Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/10/1999A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, November 10 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Thad Pawlikowski, Andy Miscio, Steve Remington, William Stockover, Diane Shannon, David Ayraud, Martin Breth BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Sandy Lindell, Staff Support to Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover and roll call taken. 2. The Minutes from the September 9, 1999 meeting were approved. 3. APPEAL 2276: --Approved Address: 1925 Harmony Drive Petitioner: Helen Johnson Millard, Owner Zone: UE Section: 4.1(D)(2)(c) and 4.1 (D)(2)(d) Back ound: The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east lot line from 20' to 5' and reduce the required rear yard setback from 25' to 10' for a new 1,323 sq. ft. detached zBA November 10, 1999 Page 2 garage/shop. The variance would also reduce the required side yard setback along the north lot line from 20' to 8' for a proposed addition to the existing home. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The Board was directed to refer to an enclosed letter presented by the Applicant and the hardship stated therein. Staff Comments: Peter Barnes commented that this subdivision was developed in the county, prior to annexation. Barnes presented slides relative to the Appeal. Bames showed the site of the proposed detached building, commenting that the proposed size of the addition would be just over 1,300 sq. ft., noting that detached buildings are allowed to be up to 2,500 sq. feet. Barnes noted the current required setbacks and the resulting setbacks if this variance were to be approved. Slides were seen of neighboring properties including one of which obtained a variance for a front yard setback several years ago. Barnes commented that a Code amendment is in the works to allow RL setbacks to apply to lots in the UE zone if the subdivision was constructed pursuant to the old RL standards. Since this subdivision is an old county subdivision, the Code amendment would not apply. Barnes mentioned that obviously prior to annexation to the City, this subdivision had different county setback requirements which is reflected in the amount of non -conforming buildings. This same subdivision was formerly zoned RE until re -zoning several years ago to the UE zone. Barnes noted that the proposed addition would actually be in compliance with the old RE zoning that was in place before the adoption of the new Land Use Code. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Helen Johnson Millard, addressed the Board. Millard reiterated information contained in her letter to the Board. She stated that if she were required to adhere to the current 20' side and 25'rear setbacks, there would not be enough room to put in their addition due to the mature landscaping. Ayraud asked the Applicant the date the property was purchased and when they first decided to build this addition. Millard replied that the property was purchased in 1972 and they have been considering building this addition for the last 5 to 8 years. Public Participation: Phillip Millard, addressed the Board. Mr. Millard mentioned that the wood fence shown in the slide presentation for this Appeal is actually 5' inside the property line, which gives the appearance of less property from the home to the actual property line. Remington asked Mr. Millard if the fence would remain where it is currently placed for the proposed construction. Mr. Millard responded that the fence would be moved to the actual property line. Ayraud questioned Millard if there was any other way to configure the addition and still maintain the landscaping. Mr. Millard said they could not come up with any other options other than the ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 3 "L" shape shown that would obtain the desired square footage and still keep the mature landscaping. Breth asked Millard if this home was to be the Millard's primary residence, or would it be a rental. Millard replied that it was to be the primary residence and the addition would not be used for any apartment or rental. There was some discussion on the possibility of making the addition smaller in order to conform with at least some of the current setback requirements. It was determined that the width of the addition was only about 18' wide and due to the shape of the design needed to work around the existing landscaping, the addition would have to be cut in size dramatically to adhere to any of the current setbacks. Board Discussion: Remington asked Barnes if there were other Code restrictions to ensure that the addition could not be used as an apartment. Barnes stated that if they were creating another dwelling unit by adding a bedroom, kitchen etc., then it would not be considered an apartment, but a new detached single family home. Barnes said that in the UE district, at least one acre was required to have two homes placed on it and Millard did not have one acre. Shannon questioned Barnes that if this addition had been proposed under the old RE zoning, would there be a need for a variance. Barnes confirmed that up until 1997 it would have conformed, it was at this time the Code was changed. Ayraud commented that the Millard's purchased the home in 1972 and at the time they started contemplating this addition, the zoning would have allowed it without a variance. Also, the variance is needed in order to keep the large Cottonwood tree intact and still construct the desired addition. Ayraud made a motion to approve Appeal #2276 based on the topographical hardship. Seconded by Remington. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Miscio, Remington, Stockover, Shannon, Ayraud, Breth Nays: None Appeal 42276 was approved. 