regular Meeting, 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, December 12, 1985 at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Johnson, Walker, Lawton, Lieser, Thede, Dodder and Leis. Staff Present: Barnes, Eckman, and Brayfield. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 14, 1985, Approved as Published The minutes of the November 14, 1985 regular meeting were unanimously approved. The meeting opened with a short discussion of the memo from City Attorneys office to Fort Collins Boards and Commissions requesting that boardmembers state the reasoning behind their vote and that their findings be reflected in the records. Appeal No. 1700 Sections 118-95 (C)(1), 118-95 (C)(4), 118-93 (B)(1). by Frank and Steven Standring, Owners, 3842 S. College, Approved with Condition. "---The variance would reduce the required setback for a freestanding sign from 13 feet to 5 feet from the right-of-way line, and would reduce the setback from an interior side lot line from 15 feet to 1 foot. The sign is the existing "Mountain Armory" sign. ---Hardship pleaded: The sign was erected when the property was in the County. After it was annexed in 1979, the sign code required that it come into compliance by 1984. It was a legal sign in the County. The sign can't be moved any further from the interior lot line because it would be in the driveway. Since the adjacent building to the south is close to the street, it would totally block the view of the sign if the sign were moved further back. The petitioner will remove the sign on the building. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the flush wall sign on the front of the building be removed within 30 days." No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that The Mountain Armory was annexed into the City in 1979, was required to bring its signs into compliance by 1984, and is petitioning for a variance. 0 ZBA Minutes, December 1985 Page 2 Mr. Standring's existing sign is in violation of code, but meeting the setback requirements would put the sign in the driveway and reduce its visibility. Also, the owners are agreeable to removing the existing flushwall sign on the building. Mr. Steven Standring spoke in favor of the appeal stating that the only alternative site for the sign was on the north of his property which was currenly occupied by a powerline prop. Mr. Standring felt that moving the prop would incur a cost both to himself and the City. Mr. Standring further stated that the existing sign, although close to the street, does not block the view of traffic. He stated that he would remove the flushwall sign on the building as soon as the weather permitted. The Board expressed its concern for the appearance of surrounding area because several other businesses were still not in compliance with the code. Because of the possiblity of other variance requests, the Board wanted to ensure that granting this particular variance would not result in a cluttered landscape. Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that both signs directly to the north were legal signs. Mr. Barnes further stated that although there was a possiblity that Pease Home Improvement might seek a variance for the sign to the north, there was adequate distance between the signs (about 60 feet). No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Thede expressed concern that this appeal could be construed as precedent setting for others in this area who might also be seeking a variance. Mr. Barnes stated each appeal should be decided on an individual basis. Boardmember Dodder made a motion to approve the appeal for the hardship stated with the condition that the flushwasll sign on the building be removed as soon as possible. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Walker, Lieser, Thede, Dodder. Nays: None. - At this point the Board considered Appeal No. 1703, although the agenda items will appear in the minutes in numerical order for ease of reference. Appeal No. 1701 Section 118-43 (C), 118-43 (E), 118-43 (F), by Fred Rickson, owner, 705 Maple Street - Approved. "---The variance would reduce the required lot width from 60 feet to 45 feet, reduce the required rear setback from 15 feet to 13 feet, and reduce the street setback from 15 feet to 12 feet 8 inches for a new duplex in the RM zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The lot is platted with only a 45 foot width. There is no additional land available to buy. The house needs to be set back ZBA Minutes, December 1985 Page 3 to the rear half of the lot because of the Arthur Ditch, therefore the request for the rear setback variance. The building is 20 feet 8 inches from the curb so the intent of the 15 foot setback is met. