Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/13/1997u�G1hO��oDCUrrr�JL �NING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING November 13, 1997 8:30am 11 Council Liaison: Ann Azari 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 11 Chairperson: Diane Shannon 223-6973 (H) The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, November 13, 1997 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Gustafson, Breth, Keating, Sibbald, Shannon, Stockover Absent: Lieser Staff members present: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, City Attorney Elain Radford, Building & Zoning Admin. Support Mary Jane Child, Building & Zoning Admin. Support The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Shannon. The minutes from the October 1997 meeting were approved. Keating motioned to approve minutes. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Shannon, Keating, Stockover Nays: None Abstain: Gustafson, Sibbald, Breth Appeal 2206, 215 E Mulberry Street by Petitioner, Tim Gill, owner, NCB Zone, approved. Article 4.8 (D) (2) (d). --- Request to reduce minimum interior side yard setback (per Article 4.8 (D) (2) (d) Land Use Code of Fort Collins) from 5 feet to 0 feet. The variance is requested in order to allow a 2-story addition with a living area on the upper floor and a garage on the ground floor. The setback reduction is along the west lot line. -- Petitioner's statement of hardship: Lot is narrow at 34 feet and the proposed addition would run a length continuous with the existing structure which is also at a 0 foot side yard setback. In addition, the west side property line abuts a 20 foot wide alley which will be used as the access to the proposed garage. ZBA 11/13/97 Page 2 --- Staff comments: The code requires 20' of backup behind parking spaces in this type of situation. The 20' wide alley provides the minimum needed. Barnes presented slides illustrating the property in question. He stated the property is a two- story duplex with an apartment building to the west and an alley in between the two buildings. The existing west wall of the building is currently at a 0 setback. Barnes explained that the proposal is to remove the shed addition to the rear of the house on the south side and to replace it with a two-story addition the same width as the existing building and same architecture and design. The lower level would be a garage and the upper level would be the expansion of the floor area of the dwelling units in the building. The garage would be accessed off of the alley. Barnes stated that across from where the garage doors will be is parking for the apartment building which is set back from the alley and has designated parking spaces. The 20 feet depth from the garage doors and the other side of the alley is the minimum required by the Code - 20 feet. The addition would leave 15 feet to the rear property line and on the east side of the building there would be 9 feet from the wall to the property line. The code requires a 5 foot setback along the side lot line adjacent to the alley. The existing building is at a 0 feet setback. The proposal is to add on to the south, lining up with the existing walls. BOARD QUESTIONS: Board member Breth: Asked if there are concerns about overbuilding on this lot. Barnes responded that the property is in the NCB zone, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. This home meets the lot area floor area ratio. Shannon asked if the expansion is for a third unit or for the existing units. Barnes commented that he understands they are not adding an additional unit. That they are expanding floor space for one of the existing units. Board member Sibbald asked if the garage is for two cars and is it a duplex building. Barnes stated it would be a one car garage and confirmed the building is a duplex. Appellant, Tim Gill, property owner, addressed the Board. Gill stated that the proposed addition is not a room over the garage. It is a replacement for the shed which will be one and one-half stories, and next to that is the garage itself. Basically it is a replacement for the room which has been used as a second bedroom that has been used as a home office, and the garage ZBA 11/13/97 Page 3 will be next to it. Gill presented blueprint plans to the Board for review. He commented that he would like to build the proposed addition and garage because he likes living downtown, needs the space, and has a classic car he uses daily and a motorcycle he needs protection for at night. Sibbald asked if it is a duplex with two dwelling units. Gill confirmed this is correct and commented that the upper unit is not rented out at this time. Sibbald asked where the tenant will park their vehicle. Gill responded that there is a 15 foot space at the end of the garage big enough for a car to park in. Shannon asked if appellant has difficulty parking in the space as it looks to be a very tight parking situation. Barnes pointed out a driveway that goes into a parking area. Gill stated it is supposed to be compact car parking across the alley. BOARD DISCUSSION: Breth stated he recognizes a narrow lot situation and due to this hardship he is in favor of this variance request. Board member Gustafson motioned to approve appeal 2206 for the hardship stated. Board member Keating seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Gustafson, Breth, Keating, Sibbald, Shannon, Stockover Nays: None ZBA 11/13/97 Page 4 Appeal 2207, 2400 Cheviot Drive by Petitioner, Richard Dinkel, owner, RL Zone, denied. Section 4.3 (D) (2) (d). --- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 4 feet in order to allow a 12 foot by 14 foot storage shed. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The house sits approximately in the middle of the lot. The best alternative location for the shed would be in the area behind the garage and to the west of the home, but this would require the removal of large mature trees. The owner was unaware that the required setbacks applied to this size lot. --- Staff comments: None. Barnes presented slides illustrating the property in question. He stated the property is a comer lot and that Hampshire Road is the side road, considered a collector street. Barnes commented the building has already been constructed and abuts the garage. The resulting setback is four feet from the side lot line adjacent to the neighboring property. BOARD QUESTIONS: Gustafson asked if this is a side yard, front yard situation where side yard acts as front yard on some comer lots. Barnes responded that it is not. Keating asked if a permit was pulled. Barnes replied that it was not and a stop work order was placed on the building by the building inspector. Subsequent to that the petitioner came in and applied for a permit at which time we noticed the side yard problem. Appellant, Richard Dinkel, addressed the Board. He stated that he did not know he needed a permit for the shed because there was no foundation and it's not attached to the house. Dinkel commented that when he received a letter about this he responded right away and found out that anything over 120 square feet requires a permit. He stated he already had the shed built and was told the shed is too big for it's location. Dinkel stated that he cannot turn it without costing a lot of money which he feels is a financial hardship. He commented that if he had known about the hardship he would have put it in the same place but would have put it lengthwise 14 feet instead of the long way of 14 feet. ZBA 11/13/97 Page 5 Breth asks if the shed is not on a foundation and if it is attached to the garage. Dinkel replied that it is not on a foundation and not attached to the garage. He commented that he will sheet rock it with 5/8ths insulating sheet rock so it will be fireproof. Gustafson asked why he could not turn the shed. Dinkel replied that it could be turned with fork lifts and be able to level it, but would probably cost him more to turn it than the shed cost. Shannon commented that sheds are usually in the backyard and asked why he did not place the shed in the backyard. Dinkel responded that he wanted it close to the garage since he has a heart condition and all his tools for snow removal, etc. would be stored there, and he wanted it to look nice with the roof line going the same way as the house. He was able to take out his fence and put a gate behind it, so the location was more cosmetic and convenient. Shannon asked if the shed would be painted. Dinkel replied that yes it would be painted to blend in with the house. Shannon asked if there is space in the back yard for the shed. Dinkel stated there is on the east side, however, they were wanting to put a patio and sliding glass doors from the master bedroom there. Sibbald asked what would prevent him from accessing the shed from the garage. Dinkel responded that he would have to cut a hole in the garage and remove one side of the shed which would not give him the room he wanted for his tools to hang on. Breth asked Barnes if this shed could be considered a temporary structure since it does not have a foundation and is not permanently attached to the garage. is ZBA 11/13/97 Page 6 Barnes replied that once it exceeds 120 square feet or 8 feet in height then the building code regulates it as well as the zoning code. He explained that while many permits are issued for sheds that exceed the 120 square feet, the building department does not necessarily require that they be permanently anchored on a foundation, as long as they are anchored in some manner, they are still considered permanent buildings that have to meet the wind load, snow load, etc. Though there is some latitude on how they are anchored to the ground, there is no ability to consider it anything other than a regulated building given the size of it. BOARD DISCUSSION: Gustafson commented that he has a hard time seeing this as anything other than a self-imposed hardship. It could be turned which is a financial burden to him, but is not the Board's basis for determining a hardship. He has the room on his lot so if he turns it 90 degrees, it meets the setback requirement, though it may not be as aesthetically pleasing as it is now. He reiterated that he sees it as a self-imposed hardship. Breth stated that because it is not a small lot and does not have a small lot hardship, he also sees it as a self-imposed hardship. He commented that an alternative to turning it since it is not totally finished and not on a permanent foundation could be to simply take a saw to it, cut a foot off of it, move the truss back and have it fit within the 5 foot setback. Breth stated he has a hard time with the precedence with small lots and their many problems, the Board is almost mandated to grant the variance. But with a big lot like this with room on other parts of the lot to build the shed., and the two alternatives available to this applicant, he can't favor granting this variance. Gustafson motioned to deny the appeal because the hardship appears to be self-imposed. Keating seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Gustafson, Breth, Keating, Sibbald, Shannon, Stockover Nays: None ZBA 11/13/97 Page 7 Anpeal 2208, 6813 S. College Avenue by Petitioner, Steve Pink - Sign Contractor, MMN Zone, approved. Section 3.8 (E) (4). --- The variance would allow the height of a 25 square foot per face freestanding sign to be 11 feet instead of the maximum allowed 5 feet. (The height of a sign is measured from the top of the sign to grade, where "grade" is the elevation of the center of the street.) The proposed sign will replace the existing sign, but will be installed on the same, existing pillar, which is already more than 5 feet higher than the street due to the slope of the lot. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The front of the property along S. College slopes dramatically. Therefore, it is very difficult to have a sign that does not exceed the 5 foot maximum height. The proposed sign is about the same size as the existing. The new owner wants to replace the sign with one advertising the new name. This requires that the existing nonconforming sign be brought into compliance with the code. However, because of the slope of the lot, only an approximate 2 foot high sign would be allowed without a variance. --- Staff comments: Even though the property is on S. College Avenue, it is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. This type of use is allowed a maximum sign of 32 sf., no taller than 5' above grade. The topography of the lot does create somewhat of a hardship. With the speed limit at 55 mph in front of this lot, a 5' high sign would in reality be only be about 2' high. Barnes commented to the Board that the applicant for this appeal is not present and the Board has the options of tabling the appeal until the next meeting or they could decide to hear it on it's own merits without the benefit of the applicant's presentation. Shannon asked what the consequences are of the applicant not being able to present his case. Barnes explained that if the Board were to consider the appeal with the applicant not present and approved it there would be no consequences. However, if the Board denied the appeal, the record would not be complete and the applicant could ask for a re -hearing. The applicant probably would not appeal to City Council because in the by-laws the Board can be petitioned to re -hear an appeal if new evidence can be presented that was not presented the first time. City Attorney Eckman commented this may be the disadvantage of considering it without him being here because the Board may end up hearing it twice, or if the applicant appealed to the City Council, the Council may remand it for the Board to consider evidence that might need to be considered because the applicant was not present. Shannon asked if there is a precedent for this type of situation. • ZBA 11/3/97 Page 8 Barnes responded that it doesn't happen often and most of the time the Board has tabled the appeal until the applicant could be present. Sibbald commented that he would like to make the motion to table this appeal. Breth interjected that tabling the appeal would mean they would have to review this again, and if all Board members have already made themselves familiar with this appeal information, perhaps the Board would like to vote on whether or not to go ahead and consider the appeal or to table it. Eckman commented that it may not be favorable to not vote without making a record of the evidence of the hardship, etc., however, if the Board members have opinions in mind from having already read the record of this appeal that would be reflected in your vote as to whether to consider the appeal or not. Eckman mentioned the Board may also listen to the presentation on this then take a vote. Keating asked if a third alternative would be to call for a recess. Eckman stated there is not a purpose for that since business cannot be discussed outside the public meeting. Sibbald motioned to table appeal 2208 until the next meeting. Stockover seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Sibbald, Stockover Nays: Gustafson, Breth, Keating, Shannon Barnes stated this motion failed. Breth motioned for the Board to consider this appeal. Stockover seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Gustafson, Breth, Keating, Sibbald, Shannon, Stockover Shannon requested the Board hear appeal 2208. ZBA 11/13/97 Page 9 Barnes presented slides illustrating the property in question. He explained that historically the location of Carolyn's Cuisine on South College has changed businesses a number of times, i.e., it was the Hermitage Inn, Nicky's but there was a fire and reopened as Foothills Country Club Catering, then Carolyn's Cuisine, and now the new owners are called the Cottonwood Club. Barnes explained that even if the Cottonwood Club was going to repaint the existing signage, that would require that this sign come into compliance with the code because this sign is currently a non -conforming sign based on the height of the sign. He stated any change of ownership or tenancy requires a non -conforming sign to come into compliance with the code, if they are going to do any remodeling of the sign including painting. The top of the sign is measured to the height of the street, the center of the street, and because the ground slopes up from the center of the street to the top of the sign it measures 11 feet. Barnes stated that this business is in the Neighborhood Sign District, even though it is on South College Avenue, which limits the height to 5 feet for this particular type of use. Under the code any new signage would be limited to a 5 foot height that would be measured to the distance above the elevation of the street. Therefore, the petitioner's hardship statement is that a 5 foot high sign would be dangerous on a 55 mph street where people would not see it until they had passed it and slammed on their brakes. Barnes continued that the sign is fairly small, so the petitioner wants to use the existing pillar but use a different design. Barnes explained that the business facilities are actually quite a ways to the west of the sign. Bames commented that the Board may recall about a year ago granting a variance to Fossil Creek Nursery to allow their sign to be larger than normally allowed. Gustafson asked if Fossil Creek Nursery is also in the Neighborhood Sign District. Barnes confirmed they are. Gustafson