4. APPEAL 2277: -- Approved Address: 172 N. College Avenue Petitioner: Karen Gerard, Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, Potential Owner Zone: D Section: 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) zBA November 10, 1999 Page 4 Background: The variance would reduce the required number of parking spaces from 71 to 47 in order to allow the Northern Hotel to be converted to a 47 unit, senior housing apartment building. The 47 parking spaces are proposed to be located in the City -owned chestnut Street parking lot, wherein the tenants or landlord will be required to purchase parking permits from the City. (The Code does allow parking spaces to be approved off -site). Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The Board was directed to refer to an enclosed letter presented by the Applicant and the hardship stated therein. Staff Comments: Barnes commented to the Board that there have been ongoing discussions as to the acquisition of the Northern Hotel and the possibility of converting it into affordable housing. In this Appeal, they are focusing on senior housing as the proposed population. The Applicant's proposal is to convert the Northern Hotel into 47 apartment units. Barnes stated the Code requirements for parking for apartments is based on a specific number of parking spaces per bedroom. In the case of the proposed apartment units for the Northern, the required amount would be 71 spaces. Barnes noted that there are no exceptions in the Code for the reduction of space requirements due to situations where apartment tenants may not own more than one vehicle. The Code does summarize that parking has to be located on the same lot where the parking is generated, however, the Code does contain a clause allowing the City to approve alternative locations. Barnes mentioned several instances of where this Code clause has been utilized, adding that in approving these exceptions, a key consideration has been insuring that there would be safe pedestrian access to the lots. Barnes mentioned that Susanne Durkin, parking facilities manager from the City Transportation Department was present to answer any questions. Barnes presented slides showing the location of the Northern Hotel and the City owned Chestnut Street parking lot approximately 2 blocks from the hotel. Surrounding streets and intersections to the Northern Hotel were viewed. Shannon asked Barnes if the Northern was an operational hotel, where would hotel occupants park. Barnes replied that the Code does not have any minimum parking requirements for commercial, adding that there is not many private parking areas available in close proximity to the Northern Hotel and most are being used by private businesses in the area. Barnes commented that if the population of the Northern Apartments was not going to be seniors, the City may be more concerned that they adhere to the 71 parking spaces due to the probability of each tenant owning more than one car. Shannon questioned if any studies of the utilization of parking areas by seniors had ever been done. Susannene Durkin, addressed the Board. Durkin stated that her personal experience with the City owned DMA plaza parking area on Remington and Olive Streets that is ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 5 extensively used by the senior population, has shown that the number of vehicles per unit is limited. Durkin commented that many of the senior residents prefer to use the transit system or walk to nearby shopping areas. Durkin said she believes the number of spaces requested by the applicant to be reasonable. Shannon asked if the accessibility of some of the commonly provided senior services such as Meals on Wheels, visiting nurses or ambulance services have been addressed. Durkin responded that because it is still early in the process of this project, the City has not delved into all of those circumstances, but it is possible that the City could allot some limited use spaces adjacent to the Northern Hotel building for loading, unloading or emergency vehicles. Durkin commented that there could be a problem of enforcement in those spaces in the evenings when parking enforcement staff is not available, but red curb and emergency zones etc. could be created for emergency vehicles and the City will do everything they can to provide easy access to those critical areas. Remington asked for clarification from Barnes that if this request before the Board was a request for a specific amount of parking spaces, or was the Board to also consider the location of parking spaces. Barnes responded that City Staff has the authority to approve alternative locations without the need for a variance or any other public action. Barnes reiterated that it was the reduction of the required parking spaces from 71 to 47 that was the main issue. Barnes cautioned the Board that even in instances of hardships or unique circumstances, the Board could not grant any variance if it is found to be a detriment to the public good. Ayraud asked Durkin how many City owned spaces were available to rent. Durkin stated that currently the Chestnut Street lot is fairly full, but during the construction phase of the Northern Hotel, the City would have the top level of the Old Town parking structure available. Durkin added that the primary permit holder in the Chestnut Street lot, Manes Machine, has informed the City that they will be moving, although a definite time when they would be relinquishing their spaces has not been disclosed. Durkin believes that by the time construction is completed and tenants are moving in, the majority of the Chestnut Street lot permits should be available, with some overflow parking on the fourth level of the City Parking Structure. Durkin commented that although it was mentioned that the new City Parking Structure would be the closest available parking area for the Northern, there had been a legal ruling from the City Attorney's office stating that if the City were to make the new City Parking Structure spaces available for rent to Northern Apartment tenants, it could be construed that the City was using that structure for private instead of public usage, therefore losing the non-taxable status of bonds used for that building. It is possible that after the bonds have been