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. Similar variances for this property were granted by the Board on May 9, 1985, but have since expired. The owner is now requesting that they be granted once again." Two notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that Mr. Rickson appeared before the Board on May 9, 1985, for very similar variances. Because construction of the proposed dwelling was not begun before the time limitation, the variance ran out; Mr. Rickson was again appearing before the Board. Plans for the proposed dwelling were revised somewhat from those approved by the Board in May. Petitioner Fred Rickson spoke in favor of the variance. He stated that he could not develop the lot without a variance because the Arthur Ditch runs down the middle of the property. Mr. Rickson further stated that although this appeal has been before the Board two times before, the first appeal was granted to the previous owners. He stated that if the variance was granted, he planned to begin construction as soon as weather permits. Mr. Rickson also stated that the plans before the Board were modified from the previous plans. Boardmember Dodder asked about the parking requirements for a duplex on this particular lot. Mr. Barnes stated one parking place per unit was required. Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Rickson if he planned to install garage door openers to encourage tenants to park in the garage rather than in the driveway. Mr. Rickson said that he planned to install three. Mr. Rickson stated that the duplex would be one story with the appearance of a single family residence. The unit would measure 40' x 28', with the top unit being about 1120 sq. ft. and the lower unit about 700 sq. ft. The target completion date would be three months after the start date (which depends upon a break in the weather). No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship of the lot width and the ditch location. Boardmember Thede seconded the motion. The Board found that the hardship was valid and that the proposed plans were a logical solution to problems posed by the lot. Yeas: Johnson, Walker, Lieser, Thede, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1702 Section 118-41 (B), by Doug Johnson, owner, 2750 Nottingham Square — Denied. "---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6,420 square feet to 6,047 square feet for a new single family home in the RLP zone. 0 • ZBA Minutes, December 1985 Page 4 The code requires that the lot area be at least 3 times as large as the floor area of the home. The floor area of the proposed home is 2,140 square feet, and 2,015 square feet is the maximum allowed. ---Hardship pleaded: There is no additional land available to buy. The property backs up to Rocky Mountain High School so there will always be lots of open space abutting this lot, offsetting the smallness of it. To redesign the house would not be feasable. --Staff recommendation: None. The hardship is self-imposed, however, the fact that there will probably be open space to the rear of the lot because of the school will somewhat offset the size of the house on the lot." No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator, Peter Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that the lot area needs to be 3 times the area of the home in this zone. Mr. Barnes further stated that this particular lot abutted open space from Rocky Mountain High School which possibly could offset the house size. Petitioner Doug Johnson spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that the proposed plans were for a 2,140 square foot passive solar home. Mr. Johnson stated further that this was only the second home he has designed, and the size problem was a total oversight; he was not aware that the home was too large for the lot until he got a call from Mr. Barnes. Mr. Johnson felt that the hardship was that he had spent much time carefully designing the custom home and that any change in square footage would ruin the design. The Board then asked Mr. Johnson why he could not redesign the house or build on another lot. Mr. Johnson stated that he spent a lot of time designing the house, and felt that it was impossible to design a custom home that he liked that was smaller. Mr. Johnson stated further that this was the only lot he owned. Boardmember Dodder stated that he still could not see the hardship - the size of the lot was adequate for a house. Boardmember Walker stated that the hardship was self-imposed because there was nothing unusual about the lot to cause a hardship. Mr. Johnson then asked what constituted a hardship. City Attorney Eckman read from sections of the code and explained what circumstances might be considered hardship. Boardmember Johnson stated that a point in the petitioner's favor was that there was the open space behind the house so that in effect he is meeting the intent of the code by not increasing the density too much. Boardmember Johnson then stated that he had reservations about approving the variance because it could open the door to other developers assuming they could obtain the same variance for any lot along any open space. Petitioner Johnson asked if the greenhouse was a criterion for hardship. The Board explained that in the past variances had been granted for retrofit solar additions. However, since Mr. Johnson had not yet begun ZBA Minutes, December 1985 Page 5 construction, there was still opportunity to re -design the home to fit on the lot. Mr. Johnson then stated that he did not see the difference between designing a smaller house now and then coming back a year later to get a variance for a green house or getting one now. Boardmember Dodder stated that