asked why these properties are in the Neighborhood Sign District. Barnes explained that when the boundaries of the Neighborhood Sign District were established, in 1991, the City had development proposals for much of this land to be residential development, part of the Dell Web annexation and development. He commented that it is anticipated that residential development would occur to the west of these properties that front on College Avenue, and the decision was made by the Planning staff to incorporate this area into the Neighborhood Sign District in anticipation of future development. As it turns out now the front areas are commercial, however, the Neighborhood Sign District would still regulate what type of signage could be impacting residential development that is occurring to the west of these properties. ZBA 11/13/97 Page 10 Barnes further explained that the zoning in MMN, which is medium density mixed use neighborhood, not commercial like South College Avenue is from Harmony north to Mulberry. From Harmony Plaza, where Walmart is, southbound it is zoned MMN which encourages residential and certain types of non-residential development. Sibbald asked if MMN is single family. Barnes replied that it is multi -family and mixed use. He commented that there is a development proposal for Shenandoah PUD which is south of Harmony and includes some offices along College Avenue, and then a mixed use area, then more single family further west. He added that while the frontage is commercial the area is zoned for mixed use. Shannon asked if this issue to amend the Neighborhood Sign District map could be addressed to the Planning and Zoning Board. Barnes stated that he would be happy to bring this issue up to the P&Z. Keating commented that his concern is that the Board will continue to have these same type appeals every time a business in this area opens up. Barnes commented that what might be heard are variance requests on the height given the topography issue, that if the properties did not slope upward, there may not be the need for variance requests. He reminded the Board that the petitioner is requesting a variance on the height of the sign because of the slope away from the street, not on the size. Sibbald asked if there are plans to bring the Sign Code into conformance with the new district designations. Barnes stated the Sign Code does comply with the new boundaries. He commented a team looked at the Neighborhood Sign District boundaries to determine whether or not they should be changed and the decision was made then to not change them. Barnes added that the Sign Code went through a major overhaul in 1994, totally redone, and there was no concern that it was not adequate. He stated that he could bring this issue up again. Breth asked if the existing sign is non -conforming because of the height. Barnes confirmed this is correct and reiterated that even if they only repainted the sign, they would have to come into compliance with the code due to the new ownership of the business. Barnes commented that the only change made to the Sign Code when they adopted the new Land Use Code was to add that if the ownership changes, and the new owner decides to make any zBA 11/13/97 Page 11 modification to the sign advertising the premises, then the sign would have to brought into compliance. Keating questioned why part of the proposed sign still states Carolyn's Cuisine. Barnes explained that the petitioner wanted to leave this sign up for a transition period because of the name recognition Carolyn's Cuisine has. He added that this sign will eventually come down since Carolyn's Cuisine is gone and there is a new owner. BOARD DISCUSSION: Shannon stated again that the applicant is not present, therefore, he is not able to provide the Board with additional information. The Board has chosen to proceed on this appeal. Gustafson commented that obviously there is a topography situation with this land that creates a hardship. He stated that if they were to comply with the sign district requirements, they would not have a readable sign. There is a definite hardship caused by the property. Shannon added that each Monday she attends a meeting at Carolyn's Cuisine and that traveling at a speed of 60 mph it is very difficult to see the sign. She commented that she believes the speed on South College Avenue creates a hazard, if the sign is not readable. Breth reiterated that due to the topographical hardship stated and because of the precedent set with the Fossil Creek Nursery, he motions to approve this appeal due to the hardship stated. Keating seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Gustafson, Breth, Keating, Sibbald, Shannon, Stockover Nays: None Gustafson stated he would like to add a comment for the record that the City needs to look at the South College corridor from County Road 32 to Harmony Road to see if the sign code needs to be modified or a special district created. He commented that he feels more appeals of this type will come before the Board. ZBA 11/13/97 Page 12 Barnes stated that City Attorney, Paul Eckman, reminded him the zoning district for this property, MMN zone, would not allow either this use or the nursery use. He stated there is a team that meets every Tuesday which he will bring this issue to and review how it is zoned, what are the uses, and are they allowing uses that may require larger signs. There may be some justification for changing the Neighborhood Sign District boundaries. Bames added that he will report back to the Board from the discussions of these meetings over the next few months. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Barnes introduced the new ZBA member Tom Sibbald. B. Barnes discussed with the Board some proposed code changes to the Land Use Code. Meeting adjourned at 9:52am. Chairperson, Diane Shannon /JCt-cma.g- Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator ConWity Planning and Environmenwervices Building Permits and Inspection Division City of Fort Collins November 3, 1997 LEGAL NOTICE The purpose of this letter is to inform you of a request for a modification of the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins. The procedure for a person requesting a modification of the Zoning Code is to make application and appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Board has been established to hear cases, where by reason of exceptional situations or conditions, the strict application of the regulation would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that the granting of a variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public good. A variance of Code Article 4.8 (D) (2) (d) has been requested by Tim Gill for the following described property, 216 E Mulberry Street. Request to reduce minimum interior side yard setback (per Article 4.8 (D) (2) (d) Land Use Code of Fort Collins) from 5 feet to 0 feet. This is located on the west property line. The variance is requested in order to allow a 2-story addition with a living area on the upper floor and a garage on the ground floor. This item will appear on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda as Appeal No. 2206. As an adjacent property owner, your input would be appropriate in the consideration of the variance request. The hearing on this appeal will be held at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, November 13, 1997, in the Council Chambers at 300 Laporte Avenue. Those interested may appear at this meeting, or if unable to attend may submit comments in.writing. Meeting sites are generally accessible to handicapped persons. If you are disabled and need special assistance to participate, please call 221-6760. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator at 221-6760. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6760 City of Fort Collins November 3, 1997 ;and Environmeri Services Permits and Inspection Division LEGAL NOTICE The purpose of this letter is to inform you of a request for a modification of the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins. The procedure for a person requesting a modification of the Zoning Code is to make application and appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Board has been established to hear cases, where by reason of exceptional situations or conditions, the strict application of the regulation would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that the granting of a variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public good. A variance of Code Section(s) 4.3 (D) (2) (d) has been requested by Richard Dinkel for the following described property, 2400 Cheviot Drive. The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5 feet to 4 feet in order to allow a 12 foot by 14 foot storage shed. This item will appear on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda as Appeal No. 2207 As an adjacent property owner, your input would be appropriate in the consideration of the variance request. The hearing on this appeal will be held at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, November 13, 1997, in the Council Chambers at 300 Laporte Avenue. Those interested may appear at this meeting, or if unable to attend may submit comments in writing. Meeting sites are generally accessible to handicapped persons. If you are disabled and need special assistance to participate, please call 221-6760. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator at 221-6760. / 9,,*, 13 c1,t�, Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6760 Corn&ity Planning and Environmen ervices Building Permits and Inspection Division City of Fort Collins November 3, 1997 LEGAL NOTICE The purpose of this letter is to inform you of a request for a modification of the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins. The procedure for a person requesting a modification of the Zoning Code is to make application and appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Board has been established to hear cases, where by reason of exceptional situations or conditions, the strict application of the regulation would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that the granting of a variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public good. A variance of Code Section(s) 3.8 (E) (4) has been requested by Owner: Michael Schroeder, Petitioner: Steve Pink - Contractor, for the following described property, 6813 S. College Avenue. The variance would allow the height of a 25 square foot per face freestanding sign to be 11 feet instead of the maximum allowed 5 feet. (The height of a sign is measured from the top of the sign to grade, where "grade" is the elevation of the center of the street.) The proposed sign will replace the existing sign, but will be installed on the same, existing pillar, which is already more than 5 feet higher than the street due to the slope of the lot. This item will appear on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda as Appeal No. 2208. As an adjacent property owner, your input would be appropriate in the consideration of the variance request. The hearing on this appeal will be held at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, November 13, 1997, in the Council Chambers at 300 Laporte Avenue. Those interested may appear at this meeting, or if unable to attend may submit comments in writing. Meeting sites are generally accessible to handicapped persons. If you are disabled and need special assistance to participate, please call 221-6760. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator at 221-6760. �, /3 ct.t, Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6760