paid off, then those spaces may become available at that time. Breth queried as to how many spaces were currently available in the forth level of the Old Town parking facility. Durkin replied that there were currently more than 50 spaces available there. Durkin explained that it would be a new policy by the City to allow overnight parking at the Chestnut Street lot, so that may create some maintenance situations that would have to be addressed. Breth contemplated the seniors may prefer overnight ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 6 parking in the covered Old Town parking structure for security reasons. Durkin mentioned that at this time, only the uncovered top level of the Old Town structure was available, although it has been apparent to her that seniors are in bed and not walking around late at night. Durkin added that as an aspect of management, in regards to turnover etc., the Old Town parking structure is more expensive to operate and maintain and she must look at maximizing revenue and that can only be accomplished when spaces are turned over fairly quickly. Durkin said people are reluctant to park on the top level of a parking structure and because it is uncovered, charges must be lower for the top level, so from a revenue generating standpoint, it is more desirable to have stationary vehicles on the top level and utilize the other levels to rotate and turnover, maximizing revenue as people go in and out. Shannon asked if there was limited hourly parking on the street that runs along side the Northern that could be used for unloading groceries etc., so that tenants would not have to carry parcels the 2 block distance. Durkin replied that the City would probably create several loading zones so that deliveries and unloading would be available. Applicant Participation: Applicant, Karen Gerard, addressed the board. Gerard introduced her partner and representative of the National Development Council, Bill Simpson, for the Board to address questions if needed. Gerard commented that the senior population that they are looking at occupying the Northern would be 55 years plus and will not be an assisted living or project for the frail elderly. The Funding Partners for Housing Solutions of which she represents, anticipate that the majority of their residents will be walking, vital senior citizens. Addressing the earlier question regarding studies done on senior housing projects, Gerard said the National Development Council has conducted research and found that approximately 20% of the senior citizens in their affordable housing projects have vehicles. With that in mind, Gerard believes that the spaces they have requested for this variance should be quite sufficient to meet their needs. Gerard mentioned that the Northern project is planning on re -opening the historic Walnut Street entrance. After restoring this entrance, it would become the primary residential entrance, with the elevator located nearby. Gerard commented that she has had conversations with the City to make the area directly outside the Walnut Street a loading zone. Gerard also noted that the Northern Hotel is on a public transportation route and they have had to document the proximity of the project to services such as post offices, City Hall, shopping areas etc. for prospective lenders and those services are available within a mile or less. Gerard commented that although covered spaces in the new City Parking Structure that could provide more desirable conditions would not be currently available, they are looking to the future, in that picture may change as they are not looking at becoming fully leased until the second quarter of the year 2001. Public Participation: Bill Simpson, addressed the Board. Simpson mentioned that the National Development Council owns over 800 senior apartment complexes and communities similar to Fort Collins downtown area and have found those populations to have about 20% with vehicles and of ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 7 those 20%, most of those still choose to use alternate methods of transportation or walk. Simpson believes one of the reasons they do not see a higher amount of vehicles would be that being a relatively low income population, they have other demands for their financial resources. Simpson mentioned that they came up with the number of 47 as the requested spaces by figuring 1 space per apartment. Simpson said that even though every resident may not own a vehicle, he would assume that they would have visitors needing off-street parking and did not want to tie up the parking on the street for others to use. Remington asked Simpson if there would be non-residents needing parking in close proximity such as maintenance crews etc. Simpson replied that they would have an on -site resident manager and would be contracting out any maintenance as necessary. Remington questioned Gerard if the entire project would be residential or if there would be any commercial operations involved. Gerard replied that the first floor will be retained as commercial retail with the top three floors as residential units. Ayraud inquired if there would be any age or unit occupancy restrictions for tenants. Gerard responded that the primary regulatory restrictions on the project pertain to income level, requiring tenant income to be 40% or less of the area median income, which in this case would fall into the range of approximately $15,000 to $18,000 annual income. Simpson addressed the age issue, stating that in their application to their primary funding sources, they identified the need for senior housing and that is how they arrived at the target population of 55 plus. Simpson said they typically see single occupancies, although there are some residents that are couples. Ayraud asked if there would be any other restrictions placed on those that meet the 55 and over requirements, but may have younger people living with them. Simpson said that although there is not actually any restrictions to that effect, they take all incomes