when a variance was granted, it was done for an existing house that conformed to the code. Furthermore, variances had been granted for greenhouses that were separate additions to the house; his greenhouse was contained within the footprint of the house. City Attorney Eckman stated that he was not suggesting that Mr. Johnson build a smaller house now with the plan to petition the Board later for a variance for the greenhouse because he found a loophole. Doing so would show a lack of good faith because he is now aware of the zoning constraints. Petitioner Johnson asked if there was record of several other home -owners on the block that had obtained variances to build larger houses. Boardmember Lieser stated that if such variances had been granted it would be a matter of public record. No one spoke in opppostition to the variance. Boardmember Thede made the motion to deny the variance because of lack of a hardsip other than what was self-imposed. Boardmember Dodder seconded the motion. The Board found that the hardship was self-imposed; there was still opportunity to redesign the house, and that there was nothing unusual about the lot that would require a variance for building on it. The motion carried - Yeas: Johnson, Walker, Lieser, Thede, Dodder, Nays: None. Appeal No. 1703 Section 118-42 (B), by Victor Santini, owner, 1603 Edora Court - Denied. "---The variance would reduce the minimum lot area from 33,264 square feet to 27,427 square feet for a fourplex in the RLM zone. The code requires that the total lot area be 3 times the total floor area of the building. Two fourplexes exist on these lots and the owner is proposing to build a third one. ---Hardship pleaded: The owner desires to add a third fourplex to these combined lots in order to better utilize the land. There is no land available to buy to increase the lot area. The largest building that can be built without a variance is only 1,750 square feet, and the petitioner feels that 3,696 square feet is needed for an adequate sized fourplex. --Staff recommendation: Denial. The hardship is self-imposed. Although the ground coverage of the building is not all that great since the building is 3 1/2 stories high, the number of parking spaces required for a fourplex uses up quite a bit of open space. A duplex or triplex would be more suitable." No notices were returned; no letters were received. ZBA Minutes, December 1985 Page 6 Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that Mr. Santini owns both lots in question, therefore the combined area was used to determine the size of structure allowed. There are two existing fourplexes on the properties, and Mr. Santini proposes to build a fourplex on the open area between the two. It would be a 3 1/2 story building with one dwelling unit per floor. Petitioner, Victor Santini, of 1413 W. Lake, spoke in favor of the appeal. Mr. Santini stated that the building was designed in three stories to conserve space. Seven additional parking spaces would be provided for the fourplex. Boardmember Walker asked Mr. Santini why the Board should give him a variance for a fourplex when it would be possible to build a duplex without a variance. Mr. Santini stated that he was one of the first developers in the area when it was zoned RLM. Neighboring properties were recently developed under a PUD at a higher density, so Mr. Santini feels that his proposed apartment building would not be out of character of the neighborhood. Mr. Santini stated that the proposed fourplex would better utilize the land and furthermore, would be the nicest design in the neighborhood. Boardmember Walker stated that the neighboring properties had been developed under the PUD process. Mr. Walker stated further that one recourse Mr. Santini would have under the Land Development Guidance System would be to develop his land through the PUD process. Boardmember Dodder asked when the neighboring buildings were built, and how tall they were. Mr. Santini stated that the buildings in the surrounding neighborhood are all 2 —3 stories. Boardmember Lieser asked if the proposed building would be the tallest in the area. Mr. Barnes stated that it would. Boardmember Thede asked if the proposed fourplex would block the view of the building to the east. Mr. Santini stated that that a two story would partially block the view, and that the extra height of the proposed building would make no differenc. Furthermore, it would not block the desirable southern and western exposures. The Board asked Mr. Santini if he would consider designing a duplex if the variance was denied. Mr. Santini stated that he would pursue his original plan for a fourplex through the PUD process as the next step. There was discussion about the amount of open space because of the requested variance on lot size. Mr. Barnes pointed out that Mr. Santini could design a triplex or fourplex with efficiency units that required the same amount parking space as the proposed unit. He could also design a more sprawling building that would use up more open space and not need a variance as long as the area did not exceed the maximum square footage allowed. The proposed fourplex design conserved open space by going up and not out. Mr. Brad Bischoff, representing his father who is an adjoining property owner, spoke in opposition to the variance. Mr. Bischoff stated that he felt that the variance would allow too much latitude — that a 6,000 square ZBA Minutes, December 1985 Page 7 foot variance was too much, and a 3 1/2 story building would be out of character with the neighborhood. Furthermore, parking was already a problem on the cul-de-sac and this proposed fourplex would only compound the problem. Boardmember Walker stated that he saw no hardship other than economic considerations, and that Mr. Santini had other options. He further stated that considering the variance requested, the PUD process was more appropriate. Mr. Barnes stated that Mr. Santini went to conceptual review several months ago and that several alternative procedures were explained. The Zoning Board of Appeals was one of the options mentioned. Mr. Barnes stated further that the Board had dealt with lot area reductions before, but this was the first one of this size. Although large in scope, it was certainly within the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance of this nature. Mr. Santini then presented a letter from conceptual review to the Board. The Board felt that the size of the scope and that the PUD process was project. The Board also felt that developing this property without a hardship other than economic. requested variance was too large in more appropriate for approving this Mr. Santini had other options for variance and that it could find no Boardmember Dodder made a motion to deny the variance for the reasons stated above. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Walker, Lieser, Thede, Dodder. Nays: None. Appeal No. 1704 Section 118-73 (1)(B), by Dan Eckles and Dean Smith, realtors, 725 E. Vine - Approved with Condition. "---The variance would eliminate the requirement to q provide a 50 foot landscape buffer strip along Lemay and along Vine Drive for a plastic pipe manufacturing facility in the IP zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The business would use only about 17% of the floor area of an existing building. They intend to occupy the building under a short term lease of about 3 years and feel it is not feasable to improve the entire piece of property under those conditions. ---Staff recommendation: Approval with the condition that the variance be good for only 2 1/2 years. At that time they should know if they are going to commit to this location, and if they are, they should comply with the Code, or apply for another variance." Three notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal, stating that whenever there is a change of use in the Industrial Park zone, the property must be brought into compliance with the code. The code requires a 50 foot buffer ZBA Minutes, December 1985 Page 8 strip along arterial streets, in this case along Vine and Lemay. There is approximately 2,900 feet of frontage on Vine Drive and installing the required landscaping would be very expensive (although economics is not to be considered a hardship). The 50 foot buffer was not required before because the building supply and lumberyard was there long before the zoning required it. The lease with the pipe manufacturing company constitues a new use, therefore the buffer is required. Petitioner Dan Eckles, agent for both tenant and landlord, spoke in favor of the variance. He stated that he was trying to bring a new employer into town and that it would be a temporary use because this particular company planned to build its own facilities after becoming established. The new tenants would be using only 17% of the area of an existing building. The owner is offering the lease at a bargain rate, which would not be possible if the landscaping was required because the estimated cost of installing the landscape buffer would be $350,000 - $400,000. Mr. Eckles stressed the fact that this was just a temporary use, that the owners planned to develop the property at a later date through the PUD process. In the meantime they were looking for tenants to lease a portion of the property. Mr. Peter Kast with Everitt Company and representing Weyerhauser, spoke in favor of the appeal. Mr. Kast stated that the owner of the propery was Weyerhauser, who leased facilities to Denver Wood Products. The property had not yet been subdivided into three parcels as was shown on the plat. Mr. Kast stated further that Weyerhauser was arranging any new short-term leases to expire within a short time of one another so that the company could re-evaluate the use of the property in couple of years. It was the owner's intent to develop the whole property under a PUD process when the market dictates. The Board asked what would happen if at the end of three years the owners still did not plan to develop - would they approach the Board for another variance? Mr. Kast replied that it was possible. The Board discussed the options of granting the appeal with either a time limitation or percentage -of -use limitation. The Board stated that it wanted the opportunity to review the appeal in the event of any significant change in the leasing situation. Mr. Barnes stated that any new tenants would have to comply with the code if their business constituted a change of use and that the Board would then have the opportunity to review the situation. Boardmember Johnson stated that he felt more comfortable with granting a variance on the basis of temporary use rather than percentage of square footage used because it would be easier to moniter. The Board decided that putting a 2 1/2 year time limitation on the variance would allow the Board to review the leasing situation and still allow a reasonable amount of time for the tenants/property owners to decide upon the future of the lease. Mr. Kast asked what would happen if the new tenants wanted to continue leasing after the time limitation ran out on the variance. The Board stated that the appeal would have to be reviewed at that time. Mr. Kast asked if the Board would be willing to grant the variance again. The Board stated that it could make no guarantees for extending the variance. ZBA Minutes, December 1985 Page 9 No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Dodder stated his reservations about the validity of the hardship. Mr. Barnes stated that the unusual amount of frontage road for the size of the property could constitute a hardship. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance with a time limitation of 2 years, 7 months. Boardmember Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried, 5 - 0 , for the reasons of the hardship being the unusual amount of frontage to be landscaped in proportion to small amount of space used, and the temporary nature of the use. Appeal No. 1705 Section118-43 (E), by Charlie Nace, owner, 504 Sycamore - Denied. "---The variance would reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 15 feet to 0 feet and reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 4 feet 3 inches for a carport addition in the RM zone. ---Hardship pleaded: The owners began construction of the carport addition to an existing shed, being unaware of the setback requirements. If the carport was constructed meeting the setback requirements, very little usable back yard would be left. --Staff recommendation: The hardship is self-imposed, however the rear property line is adjacent to railroad right-of-way, so there wouldn't be a negative impact on the rear by allowing a zero setback. Approval of the side setback if there is no objection from the neighbor to the west. One notice was returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal. Petitioner Charles Nace spoke in favor of the variance, stating that he was using the "dead air space" between the fence and a shed for a carport for his hobby. The carport is built one foot from the fence and is attached to an outbuilding that is being used for a recreation room. Access to the carport is through a gate to the rear of the property, off the the railroad right-of-way. Boardmember Dodder asked if the size could be reduced from the current dimensions of 24' x 30'. Nace explained that he left only enough room to store a vehicle and if he reduced the width very much there would be no room to get in and out. He stated that he could shorten the length. Two adjacent property owners spoke in opposition to the variance: Mr. Duane Sitzman, of 516 Sycamore stated that he was concerned that the railroad would renege on an agreement made in 1957 that property owners could use the right-of-way as access to their properties providing they did R ZBA Minutes, December 1985 Page 10 not put any permanent structures on the property. Mr. Nace"s shed and carport are both on railroad property. Mr. Sitzman stated that he had no other objections to the carport being built. There was much discussion on the location of the property line and the railroad right-of-way line and where the carport and fenceline are in relation to these lines. City Attorney Eckman stated that because there was no agreement with the railroad in evidence to the Board, it should not concern itself with the railroad right-of-way agreements, but instead focus on the code. Ms. Kaylin Cameron, of 512 Sycamore stated that property owners were trying to improve the appearance of the neighborhood and the carport was not helping any. Ms. Cameron then presented to the Board a photograph of the carport taken from her back yard. The Board discussed the size and appearance of the structure and then asked if a building permit had been taken out. Mr. Barnes stated that a permit had not been issued, and that a variance would have to be granted before issuance. The Board stated that this situation was a good example of what could happen if proper procedures were not followed; the problems of the lot Line, railroad right-of-way, structural soundness and appearance of the structure were all discussed. The Board felt that Mr. Nace should start the process over - research where the proper lot lines were, submit plans and do it right. Boardmember Thede made the motion to deny the variance because of the aforementioned problems and because the hardship was self-imposed. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Johnson, Walker, Lieser, Thede and Dodder. Nays: None. The meeting was adjourned. EL/PB/bb Respectfully submitted, Eva Lieser, Chairman Peter Barnes, Staff Support