Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/09/1997ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING October 9, 1997 B#i1FT,",1 11 Council Liaison: Ann Azari 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 11 Chairperson: Diane Shannon 229-1629(w) 226-5101(h) The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, October 9, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Shannon, Stockover, Lieser, Keating Absent: Gustafson, Breth, Felner Staff members present: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Elain Radford, Building & Zoning Admin. Support The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Shannon. The minutes from the September 1997 meeting were approved pending a revision on page 3, paragraph 3. Appeal 2203: 311 Whedbee Street, Petitioners John Gless and Tamala Wahl, NCM Zone, Section(s) 3.8.3(A)(1), approved given with the stipulation that they can only operate the businesses they have mentioned, and that they would have to come back to the Board to get one additional parking space off the alley in the event they ever want to add a space. --- The variance will allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building rather than in the home. Specifically, the variance will allow the owners to conduct their Geographic Information System consulting and landscape architecture business in the top floor of the existing barn located at the rear of the lot. --- Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The barn is existing. There is no attached garage or basement. Because of the nature of the business activities, a room needs to be large enough to accommodate a drafting table, desks and numerous computers. There are no spare rooms in the home that are large enough. If the barn were attached, a variance would not be required. In this neighborhood almost all of the "accessory" buildings (like garages, etc.) Are detached, whereas in newer areas they are attached and variances aren't needed. ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 2 --- Staff comments: The Board has granted some similar variances in the old part of town where the detached buildings were previously existing. Two letters from citizens were read, both in favor of the request. Administrator Barnes commented that the Board has occasionally heard variance requests to allow home occupation activities, either in whole or in part, to be conducted in a detached building. He explained that the Home Occupation Ordinance requires that all activities associated with a home occupation be conducted within the building where the dwelling unit is in. In other words, detached buildings are not permitted to be used. He commented that incidences where the Board generally hears variance requests like this are in the older parts of town near the downtown area where many of the properties have detached buildings that are existing and very few of them have attached garages. He further explained that in newer neighborhoods we often see that people who don't want to use a room in their house, or need a bigger area, will use their garage. So, owners have the option, when the garage is attached, to use that accessory portion of the building without the need of a variance. In the older parts of the town there aren't that many attached garages. He commented that this variance request is an incident where the property does not have an attached accessory area and there is not a basement. Barnes presented slides illustrating the property in question. He pointed out the home is two stories, sits toward the front of the lot approximately lined up with most of the other homes in the neighborhood. The driveway is on the side of the home and there is no attached garage. The existing barn is located along the alley and fairly close to the rear property line. The neighboring property to the north, likewise, has a detached building and these two buildings are very close together. BOARD QUESTIONS: Board member Shannon asked if there are accommodations for parking. Barnes responded that there is room to add a gravel parking stall off the alley, if needed, and they have parking in the front. He commented that the staff would determine whether or not additional parking would be needed based on whether or not the petitioners have additional employees or clients come to the home. He added that the petitioners do not have additional employees, but may have clients come to their home from time to time. He commented that they are not asking for a variance on parking. Petitioners addressed the Board and introduced themselves, John Gless and Tamala Wahl. Gless stated that the slide presentation was substantially complete and the only thing he would add is to E ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 3 provide the Board specific details regarding the layout of their house to support why they don't believe they can accommodate both of their existing home occupations with their home. He explained that they do not have a basement or an attached garage. Gless added that he needs about 400 to 500 square feet, 250 square feet each, to conduct their businesses. He commented that both businesses are consulting type businesses, he is a GIS consultant and his wife is a landscape consultant. He stated that most of his client contact is over the telephone. He explained that typically only one client at a time would be at their house, but this is infrequent. He commented that regarding the parking they would be more than happy to put a space in the back, however, they don't like a lot of traffic in the alley so they encourage clients to park in the front of the house where there is plenty of room, or in the driveway where two cars can park. Gless continued that