into consideration of those living there to meet the income requirements. HUD limitations are such that they have a 1 %z person limit per bedroom, so technically if you had a one bedroom unit, only one person could occupy it unless they were a couple. Shannon asked Simpson if it was probable that there could be a husband, wife and two children occupying a unit that might each own a car needing parking spaces. Simpson replied that they only have 3, two bedroom apartments and they would be the only situation that you could possibly have up to 4 occupants, i.e., husband, wife and two children. Although, if the children were of different sexes, they would not be allowed to share the same room, resulting in a maximum of 3 persons occupying a 2 bedroom unit. Barnes commented that in all probability, if the scenario arose where a unit had a husband, wife and one or two children, given the maximum income level of all those occupants was to be $15,000 to $18,000, it may not be realistic to assume they would be able to afford that many cars. Stockover questioned Simpson if there was a chance that college students could qualify for the income requirements and the unit would not fill with seniors, but students. Simpson said that the funding source they are using strictly prohibits usage for student housing. Simpson stated that there is a minimum age limit of 55 years for the primary occupant, although they could possibly have a daughter, niece etc. living with them, but if all persons were working, their income would be taken into consideration putting them over the income limitations. ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 8 Pawlikowski asked Durkin if the parking spaces would be assigned with numbered spaces and if the entire Chestnut Street lot would be designated to the Northern apartment occupants how would others be kept from using the Northern parking lot. Durkin stated that the lot would not have numbered spaces, but the same amount of spaces would be available each day. Durkin said that the lot would have informational signs posted designating the lot as a permit only area with the notification that any unauthorized cars would be ticketed or towed. Remington asked if at this time the 47 spaces were approved and later down the road their needs changed and they would need more or less spaces. Durkin said the City will draft an agreement with the Northern and if changes were needed, an amendment to that agreement would be made. Barnes was asked to clarify if this Appeal request included that the Board must decide on a parking site. Barnes reiterated that the Applicant's request was only asking for the 47 spaces in the Chestnut Street lot, due to the affordability of those spaces. Barnes commented that Durkin had mentioned the availability of spaces on the fourth level of the Old Town parking structure and it would be up to the Board's discretion whether to grant the request for reduction of spaces for either the Chestnut St. or the Old Town parking lot. Paul Eckman commented that the only requirement of the Code needing to be met would be the amount of parking spaces for this particular use and the location is something that City staff could approve. Eckman also said that the Board has the capability of placing a condition on the approval of the reduction in spaces to include a specific site, for reasons of protecting the public welfare. Breth commented that he would not like to see the site included as a condition on the variance approval as he believes covered parking is more desirable and doesn't want to tie the Northern to only the Chestnut Street lot. Board Discussion: Breth commented that he is in favor of granting the Appeal, but still has some concerns about safety issues and making the approval site specific. Miscio asked if the Chestnut Street parking was all permitted parking and if any of those parking permits could be transferable. Durkin responded that the Chestnut lot is actually a mixed -use lot that has some spaces allocated for 2 hour parking. Durkin said that she might suggest that when the City Attorney's office drafts the proposal for the Northern , that they make the permits non- transferable because of the possibility of creating a black market situation for overnight parking spaces. Ayraud asked if there was a general hardship statement associated with this Appeal. Eckman read excerpts from the Code relating to hardships, adding that variances can not be granted if found to be detrimental to the public good, or impair the intent or purposes of the Land Use Code. Breth commented that the Northern meets some of the hardship requirements in the fact that the building was built from lot line to lot line. Miscio questioned Simpson from his experience how many parking spaces would the Northern really need for occupants and their guests. Simpson replied that for senior type housing, a half space per unit has shown to be adequate. Simpson commented that the • • ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 9 Nothern realizes that there is an economic cost associated with having those spaces and if they end up with more spaces than what they could utilize, they would be willing to come back and reduce that request proportionately. There was discussion of the possibility of reducing the number of permits below the requested 47 to a smaller amount. Some concerns voiced that if this were to be done and the agreement with the City for the permits would only be renewable yearly, given the time it would take to fill their occupancy, the Northern may not know for sure how many permits they need until it would be too late. This could result in problems finding overnight parking and could pose leasing problems for the Northern if they could not find parking for tenants. The Board decided that they did not want to limit the parking to only the Chestnut Street lot to keep their options open should the need arise for more spaces at a later date. Ayraud made a motion to approve Appeal 2277 based on the hardship of the exceptional situation that the Northern Apartments would be limited to primary occupants of 55 years or older. This Appeal approval would be conditioned to require that occupant income remain at a 40% or less of the area median income level. The motion includes the approval for the amount of parking spaces to be reduced from 71 to 47; that the parking permits be non- transferable and that they be kept current annually. The motion was amended to include that the location of the parking spaces would be determined by the City and the owners of the Northern Apartments. The motion was seconded by Remington Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Miscio, Remington, Stockover, Ayraud, Breth Nays: Shannon Appeal 2277 was approved. Note: David Ayraud excused himself from the remainder of the meeting due to previously scheduled appointments. 5. APPEAL 2278: -- Tabled Address: 2413-2427-2439 South College Avenue Petitioner: Shaw Sign & Awning, Sign Contractor Zone: C Section: 3.8.7(G)(6) and 3.8.7(D)(5) Back rground: The variance would allow the existing "South College Shops" freestanding sign to be removed and replaced with a new, larger monument sign advertising "South College Plaza and tenant directory." Specifically, the existing 19 sq. ft. per face sign will be replaced with a 75 sq. ft. per face sign. A variance was approved in 1981 to allow the existing sign as a second freestanding sign on the property. Only one such sign is allowed for this lot. The • ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 10 proposed new sign requires another variance to allow 2 signs. Also, the variance will increase the sign allowance fromn 330 sq. ft. to 373 sq. ft. in order to allow the larger sign. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The development consists of 3 buildings. The center has no identificaiotn for numerous uses and tenants to the rear of the property. Also, the entryway is obscured by large conifer trees and is hard to find in very fast traffic on College Avenue. Staff Comments: Barnes presented slides relative to this Appeal. Slides were shown of the currently existing ground sign and tenant directory in addition to the freestanding sign. Barnes commented that the existing monument sign showing tenants; Zteca, Buko Bowl and a cellular phone company does not allow for additional tenant signage. The site was shown of the proposed sign explaining that the proposed sign and the existing signs would be approximately 120' apart. Breth asked if in addition to the sign out front, does Zteca, Buko Bowl and the cellular phone business also have other signs. Barnes replied that those tenants also have wall signs on their individual spaces, although the cellular phone business does not have their permanent sign erected at this time. Breth asked if it would be possible for the removal of the monument sign. Barnes responded that if this variance request was not granted, then the tenants would have a choice, they can redo the existing sign and make it a larger tenant directory sign so it advertises all of the tenants. Breth commented that there are 12 tenants that would have to have their names on one sign and might be hard to read all of them. Shannon asked Barnes if an option might be signs seen at similar sites that utilize rotating the tenant business names with individual replaceable signs. Barnes commented that the theory behind those signs is that while each tenant business name may not always be shown, when it is their turn, they don't have to compete with any other business and have the more visible larger sign. Applicant Participation: Applicant, J.J. Shaw, with Shaw Sign & Company, addressed the Board. Shaw stated that the large Spruce tree near the "South College Shops" sign has grown significantly in the last 19 years and has obscured that sign from the southbound traffic. In response to the earlier question about the reason for the "V" shape of the proposed sign, it was designed that way so that it would be visible from northbound traffic, identify the tenants and mark the island and tenants to the rear of the property more clearly. The height of the proposed sign is 9' 5 5/8" which is somewhat larger than the existing "South College Shops" sign, but it will appear to be approximately the same height when in place. Barnes commented that sign height is measured from the elevation of the center of the street and the existing 12' sign is situated on a berm which could make it appear to be approximately the same height as the ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 11 proposed sign. Shaw stated that the proposed sign would include all of the shopping center tenants with large enough characters that would be easily read. Shaw commented that with the installation of the proposed sign, they would be asking for an increase for the signage allowed for the entire center. This shopping center will be undertaking some remodeling in conjunction with any new signage and will be replacing the fagade and incorporating a new sign program which will replace the existing cabinet style signage with individual 37' x 1' letter style signs to keep the signs uniform, which in turn may require less square footage. Shaw stated that the proposed sign would not be totally illuminated, only the letters would be illuminated and not the background, so as to keep the appearance low key. Shaw wanted to mention that there was some discussion of replacing/relocating the large Spruce tree with something smaller, but they were informed that this undertaking would not be feasible at this time. Public Partici ap tion: Greg Ondresack, owner and operator of Mulligan's Food and Ale, addressed the Board. Ondresack stated that he is in support of this Appeal. Ondresack has been a tenant in the South College Shops for 10 years and has been frustrated by not having his company name out where customers can find his store. Ondresack stated that other businesses around him have signage on College Ave. and he would like to be able to have better representation for his business also. Bill Deans, owner of Mountain Mist Spas, addressed the Board. Deans stated that he is in support of this Appeal. Deans feels that there is not adequate signage for the South College Shops and there needs to be some kind of improvement over the existing situation. Larry Jenkins, addressed the Board. Jenkins operates a State Farm Insurance office from the middle building of the South College Shops complex. Jenkins stated that he is in support of this Appeal and any improvement to the current sign situation at the complex would be a great help to his business. Board Discussion: Shannon commented that having been to the South College Shops before, she believes there is a need for better signage in this area and feels those unfamiliar to the complex may have difficulty locating these shops, particularly for those coming from the south. Breth questioned Barnes if there was a possibility that the large conifer tree could be replaced if it was found to be a detriment to the complex. Barnes responded that this development was approved through a P.U.D. and the landscaping was part of that plan. To make changes in the approved P.U.D. landscaping, it would be required to apply for a minor amendment. Breth asked if the City departments responsible for the minor amendment review would consider a recommendation from the Board for possible replacement of the conifer tree with some deciduous trees. Barnes responded that requests for landscaping modifications due to sign visibility are generally not well received, although, if it the changes made sense to those reviewing the minor amendment, it is possible they would look seriously at the request. • ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 12 Remington commented that although he agrees there may be a need for better sign representation of the tenants occupying the South College Shops, he does not see the actual hardship involved, as the Code does allow for some options. There is 330 sq. ft. of signage available that they could possible use in the center area, but are possibly not considering due to economic reasons. Barnes mentioned that economics is generally not considered as a hardship. There was some discussion whether the inadequate visibility of the existing sign due to the tree, coupled with the fact that all tenants are not represented sufficiently on the entrance sign would actually create a hardship. Comment was allowed from the Applicant. Shaw wanted to discuss the issue of visibility of the proposed sign from the south. Shaw referred to the site plan provided to the Board, noting that the proposed sign would be visible by the southbound traffic. It was their plan to utilize the "V" shape to maximize visibility and the sign would be able to be seen as traffic was entering the deceleration lane. Stockover questioned if the Board would be setting a precedence by allowing a financial consideration to determine a hardship. The Applicant responded by saying the location of the two monument signs by neighboring King Soopers already sets a precedence, further stating that the King Soopers sign displays their logo on both of their monument signs. The Applicant is also trying to attain the display of logos, or rather names for tenants that are not visible from College Avenue. Stockover asked Barnes when the Board granted the variance allowing a second sign for King Soopers, was it given specifically for King Soopers or for that shopping complex. Barnes responded that it is a tenant directory sign, but that the King Soopers logo is on both of the monument signs. In the request from the developer for that variance, they were trying to show how they were different from other shopping centers of similar size. Other shopping centers of similar size have a least two or more street frontages, so they are allowed to have more than one ground sign, making signs available at all of the entrances. Most other centers have one curb cut per street, the King Soopers shopping center is different in that it only has one street, but two entrances. The other shopping centers of similar square footage are allowed under the Code to have one ground sign at each entrance. King Soopers pleaded their case on the basis that they were the only shopping center that fronts only on one street. Stockover asked if since much of the traffic entering into the South College Shops flows through the entrance to King Soopers and past McDonald's, would there be any way to group directional signs in that same area. Barnes replied that directional signs must be at least 15 feet apart and can not contain any commercial message and a business name is technically a commercial message although, depending on what the sign said, there could be a possibility of allowing more signage there. Breth questioned the reasoning of allowing the parkway sign advertising Buko Bowl, Zteca and the cellular phone company in addition to their signs on the building itself that were already visible from College Avenue. Breth contemplated the feasibility of combining all the ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 13 signs into one sign and possibly replacing the tree making the one sign visible from both the north and south. Shannon made a motion that the Board not approve Appeal 2278 due to the lack of a hardship, suggesting to the Applicant that they re -work their plan. The motion was seconded by Pawlikowski. Stockover asked what the Applicant's options were at this point. Barnes replied that if the Appeal were to be denied, they could Appeal to the City Council, or apply for a minor amendment to replace the large conifer tree that would allow some different signage options. Breth suggested rather than denying the Appeal, the Board table this Appeal and allow the Applicant to re -work their plan and return with a better alternative. Stockover requested that the Applicant respond to the request to table the Appeal. The Applicant responded that he would be in favor of tabling the Appeal and returning to the Board after reconsideration. Shannon rescinded the earlier motion and entered a new motion to table Appeal #2278, allowing the Applicant to return after re -working the plan that was presented today. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Miscio, Remington, Stockover, Shannon, Breth Nays: None Appeal 2278 was tabled until further notice. 6. APPEAL 2279: -- Tabled Address: 937 W. Oak St. Petitioner: Bob Long, owner Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(D)(1) and 4.6(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required lot area to floor area ration from 3:1 to 2.1:1 in order to allow a 1 1/2 to 2 story addition on the back of the home and a new detached garage along the alley. The variance would also reduce the required side yard setback on the east and west sides from 7' to 5' in order to allow the side walls of the addition to be 21' tall at the peak instead of 18' tall. ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 14 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The lot is narrow, only 40'. The house is small, only 852 sq. ft. and there is no garage. The proposed height of the home will be comparable to the height of the neighboring home. Staff Comments: Barnes stated that this lot is on a lot 40' wide and 140' deep, which is 5,600 square feet. The Code requires a 3:1 lot area to floor area ratio which means the maximum floor area, including garages, would be approximately 1,866 sq. ft. The Applicant's proposal is about 2,700 sq. ft. including a 616 sq. ft. detached garage, putting it 850 sq. ft. over the amount the Code would allow, which explains the 2.1:1 ratio as opposed to the 3:1. Barnes presented slides showing neighboring houses that had apparent living areas above the first floors. The Applicant's proposal is to add onto the back of the home and wrap around the east side. Barnes mentioned that in cases of wall heights of no more than 18' in height, the Code requires a minimum 5' side yard setback, when the wall height exceeds 18', an additional 1' of setback for every 2' of building height is required. Barnes instructed the Board to refer to the Applicant's plan showing the wall height of the proposed addition and noted the wall height being shown as 21' to the peak, therefore requiring a 7' setback. The Applicant is also proposing an addition to the east side of the house to be built within 5' of the property line instead of 7'. On the west side, the proposed addition would line up with the existing wall, which was already at a 5' setback, but where a 7' setback would be required. Slides were shown of the rear of the property and the detached garages on the neighboring properties. Stockover asked if the shed appearing on one of the slides was on the Applicant's property. Barnes confirmed that is was on the property of the Applicant. Applicant Particination: Applicant Robert Long, addressed the Board. Long currently resides at 424 Laporte Ave. and purchased the home at 937 West Oak Street with the intention of remodeling it to suit his growing family. Long stated that he and his wife have lived and worked in the Old Town area for a number of years and wanted to remain there, even though most of the homes available were very small. Long said that he has had discussions with the Landmark Preservation Committee regarding some aspects of the proposed addition and they expressed a desire for the additions to be made to the rear of the home and connected via a hallway. Long stated that given the fact that he has a 1 year old child, he did not feel comfortable having a bedroom that a child would occupy to the rear of the house. Long would prefer instead to have the proposed second story addition that would consist of a master bedroom, a smaller bedroom and a bathroom. The proposed addition to the main floor would add another room to be used as an office or guest room and a kitchen/family room area. Long commented that the shed mentioned earlier on the property would be removed. Long stated that it appears his proposed addition would still be lower in height than the home to the west of him and only slightly higher than the home to the east of his property. Long referred to a previously viewed slide showing where his addition would line up approximately with that of zBA November 10, 1999 Page 15 his neighbors. The Applicant mentioned that the LPC would rather see a loft added instead of a second story, but that by only adding a loft area, it would not comply with the necessary head room as required by the Uniform Building Code. Public Participation: Loren Long, addressed the Board. Ms. Long commented that with the size of their family, they needed more room and given their desire to stay in the Old Town area, decided to purchase a home that they felt they could remodel to meet their needs. Ms. Long stated that if the remodeling could not be accomplished, then their family may be forced to move outside the Old Town area and they really do not want to do that. Connie Werner, addressed the Board. Werner is the owner of the property at 935 West Oak Street just to the east of the Applicant's property. Werner believes the proposed additions would affect her property negatively by encroaching on her privacy. The two story addition would look directly down on her deck and she considers this loss of privacy a hardship. Werner also expressed some concerns about the drainage of the tall of a structure, as the soil in that area permeates and saturates foundations and causes leaks in basements. Werner said that it is her understanding that the Board is being asked to approve a 40% increase above what the City Code stipulates in that they are entitled to 1,800 sq. ft., but the Applicant is requesting 2,700 sq. ft. Werner commented that she believes the design of the proposed addition does not keep in character with the neighborhood and it is unclear from the specifications shown on the Applicant's plan just what the garage would really look like. She feels that they could come up with a more appropriate plan that would be more in character with the neighborhood and keep in compliance with the City Plan. Werner commented that she participated in discussions when the City Plan and East/West Design Guidelines were being drawn up. At these meetings, it was her understanding that a conscious effort would be made to protect the quality of their neighborhood. Werner stated that her home was built in 1907 and she has invested approximately $30,000 in her small home to make it look attractive. Werner believes that if the Board grants the variance before them, there would be no purpose for people like herself to maintain a historic property for enjoyment of generations now or in the future. Ray Krueger, addressed the Board. Krueger owns the property at 934 West Oak Street and is located across the street from the Applicant's property. Krueger commented that it had been stated that this addition would hardly be visible from the front view, but with their roof -line running the opposite direction than other roofs in the area, it gives the appearance of a drive- in theater screen. Krueger said that the view from his front window is not the only concern he has with the Applicant's proposal, it is more the extreme nature of the request. Krueger said that if this variance is approved, the Applicant would have approximately the same amount of floor space in the house as there is in the lot itself, as they are looking at more than tripling the floor space of the original construction of this house. Krueger commented that there are other families in the same neighborhood that accept the fact that is part of the nature of living in this area that the homes do not have large bedrooms etc. Krueger believes that the approval of this variance would contribute to a change in the • ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 16 character of the entire neighborhood. Krueger commented that another concern of his is that currently, because of the desirability of this neighborhood, the homes in the area are being appraised for approximately $200 per sq. ft. Krueger feels that someone could purchase a home, not live in the home, put in a huge addition that is unlike anything else in the area without the consent of the neighborhood and turn around and sell the home, reaping the benefits of the high value kept by the neighborhood being what it currently is. Kueger believes that this type of scenario could have a tremendous impact on the neighborhood. Krueger mentioned that many other families are living in small homes and do not think they are living under conditions of undue hardship. Krueger said that he doesn't think that owning a small home constitutes as a hardship and showing a hardship is what is described as being required to receive a variance. Board Discussion: Remington commented that in the past, the Board has granted variances on small lots and normally they are accompanied by letters of support by neighbors. As this is not the case in this request, he would like to see a proposed addition submitted by the Applicant that would be more fitting with the neighborhood and be something that the neighbors would support. Breth mentioned that in the guidelines set forth by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Applicant's lot fits within the description of a narrow lot that could potentially be allowed a variance. Breth stated that in the few cases of variances of this nature with objections by neighbors, the variance was granted with the directive that the Applicant and the neighbors work out their differences in design flaws. Breth suggested that he would be in favor of tabling this Appeal allowing the Applicant to make some design changes that address neighborhood concerns. Stockover said that in the past, variances were approved that may not have been in character with the surrounding neighborhood, but in those cases there were no other alternatives. Stockover stated that he is opposed to this Appeal, as he believes there may be some alternatives in this case and thinks the amount of square footage increase of the addition for the size of the lot is too much. Breth mentioned that even with adding the square footage of the addition, it would still have twice as much lot as house and garage and he doesn't think that is an unreasonable amount. Stockover commented that there should be some consideration to the amount of shading the proposed addition would create on the property to the neighboring properties and could be considered a detriment to the neighbor. Miscio mentioned that he would like to see more specific drawings or elevations of the proposed addition to better determine the negative effects on the neighborhood. The Applicant asked to speak and address a few of the concerns regarding the design of the addition. Long stated that the roof line running the opposite way of the majority of the houses in that area was not his idea, but that of the City. Long said that the Historic Preservation Committee desires that renovations incorporate low profiles and muted tones. It ZBA November 10, 1999 Page 17 was with that in mind they suggested instead of having windows used in the front elevation, it would be better to have a roof showing muted tones. Long also mentioned that if residents were not allowed to make desired alterations to their homes, many of them that would sell their homes and possibly end up as rentals. Long commented that he would be willing to make some revisions and he wasn't really happy with the information submitted for this Appeal either. Breth made a motion to table Appeal 42279 until such time that the Applicant can return with a better idea of what he wants to propose and to mitigate some of the objections brought up by his neighbors. Shannon seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Pawlikowski, Miscio, Remington, Stockover, Shannon, Breth Nays: None Appeal 2279 was tabled until further notice. Other Business: Barnes handed out updated information for the Boards and Commissions manuals. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator