Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/12/1996• • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ANNUAL MEETING September 12, 1996 8:45AM 11 Council Liaison: Ann Azari 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 11 Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr. 229-1629(w) 226-5101(h) The annual meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, September 12, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Gustafson, Keating, Lieser, Breth, Stockover, Shannon, Felner. Member absent: none. Staff members present: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Elain Radford, Building & Zoning Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Breth. First order of business was to approve the August 1996 minutes. Appeal 2181, 7025 S. College Avenue by Jack Fetig, owner, RLP Zone, approved. Section 29-593. (4), 29-593.1 (8) --- The variance would allow Fossil Creek Nursery to erect a 55 sq. ft. per face ground sign along College Avenue for their new facility, instead of the allowed 32 sq. ft. per face sign that is allowed for this use in the residential neighborhood sign district. The variance would also allow the business to have wall signs that are 24" and 30" high instead of the 12" and 18" high that is allowed for this type of use. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The property is on College Avenue and happens to be in the residential neighborhood sign district. The project contains about 15 acres and has 1000 feet of frontage on College Avenue. But, because it is one single business, the use is classified as a "Roadside Commercial and Business Service Use" and is subject to the more restrictive requirements that are meant for stand alone buildings, that are close to the street and are on small lots. The proposed building is about 250 feet from the street, so a 12" sign would not be visible, and since the speed limit is 55 mph, a 32 foot sign is not adequate. ZBA 9/12/96 Page 2 --- Staff comments: none Zoning Administrator Barnes presented some background comments: A few years ago the city was divided into two different sign districts. The residential neighborhood sign district predominately consisted of property that is not fronting on major business or arterial streets - off on the fringes where you would expect residential neighborhoods developed. But College Avenue, the Campus West area on West Elizabeth, some of East Prospect in the industrial park area, and some of Timberline and some other areas are not in the neighborhood sign district. The areas not in the neighborhood sign district are allowed to have larger signs and have less restrictions. Properties that are within the neighborhood sign district are required to have smaller signs and there are regulations on illumination and things of that nature. This particular property is the proposed location of the new Fossil Creek Nursery. They are proposing to relocate further south into an area south of Trilby. Their overall plan consists of about 15 acres and the frontage is quite a considerable frontage. However, because it is one business, under the neighborhood sign district it is classified as a business service use as opposed to a neighborhood convenience shopping center or service center. The petitioner, because of the size of the property and the building being over 200 feet from College Avenue, is proposing to construct signs that comply with the size limitations of neighborhood service centers - consisting of more than seven acres in a residential neighborhood sign district. To clarify, he is not asking for a variance to allow something of the nature you would find on College Avenue and the more commercial area. He is trying to stay within the regulations of the neighborhood sign district but feels that the business service use is not an appropriate classification because of the size of the property. Board member Gustafson asked how this property ended up in the neighborhood sign district. Barnes explained that the neighborhood sign district map was done in 1991 and, at that time, there wasn't any proposed development for that site. It is part of Dell Webb's site that they acquired back in the 1980's and a good portion was proposed to be residential development. There is some residential development that will potentially be occurring as multi -family. The signage that the petitioner is proposing would be oriented towards College Avenue so in the event there would be residential development around there it would be pretty negligible as far as its impact. Board member Gustafson asked how much more of that area is in the residential sign district. Barnes replied that all of it is and mentioned that the Satellite Center across the street is not because it was already there when the neighborhood sign district map was done. That side of College Avenue was developed as commercial. ZBA 9/12/96 Page 3 Applicant stepped forward to state his case: Jack Fetig, owner of Fossil Creek Nursery. He asked that the Board consider this project because it does not fit into the normal boundaries - a normal definition of a shopping center. It is not a very harsh commercial project. There won't be a lot of lighting. With the frontage, he feels like the larger sign would help their business and fit into the area. Barnes stated that the maximum size allowed is the 24 inch high letters but the petitioner does not have to go with 24 inch high letters. Applicant stated that he probably will not go with the 24 inch size but in order to get permission to put a larger sign along College he would also get permission for the larger wall signs, if he chooses. He stated that he does not really have anywhere to put signs that large because he would not want to block the light in the greenhouses with a sign that large.. Board member Gustafson explained the Board's requirement of finding some aspect of the property that puts it at a disadvantage to others. Applicant explained that they tried to save existing buildings on the property. That the building seen from College Avenue would be the office and the store is actually behind it - not visible from College Avenue. Being so far off from the road, trying to save the existing buildings, and in order to keep within the point system they had to have a residence there. So the store had to be behind the office. Administrator Barnes explained that if the Board wanted to approve part of the variance and deny the other part of it, there is the option of considering the size of the property and that there is only one business there, which is unusual. That could be the hardship for the size of the ground sign and the Board could put a condition that the wall signage still comply with the business service use part of the neighborhood sign district. Board member Shannon asked why staff does not want to consider taking this area out of the neighborhood sign district.. Barnes answered that because they are not certain what type of development will occur around this property and across the street, which is still undeveloped. They feel it may be premature to take it out of the neighborhood sign district without knowing what might happen around the property. Barnes reminded the Board that the petitioner is not asking anything outside of the neighborhood sign district. He's asking to put up the size of a sign that would be permitted for a 7 or 15 acre neighborhood service center. ZBA 9/12/96 Page 4 Board member Gustafson asked that if this was classified as a service center, would the petitioner be allowed the 55 square feet. Barnes responded that is correct and explained that the petitioner has enough land to meet the neighborhood service center criteria but not the use proposed. If the petitioner had the appropriate mix of uses, then he could have the larger sign and actually have a number of signs. Board member Shannon stated that she feels this circumstance is unusual and that there is definitely cause. In addition, she feels there is a safety concern because if someone does not see the sign until they pass it, they may make a u-turn to get back to the store. She motioned for this appeal to be approved. Board member Gustafson seconded the motion. Yeas: Keating, Lieser, Breth, Stockover, Felner. Nays: None. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal 2182., 407 S. Grant Street by Janice and Gerald Wuerker, owners, NCM Zone, denied. Section 29-167 (14) --- The variance would allow the roof pitch of a proposed turret addition on the front of the house to be greater than a 12:12 pitch. Specifically, it would allow the turret roof to be built with a 24:12 pitch. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: A building permit was issued for an addition to this duplex in 1995, well before the current roof pitch limitations were adopted. There is a second floor apartment in the building and this revision to the original plan is an opportunity to add light to the apartment as well as a way to make the east elevation more appealing. See petitioner's letter for additional comments. --- Staff comments: none --- There was one letter received and read into the record (copy attached). Zoning Administrator Barnes passed out recent pictures of the neighbor's yard that were sent with the letter that was received from the neighbor.. ZBA 9/12/96 Page 5 Barnes pointed out that the pictures showed the 2-story bay window under construction and the architectural elevation, submitted by the applicant, show the proposed turret and the slope of the roof in question. He explained that when the Eastside/Westside Neighborhood ordinance was passed and went into effect in March 1996, one of the things included in the NCL, NCM, and NCB zoning districts was a requirement that the roof pitch had to be a minimum of 2:12 and a maximum of 12:12, unless you had an existing part of your roof that had a pitch that was either greater or less than. Then, if you wanted to change or add on, you could match the existing roof pitch. Barnes also pointed out the original approved site plan and the approved elevation that was part of the building permit submittal and issuance that occurred in 1995 so Board members could compare them to the proposal with the turret addition. He explained the process for getting approval on an addition to a duplex in the NCM zone. It is required to get approval from the Planning and Zoning Board through the NCM site plan review. Part of what they approve are the architectural elevations of the proposed addition and what the building will look like. The petitioner is proposing to amend the approved elevations the Planning and Zoning Board dealt with in 1995. He will have to go back to the Planning and Zoning Board, or whatever process the Planning Department feels is appropriate for the NCM amendment here. Barnes explained that if the Board approves the petitioner's proposal, the P&Z Board will be looking at the bay window and the turret with the 24:12 pitch. So, when the petitioner is finished with this Board, he will begin his process through the Planning and Zoning Board review. Barnes showed slides of the house from about one and one-half weeks ago when no framing had yet occurred, though the foundation had been poured for the bay window and turret construction. The pictures passed out shows that since then some framing has occurred. The petitioner is not asking for a height variance. The overall height is 27 feet from grade to the top of the turret and the top of the turret proposed will be just slightly higher than the existing roof which is just under 27 feet. The house to the south is somewhat taller than this particular house. The house to the north is lower than these two. Barnes showed slides of a house on Peterson now under construction with the same kind of turret that the petitioner wants to build. Board member Gustafson asked if the roof pitch would have come into question before the Eastside/Westside Guidelines were approved? Barnes stated that prior to March 1, 1996, the roof pitch was not an issue. It was not a code requirement and there were no design standards or guidelines adopted by the city. They would have had to go before the Planning and Zoning Board amending what the P&Z had originally approved, but the roof pitch would not have been an issue. ZBA 9/12/96 Page 6 Board member Breth asked if the original plan had this turret on it. Barnes indicated that it did not. He referred to the elevations in the applicant's material which showed the original elevation having a door and a covered porch. Board member Shannon asked what is the design of the neighborhood in general? Barnes commented that it is pretty much a mix - some two-story and one-story. Mostly they are fifty year old houses or older - some with steeper pitch roofs than others. Board member Stockover asked if the footprint of this turret has been approved? Barnes responded that the Planning and Zoning Board has not approved the footprint, and that the work the petitioner has done so far is at his own risk. Board member Stockover asked who would decide approval of the footprint from porch to turret and when. It looks like they've gone from a single story addition to a second story addition. Board member Stockover asked if all they are looking at is the roof pitch, are they putting the cart -before -the -horse? Barnes explained that if the Zoning Board of Appeals grants a variance to the roof pitch, then they can go with that submittal to the Planning and Zoning Board for the elevations to be approved. If the ZBA denies the variance, they may go back to the 12:12 roof pitch on the two- story bay window. Then they wouldn't need a variance from the ZBA and they would take that elevation to the Planning and Zoning Board. Board Chairperson Breth asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Applicant, Gerald Wuerker, stepped forward. Addressing the neighbor's letter, he stated that the neighbor has no garden area on her property. He noted that standing on the roof, quite a bit during the day, he observed that the sunlight is never blocked on her property. From the property line and his addition there is 20 feet. It would not block the sun on the neighbor's house. Wuerker explained that when he first talked to Mike Ludwig, in Planning, he was told that this change to the front of the house would only be an administrative change. At that point in time he didn't think that anything was serious and that he could probably get an OK right on the spot except for the roof pitch. The roof pitch was now 24:12 on that turret and he would have to a make an appeals presentation to the Zoning Board. • ZBA 9/12/96 Page 7 Wuerker read a quote from the newspaper written by John Clark, county commissioner, last week. "All those buildings, along with the Loveland Civic Center and Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, all share peak roofs, cupolas, large windows, and columns that he would like to see in the $59 million justice center now in design". He stated that since the justice center also falls within the same guidelines as his house, this board may will be hearing John Clark make an appeal for the same thing he is appealing for. People like to see peaked roofs, arched windows, and columns on their property. Wuerker stated that his yard is well landscaped with rock gardens and their intention is to make the front of this house something that people like to see. In the last four days five people he didn't know stopped by and exclaimed at the beautiful new addition to their house. He has talked with neighbors who like the additions. Additionally, he stated that he was opposed to the 12:12 pitch limitations in the ordinance of the Eastside/Westside Guidelines because of historic buildings already in this town. That Gina Janett and Chuck Wanner told him the reason for this ordinance was to keep mansard roofs out. If that is all they want to do, why didn't they specify this in the ordinances. Board member Breth questioned if the ZBA had already approved one such situation, the one on Peterson. Barnes explained that they weren't dealing with the roof pitch on that one, but with a variance for height. The roof pitch ordinance wasn't in effect at that time. Board member Lieser asked for clarification on the petitioner's statement of hardship - that the building permit was issued for an addition to this duplex well before the current roof pitch limitations were adopted. But they did not ask for that in the original building permit so the building permit issued has no bearing on this question at all. Barnes confirmed and stated that maybe the petitioner did not know he wouldn't have the latitude to do this, at that time. Applicant explained that their intent is to give an optimum appearance, bay window look, to the front of the house which would give more symmetry to the look of the house. Board member Gustafson stated that he likes the look of the turret but has a hard time finding hardship. Nothing has been shown that proves a hardship or something unusual about the property to overturn the Eastside/Westside ordinances. ZBA 9/12/96 Page 8 Board member Stockover stated that the Eastside/Westside ordinance may not have been clear on this specific issue and asked if, for a small portion of a roof design, could this become an exception? Barnes stated that the code is very clear: any roof pitch has to be between 2:12 and 12:12 unless it is going to match existing roof pitch on the building. Then, and only then, you could deviate on the 2:12 or 12:12. Board member Stockover asked if you can look at intent? Board member Breth stated they had this problem last month with a flat roof on a porch. They had to come before ZBA for a flat roof. ZBA may see more of these and they will end up going to city council and council will decide maybe we need to look at the wording in the ordinance. The Plan is not specific. There are times when you can go flat or 24:12 and still be in compliance with the neighborhood. Barnes mentioned that another provision of the ordinance that went into effect in March was that staff go back to city council the first part of 1997 with issues that have come up, i.e., roof pitch, building size, etc. and make recommendation for these to be modified. Staff will go before city council probably in February. Board member Stockover asked if everything, except roof pitch, is OK? Barnes confirmed and stated that is the only issue for this board and that everything else complies with the zoning code. Board member Shannon agreed that she likes the new design better but does not see the hardship as it is defined. She requested Barnes take this to city council as an issue. Board member Gustafson asked if one thing they can look at is solar access? Does it have to do with allowing light into a building or is it solar access of an adjacent property? Barnes explained that the section in the zoning code that addresses types of hardships the board can consider in granting variances does have the provision on solar but it would have to hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system. A solar energy system is defined as it has to have a collection and distribution method. It has to function as a solar energy system rather than just allowing light and air into a room. Board member Shannon asked if he were to put a quarry tile floor in the turret, does it make it a solar passive unit? ZBA 9/12/96 Page 9 Barnes responded that there may be some things done that make it qualify as a solar energy system. The board still has to determine whether or not that can happen without a 24:12 pitch. Does the roof pitch have anything to do with its ability to collect, store, and distribute solar energy? Board member Keating stated that this seems to be a situation where the board's hands are tied because there is no hardship on the property to allow the Board to give a variance for it. Maybe this is one of those the council needs to review. If petitioner wants to appeal to council, he has that option. Board member Lieser agreed and stated that the ZBA does not have the tools to approve this. Board member Keating moved to deny this appeal due to lack of hardship. Board member Shannon seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Keating, Lieser, Breth, Shannon, Felner. Nays: Stockover. The appeal was denied 6-1. Barnes addressed the petitioner and stated that the petitioner can do a 12:12 pitch now and see if the code gets changed the first part of next year. Then redo the roof pitch. As much as the Board felt that what you are doing is a good improvement, based on the code and the narrow grounds they have for defining hardships, it would not qualify for a variance. The Board has expressed the need for this to go to council and say that this is a problem. The petitioner could go to council if they could find some hardship. ZBA 9/12/96 Page 10 ISWUUM1% �l.9li lx.Y.YI A. Election of officers: Board voted Marty Breth as Chairperson. Board voted Eva Lieser as Vice Chairperson. B. City Plan presentation was given by Clark Mapes from the Planning Department. Marty Breth, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 10, 1996 Roll call. 2. Appeal 2183. The variance would allow a fence to be taller than 6 ft. high. Specifically, the variance would allow a fence to be 8 ft. high along the west property line and along a portion of the south property line adjacent to Prospect. This variance request was conditionally approved by the Zoning Board in 1993, however, the applicant did not construct the fence before the variance expired. Therefore, the applicant is resubmitting. Section 29-511(2) by John Clarke, 1535 Remington Street. 3. Appeal 2184. The variance would reduce the required 50 foot wide landscape buffer strip along Conifer Street to 32.5 at the narrowest point. The variance is requested for the construction of an 18,120 sq. ft. office/warehouse building. Section 29-371 by Greg Fisher, 242 Conifer Street. 4. Other business.