he and his wife talked to their neighbors who are owner occupants and received no objections from them, mainly because of the benign character of their business; essentially there is no noise, fumes, glare, etc. He added that they have requested, and received, Historic Landmark designation for the barn from the Landmark Preservation Commission to take advantage of some of the programs to rehabilitate that structure so it doesn't fall down or get into further disrepair. He stated this will be up before City Council on their consent agenda this month. He further stated the other reason they want to preserve their barn is because they are concerned about the character of their neighborhood. Wahl stated that a lot of people aren't familiar with the nature of her business, landscape architecture, and sometimes assume that means there will be heavy equipment and construction vehicles and trucks. She explained that she is a designer and doesn't have much occasion to meet with clients at her home since she goes to their home and brings her drawings to them. So, it is really very rare that there is any need to have a client come to her office. She commented that she does not foresee any traffic problem in the back. Wahl added that the barn is a very rare structure in Fort Collins since there aren't many two story barns that are 92 to 95 years old. Gless commented that there is some precedent for this kind of activity in their neighborhood, though he does not know precisely how many home occupations there are. He stated he knows of one bicycle repair business that is housed in a detached structure on Magnolia Street which seems to coexist with the neighborhood pretty well. BOARD QUESTIONS: Board member Keating asked what the family size is. Gless replied they have two daughters ages six and three, so there are four altogether. ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 4 Keating asked what the size and general layout of the house is. He asked if the petitioner already has plans for the Board. Gless responded that they have one conceptual plan that shows what the exterior changes they are proposing that was prepared for the Landmark Preservation Commission. He presented his copy of these plans to the Board for review. Wahl commented that they do not park any vehicles in the barn because there is no access to do this and they have no intention to park cars there. Keating asked if the Landmark Preservation Committee has approved the plans. Gless replied yes and that they went through a conceptual review with them. He stated they are not proposing any changes or new openings in the alley side. He commented the entrance would be on the east side on the ground level. Bill Wiley, lives on Peterson Street, addressed the Board. Wiley stated he does have a few concerns one of which is the aspect of home occupation. He asked if in remodeling this for an office, in the event the owners move, could it then be used for an apartment. He stated the other concern he has is the alley parking. Wiley explained that because Peterson Street is a pathway for fire trucks, they use their backyard as a sanctuary from the noise. He commented that they want to make sure there is no parking in the back alley and any clients would have to park in the front of the house or in the driveway. He requested this be a stipulation for this variance request. He commented additional alley traffic would be disruptive to the quality of the backyards there. He reiterated that the streets in old town are pretty busy and crowded and it is nice to use the backyard to get away from the noise. He commented that the alleys are only dirt and the more traffic there the more dust is stirred up, so he would like this kept to a minimum. Wiley stated that other than these concerns he supports their use of the barn as an office. He again stated he does not want it to become a heavy traffic area and asked what would stop it from becoming an apartment if the petitioners decide to leave. Karen McWilliams, an Historic Preservation Planner from the Advanced Planning Department and a staff liaison to the Landmark Preservation Commission, addressed the Board. She stated that staff supports the use of this barn to be used as an in -home office. McWilliams commented ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 5 this is an excellent adaptive reuse of this structure since it is a very historic building, and they like to see these buildings maintained in the old part of town. She stated if they do not have a viable use they get tom down and a valuable part of our history is lost. Barnes commented on the use of this building and concerns raised about future uses. He stated that the Board may put conditions on the variance should they choose to grant the variance. He explained the conditions may be for this home occupation, i.e., that parking only occur in the driveway. He stated that if they have room for two cars then that really means they have one extra parking space, and a limitation could be put on the home occupation license that they could not have more than one car there at a time in connection with the businesses. He further explained that if there were occasions in which each of them have a client at the same time, then there could be a requirement for either a parking space off the alley or some modifications to the front driveway to accommodate another car. Barnes stated that regarding future use, if someone were to want to convert this to a living area or apartment, there is not enough lot area to accommodate a dwelling unit back there. He clarified that this could not legally be converted to another dwelling unit. He commented it would be incumbent upon the neighbors to file a complaint with the city, if someone were living back there, and the city would take corrective action to terminate use of an apartment. Board member Stockover asked if there would be access to the building such as a sidewalk and are there plans to put running water and sewer in the building. Wahl replied that because of the nature of her work occasionally she does need to wash her hands or to use a medium that requires water, so water would be a convenience. Gless commented that they would like to put a half bath and sink for convenience. Wahl stated this may be located on the shed level, down the steps in a relatively small shed space which would not be conducive to a living space. Keating stated that he sees the hardship regarding the business, but he is not sure what to do regarding the parking issue. He asked Barnes to restate what is currently legal regarding the parking spaces. Barnes responded that the driveway is one car wide and is fairly deep so two cars can easily park there. He explained that the city code requires one parking space per single family dwelling, and the home occupation ordinance requires additional parking as necessary, which means staff determine whether or not they need to provide additional parking based on the nature of their home occupation activity. He commented that they are allowed to have one additional employee ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 6 who does not live there, in which case one additional parking space would be required. He stated this is not the case here so the issue is client parking that indicated they occasionally have a client. If they have one client at a time, then one extra space is needed which means a total of two parking spaces on the lot, which they can accommodate without additional parking. If their are times when each business has a client at the same time, then a total of three parking spaces are required on the lot, and then parking may need to be provided off the alley or off the side of the house, which they do have enough room to make it two -car wide. Barnes commented that the Board may determine and put a condition stating under no circumstance are they allowed to have parking off the alley , so they would have to deal with it in the front. Keating asked if the city counts the street when counting parking spaces. Barnes stated that on -street parking does not count, though this is where a lot of people park when it comes to home occupations because they feel uncomfortable parking in the driveway. Keating asked a condition be required for in the future, that if they show cause to staff for additional parking, only one parking space in the alley be granted; since they have plenty of space now in the front or driveway. Barnes replied that either that or a condition that if they show need for alley parking, they have to come back to the Board to have the variance reviewed. Shannon stated that it appears there is a hardship here and the Board should make a motion with stipulations. Stockover commented he thinks this is a nice project and plan and stated he can see this is an attractive barn to put a larger business in if they were to move. So, he agrees with putting a stipulation for this business. Barnes commented it is for the two businesses. Keating motioned for approval of this appeal under the hardships given with the stipulation that they can only operate the businesses they have mentioned and that they would have to come back to the Board to get one additional parking space off the alley in the event they ever wanted to or needed to add a space. Board member Lieser seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Stockover, Shannon, Lieser, Keating Nays: None E ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 7 Appeal 2204: 4401 Innovation Drive, Petitioner Gardner Signs, HC Zone, Article 3.8.7(G)(6), approved. --- The variance would allow this property to have a 45 sq. ft. Ground sign, without the property having any lot frontage along a street. The code allows one ground sign per property per street frontage. --- Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The property does not front a street and is actually behind another property with a large building. Initially it represented one property but later was split, causing the lack of street frontage for the second rear property. The front property already has a ground or freestanding sign with it's street frontage as a basis for it's allowance. --- Staff comments: None Barnes presented slides illustrating the property in question. He explained that the sign code allows only one free standing sign per property per street frontage, which means that if a property does not have street frontage, they are not entitled to any sort of free standing sign. All of their signage would need to be wall mounted. Barnes commented that this property, a rather large property, has a lot in the back which does not have any frontage on the street. All the lot lines front on interior, side, or rear property lines, so there is very little street frontage adjacent to this property. The tenant desires a sign to designate which building to go to. The lot line goes down the middle of the driveway. BOARD QUESTIONS: Keating asked if the original Hewlett Packard building is currently being used. James Lafler, Gamder Signs, responded it presently houses two businesses, Polymold and Advanced Energy, and the existing sign on the front property is designed for those two businesses. Shannon asked if a new sign goes up, what happens to the existing sign. Barnes responded the existing sign would stay there to identify the first property with the two businesses, just as it does now. He commented the existing sign only advertises the first building. ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 8 Keating asked if there is a building across the street. Lafler replied there is not. The street is a cul-de-sac that ends. He commented that there is a huge lot between this property and the school, which is all school property. Keating asked if another industrial building could be built there. Barnes showed slides illustrating the school playground, the parking lot, a park to the north, and railroad tracks behind the property on a small tract of land that is unbuildable. He commented there is nothing to preclude another building on their own lot. Keating asked if the rear building business has sign space on the existing sign. Lafler stated they do not and explained that his client, Center Partners, initially were in the front property as a tenenat. He stated the front property, the old Hewlett Packard building, is spaced for two tenants. Center Partners has now bought the back property and have moved into it. The existing sign addresses only the two tenants in the old Hewlett Packard building and will advertise the new tenant, not Center Partners. So, now that they are landlocked behind the front property, they are asking to do their own freestanding sign that would be an identificational device for their building as well as a directional message for their clients. Keating asked why a freestanding sign is needed when they have the walls of the building to work with. Lafler responded that Center Partners feels they need a directional message down low next to the street for incoming traffic to see the sign, and a directional message to the front entrance of their building. They do not desire to put any advertising messaging on the walls of their building. Lafler added that the building can't be seen when the trees are in full bloom from that front property. The view from Innovation Drive is hindered by the vegetation where the existing sign is for the front two tenants. Also, he added, that Center Partners is landlocked in a situation where there is not a lot of space between businesses that would be concerned about this, so they feel they need a combination directional and message sign. BOARD DISCUSSION: Lieser stated that in viewing this location it was fairly easy to see the building, however, she is not directly opposed to this sign request. She commented it would not inhibit a lot of traffic flow where people would slow down or halt to read it, and it may be difficult for some people to find the building in the back. She added that 45 square foot sign is not real huge and may be of use to ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 9 people trying to find Center Partners, as long as the logo is taken off the front sign. Lafler commented the logo will be taken off by Advanced Energy in the near future. Stockover stated that it makes sense that people that close would want to know where they need to be and the sign pointing to their front entrance would be advantageous. He stated he feels it is a good idea to put a freestanding sign there versus high on the building where you are not looking when that close. Lieser stated the street is not a continuous street and does end there. It is not a main arterial street. Shannon commented she agrees that a hardship is created by the fact that there is no street front. Stockover motioned to approve Appeal 2204 for the hardship stated. Lieser seconded. VOTE: Yeas: Stockover, Shannon, Lieser, Keating Nays: None Appeal 2205: 1020 W. Oak Street, Petitioner Chad Cox, Architect, NCL Zone, Article 4.6(F)(1)(a), approved. --- The variance would increase the maximum exterior wall length of walls not parallel to or at right angles to the lot line from 6 feet to 10' 1" for a 480 sq. ft. addition to a single family home (per Article 4.6(F)(1)(a). A variance would also increase the maximum floor area of the buildings on the lot to exceed 1/3 of lot area by 104 sq. ft. Lot is 5600 sq. ft. and existing and proposed square footage of buildings is 1970 sq. ft. Only 1866 sq. ft. Is allowed (Section 4.6(D)(1). --- Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Lot is both small and narrow and the house is approximately 1.5 bedrooms (existing house is 1225 sq. ft). Wall design maximizes space. Without such a greater square footage would be required. It also assists in the separation between the house and garage. See petitioner's letter. --- Staff comments: See petitioner's letter. ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 10 Barnes commented the petitioner's letter explains the reasoning for the two variance requests on this appeal. He explained that the code requires in this particular zone that the lot area be three times as large as the floor area of the buildings, which include any detached accessory buildings over 120 square feet. He pointed out the second page of the site plan that shows drawings of the site plan where the existing garage is located to the rear and is larger than 120 square feet, therefore, it counts as floor area. The lot as indicated is small, sub -average, as far as lot sizes go in the older part of town. Other blocks nearby have 9500 and 7000 sq. ft. lots. He explained that because of the size of the lot, a variance is requested in order to allow the square footage they will end up with, if the variance is approved, of 1970 sq. ft. of floor area which includes the garage. Based on this size lot, only 1866 square feet would be permited. Barnes stated the other variance request deals with the design of one of the walls of the proposed addition. The code requires that any wall over six feet in length has to be perpendicular or parallel to the property lines of the lot when the lot is rectalinear. He explained that this lot is rectalinear, therefore, all the walls over six feet in length would have to be parallel to, or at right angles of, the lot lines. They are proposing for one wall that is just over ten feet in length not be at a right angle. Barnes referenced the drawing and pointed out shorter walls that are not parallel or perpendicular to the lot lines, but they do not exceed six feet in length. Barnes presented slides illustrating the property in question. He commented there is no driveway in the front. They have parking access off of the alley where the garage is. The side setbacks, and all the setback requirements will be met, even though they will be asking for a lot area and floor area variance they will not require any setback variances. Barnes stated the older addition constructed on the back of the house will be removed and the newer addition will replace it which will come out towards the rear of the property further. He commented that the petitioner's indicated one of the reasons they want the wall at an angle is to create a little more room between the garage and the wall, and for other aesthetic purposes. BOARD QUESTIONS: Shannon asked what the intent of the wall length section of the code is. Barnes replied that about a year and one-half ago, staff worked on the Eastside/Westside code changes. They started off as rather sweeping design regulations that would have been mandatory. Because of a lot of concern from property owners in the old parts of town City Council relaxed and narrowed down the changes that would be mandatory. In conjunction with the code changes they made regarding design they also adopted design guidelines. The manual, Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines for the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods, is dated February 1996 which is also the month they adopted the actual code requirements. One of ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 11 the code requirements is this provision on any walls over six feet in length that have to be perpendicular or parallel to existing lot lines. There was concern that without this requirement, there may be some interesting looking building such as geodesic domes or things of that nature. Barnes stated he would read a statement from the Introduction of the Design Guidelines that might answer why the Guidelines and the Code is there to begin with. "These are the community adopted policies about design in these neighborhoods, Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. They guide an approach to construction that will help protect the established character of the neighborhoods while also allowing new compatible designs." He commented the established character of the neighborhoods is primarily parallel and perpendicular walls. He stated they do make a distinction between creativity and simply being different. "Creative solutions that are compatible with the desired character of a neighborhood are strongly encouraged in the neighborhoods, while designs that seek to contrast with the existing contexts simply for the sake of being different are discouraged. The Design Guidelines focus on basic principles of urban design that promote a sense of neighborhood identity and, thus, will enhance liveability for residents." Barnes commented that one of the things the Board should look at is whether or not this wall is just for the sake of being different or if it's a creative solution that will still be compatible with the desired character of the neighborhood. That is up to the Board to decide. He continued to read, "The Guidelines also promote a concept of building that is native to Fort Collins, relates to the character of building materials, the mass and form of structures, etc." He stated there is a section on building orientation on the lot and read, "Orienting the primary mass of the building parallel to the lot lines and maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block is encouraged." Barnes clarified that he believes the reason this code requirement is in the Code is to protect someone from doing something without some level of review. He commented he thinks someone can propose something that is a little longer than six feet, and if they do, it is up to the Board to determine if it is there for creativity or just simply to be different. Appellant, Chad Cox, addressed the Board. Cox stated that when he applied for this variance he had to come up with a statement of hardship, straightforward and objective, in the language of the Code. He said there is something else happening here that he feels is very important. He referenced the first petitioner who wants to change a barn into a place of work. He explained that in today's society we look back on historical properties and try to find new, viable uses for them. And in doing so there is a reinterpretation and contradiction that exists in their meaning, i.e., a barn that was meant to house tools and objects of work are now becoming interpreted into new modes of work and diagrams of working in contemporary society. He stated this was one of ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 12 the driving forces behind the idea and concept development of their design. He clarified that all the forms they are using are indigenous both to Fort Collins and to this house. He referenced page 23 of the Guidelines and read, "Orienting the primary mass of the building parallel to the lot lines and maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block is encouraged." He clarified they are not suggesting anything inappropriate and stated that all their primary mass, i.e., roof plan shows the gable is extended out the back of the house and there is a reinterpretation and reflection of the detailing of the gable on the front of the house expressed in new materials and in terms of contemporary construction methods. He stated they are not doing this simply to be different. He explained that there was no way to do an addition off any hallway, since it is a small tee hallway inside, so they had to go out the back door out of the kitchen and create a new traffic pattern to the rear of the house. Keating asked why the slanted wall in the master bedroom. Cox stated it is a continuation of the shed addition and explained that, to take the shed which was traditionally attached to the back of the house, they were looking for ways to bridge a connection between the gable. The gable cannot be widened, since it is proportionate relative to the front gable and the massing of the house itself, and they had to find a way to access into the room without going outside. So, by creating the angled wall that leads into that space they took advantage of that to create a niche for the bed. He commented the bedroom is really small, actually, and the addition is very minimal in terms of square footage for bedroom space. Without disproportionately changing the house, using the secondary mass of the shed structure and pushing it through they were able to maintain the proportions of the gable in relation to the house. It would be near impossible to do that by putting it back straight especially in relation to the garage. It kind of side steps around the garage in a way that both preserves an open space where she can sit out in the summer time and have an outdoor courtyard area, and still preserves the rear area of the house for a flower garden and a walkway space to the garage. Everything that is secondary remains secondary. Lieser asks the square footage of the new bedroom. Cox replied, after reviewing his plans, 7' by 14', not including the niche that kicks back in for the bed. Barnes interjected that if you include the walk-in closet and square it off, it would be 15' by 15'. Lieser asked that with the new construction at 450, with a new bedroom of 15' by 15', where is the other 180 square feet. ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 13 Cox stated they are removing over 140 square feet of the existing building. The bathroom is part of the master bedroom and the master bedroom closet, and a stair. He explained the rear addition, put on in the `40s, is not energy efficient and will be replaced with a new building which is up to code, modern and contemporary in it's design. Eleanor Hill, homeowner, addressed the Board and stated she drove around and looked at houses regarding the angle wall issue, and it's an old design element. She presented pictures to the Board, including the Avery House which hasa' tower, of some angled walls. The longest angled wall is 8 feet. Cox commented that the garage ate up their square footage. He stated that at the time they started this project garages were not included in the square footage for the Code and, he believes garages was adopted in March of this year. James West, lives west of the appeal property, addressed the Board and stated he is all in favor of what they want to do. He commented he knows the houses in this neighborhood are small and a little growth to them won't hurt. He stated that all the work for this project is in the back and good for the neighborhood. BOARD DISCUSSION: Stockover stated that when he first looked at the plans for this project they were a bit confusing, however, after studying them a little he feels there is minimal impact on the lot itself. So, he is inclined to be in favor of this since they are not asking for anything out of line. Keating commented he has no problem with the slanted wall but he asked about it because he is not an architect. He stated he can see the hardship regarding the square footage. Keating asked to make it a part of the record, for either staff and/or City Council members, that over the last three to four months the Board has had one or two old town homes coming before them and, in each case, they were increasing the square footage of the houses on small lots. This is primarily lots 5600 square feet, which is approximately where the new City Plan is. He stated he is using the Board as a forum to state that it appears to him that the public, and those who live in Fort Collins, want larger homes on these small lots and somebody up above should pay attention. ZBA October 9, 1997 Page 14 Barnes stated that before a motion is made and if the motion is to approve it, he feels it is important to include in it reference to the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines and the fact that you have found that this is a creative solution that is still compatible with the desired character of the neighborhood. He stated the appellants have mentioned in their letter to try and maintain a pedestrian friendly area between the garage and the addition because they are limited in room, so, this is a creative solution to deal with that. Lieser motioned to approve Appeal 2205 using the petitioner's statement of hardship, and finding that in regards to the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines it is a creative solution to maintaining both the front integrity of the house and creating a walkway between the garage and the house. Keating seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Stockover, Shannon, Lieser, Keating Nays: None OTHER BUSINESS: Barnes discussed some proposed code changes that will go to City Council in November. More information will be forthcoming for the next ZBA meeting, which is before the City Council meeting in November. Chairperson, Diane Shannon 1� ✓3 ou� Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator