Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 11/09/2000Minutes approved by the Board at the December 14, 2000 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting— November 9, 2000 8:30 am. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat I Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) Chairperson: William Stockover N Phone: 4824895 (I1) A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday November 9, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Ayraud Martin Breth Andy Miscio Steve Remington William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Thad Pawlikowski Diane Shannon STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board Sandra Kendrick, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Stockover, and roll call was taken. ZSA November 9, 2000 Page 2 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Board Member Breth to approve the minutes from the September 14, 2000 meeting. Board Member Ayraud seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. APPEAL NO.: 2314--Approved Address: 2601 Belgian Court Petitioner: Ken Connell Zone: RL Section: 4.3(D)(2)(c) Backaround: The variance would reduce the required setback from the legal, rear lot line (the west lot line) from fifteen feet to ten feet in order to allow the owner to either place a 14'x28' storage building directly abutting the west wall of the garage, or to construct a fourteen foot wide addition to the west side of the garage. Petitioner's Statement of HardshiW. This is a corner lot, wherein the front of the house faces the legal street side lot line, rather than the legal front lot line. The west lot line, by definition, is the legal rear lot line, wherein a fifteen foot setback is required. However, the west lot line actually functions as a side lot line. The code requires only a five foot minimum side yard setback, so the addition would comply with that requirement. Staff Comments: Peter Bames presented slides relevant to this appeal. The property is located on the corner of Belgian Court and Clydesdale Drive. The house faces onto Belgian Court. The street frontage, the width of the lot on Clydesdale, is narrower than the width of the street frontage of the lot on Belgian Court. By definition, the legal front property line on a corner lot is the shortest of the two street frontages. Legally, the front lot line is along Clydesdale Drive. Also by definition, the lot line adjacent to Belgian Court is the legal street side property line. The legal rear property line is the lot line that is opposite the front. The petitioner wanted some ZBA November 9, 2000 Page 3 flexibility to either construct a 14'x28' storage building which would be a separate building directly abutting the existing west wall of the garage or to construct a 14 foot wide addition onto the west side of the garage. Board member Ayraud asked what the setback would be on the legal front side. Peter Barnes stated that it is 15 feet from the lot line along Belgian Court. The existing garage is set back 20 feet from the lot line along Belgian Court. Board Member Ayraud asked if the house was rotated so that the side of the house was actually on Belgian Court, would the setback still be 15 feet. Peter Barnes said it would be 15 feet. Board Member Remington asked if a five foot setback is required for the side yard. In this particular zone, it is required that a side yard setback be five feet and a rear yard setback be 15 feet. Even though this rear lot line functions as the side lot line, the applicant has to meet the required 15 foot setback. 4 Applicant Participation: Ken Connell, 2601 Belgian Court, had no additional information other than stating this is an awkward position on the lot for a small storage facility and shop but it is the only choice he has. Board Member Breth asked the applicant about the roofline he planned to use. The applicant said it was his intention to match the existing roofline if he went with the choice of an addition. His first choice would be to purchase a pre -manufactured building called a cottage style rather than a bam style. It would have a slight gable on the front, a wooden floor and would be removable at any time. He is 90% sure that he will add a shed rather than an addition to the garage since he has not found a contractor to give him a price on the construction. The trailer that is now on the side of the house will remain there. Board Member Miscio asked if the applicant had talked to his neighbors to see if there were any objections to the building. The Applicant said he had and there is no problem. Board Discussion: Board Member Breth stated that the Board has seen reverse corner lots before many times where the side lot line is the rear lot line, and the front lot line is the back lot line. He is not opposed to granting this variance, but is concerned about the kind of structure that will go up there as far as whether it is just a shed or an actual addition to the garage. 44BA November 9, 2000 Page 4 Board Member Remington stated he is in a similar position as far as dealing with these corner lots. He does not have a problem with the variance of the setback, but asked Peter Barnes if the variance were to be approved, would a permit be required and can the shed abut the house. Peter Bames stated that they would need a permit based on the size of the shed. Any shed that exceeds eight feet in height or 120 square feet in floor area is regulated by the zoning and building code. The question of abutting a shed, especially one this big, right up against the house raises some possible building code issues. After checking with people in the Building Inspection Division, they indicated that since it would be abutting the garage, the garage and the shed are considered the same type of occupancy under the building code. They did not see the need for any special type of construction issues to be dealt with for this variance. A permit would be issued depending on whether the variance would be approved. It would have to meet building code, it would have to be anchored down in a manner that is acceptable to the building code, but not necessarily on a permanent foundation. Board Member Remington asked if there is anything in the permit process that would regulate the type of shed and how it fits the house line. Peter Barnes stated not in this particular zoning district. If the applicant wanted to build a 10'xl4' shed, 10 feet tall, and rather than put it in next to the garage they would put it in the legal side yard behind the house they would have to meet the 15 foot setback or apply for a variance. In this particular zone there is no City regulation as to what the shed looks like, how closely it mimics the roof line and other detailing of the house. Board Member Breth asked the Applicant if he has checked to see if there are any subdivision covenants or architectural control committees that would govern such an issue. The Applicant stated there were none. Board Member Ayraud stated the legal definitions do not match up with reality because of the way the house was built. If they did match up, the setback for the side would be five feet. The Applicant is asking to have a ten foot setback. There would not be a need to add conditions to the variance, because if the legal definitions matched up, he would be building the shed without a variance. Board Member Miscio agreed as long as the neighbor did not have a problem with the shed. Board Member Ayraud made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2314 based on the hardship stated. The motion was seconded by Board Member Remington. Vote: ZBA November 9, 2000 Page 5 Yeas: Miscio, Ayraud, Stockover, Breth, and Remington. Nays: None. Appeal Number 2314 was approved. APPEAL NO.2315 -- Approved Address: 5130 Timberline Road Petitioner: Vignette Studios Backaround: The variance would allow the thirty-five square foot Saddlebrook project entry sign to be located at the northeast corner of Timberline Road and Stetson Creek Drive, rather than at the entrance into the Saddlebrook housing project which is at the comer of Stillwater Creek Drive and Stetson Creek Drive. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See attached Petitioner's letter. Staff Comments Peter Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal and stated this is a variance request to allow a permanent identification sign in locations where the code does not allow them. The code in these residential zones states that a housing project or subdivision is allowed to have one sign per entrance into that subdivision or into that housing project. That sign is limited in height and size. There are four or five filings for Stetson Creek. On the north side is a townhome development which is the fifth filing. There are two entrances that serves this project exclusively. The code states that they could have one sign at each entrance, a total of two signs. Their request is to put the identification sign on the northeast corner of Timberline Road and Stetson Creek Drive and not at the actual entrances into the housing project. The variance request is to allow the sign at another location other than that of the actual entrance to the project. Some examples of similar variance requests by other developers were discussed. The wall is already constructed and the letters for Saddlebrook would be placed on this wall at Timberline Road and Stetson Creek Drive. The current entrance sign into Stetson Creek is at the southeast corner of Timberline Road and Stetson Creek Drive, which will mimic the sign at the northwest comer. There will be signs on both sides of Timberline Road and Stetson Creek Drive. 0 *A November 9, 2000 Page 6 Board Member Breth asked if the sign on Timberline Road would be the only one if the Board granted the variance. Peter Barnes stated that the Board could grant the variance with a condition that if the developer proposed any other permanent signage at the other entrances, this variance would need to be reviewed again. Without this condition, the code would allow them to place a sign at each of the other entrances. Board Member Ayraud asked if the Applicant would rather have a sign on the front entrance on Timberline Road rather than one at Stillwater Creek Drive and Stetson Creek Drive. Peter Barnes said that is the Applicant's intent, but would need to confirm that and deal with it through conditions. Board Member Remington asked if there are any other existing interior signs in the development. Peter Barnes was not aware of any. Board Member Ayraud asked if there are two signs on Stetson Creek Drive and Timberline Road, one without lettering. Peter Barnes stated that the existing sign without the lettering on the southeast corner identified Stetson Creek. The lettering was removed when they were redoing the two structures to come up with identical entry features on both sides. The one that is proposed has been constructed, although the structure has no lettering until the variance has been granted. The sign on the southeast comer was originally the only entrance into that subdivision. Board Member Miscio asked how many subdivisions are there with different names within this area. Peter Barnes stated that every subdivision filing is going to have a different name. In this case, they are all Stetson Creek - Stetson Creek 1 st, Stetson Creek 2nd, Stetson Creek 3rd, Stetson Creek 4th, Stetson Creek 5th. They are all called Stetson Creek. This is the development that we would refer to as Stetson Creek. Right now that development consists of five subdivisions, each of those subdivisions could have an identification sign at the entrance into that particular subdivision. Legally, from the City's standpoint, the name of the development is Stetson Creek, but the developer can call it whatever they want to. Board Member Miscio is concerned that there will be five signs all saying the same thing. Peter Barnes explained that usually the developer wants one sign to identify how to get into their development rather than into each housing project or subdivision filing. ZBA November 9, 2000 Page 7 Applicant Participation Terrance Hoagland from Vignette Studios stated that the proposed sign location at Timberline Road and Stetson Creek Drive is what developers perceive as the marketing entrance for people that are driving around looking for the housing project. The sign would direct them into the project. The sign at Timberline Road and Stetson Creek Drive would be the only sign that they would propose and would be willing to accept the condition that would forbid any signs at the other two entrances. If the appeal would be turned down, sign structure currently built for the water feature would stay but would not have lettering. A smaller sign would be installed at the other entrance. The Homeowners Association approved the Saddlebrook sign and so the Stetson Creek sign was remodeled to use the same water feature on both sides. Board Member Miscio prefers to have the main sign on Timberline Road and Stetson Creek Drive, and asked what function the other two signs would serve. The applicant said there would be no additional signage. The sign on the southeast side would say Stetson Creek and the one on the northeast side would say Saddlebrook. Any other signs would be proposed by the Homeowners Association. Discussion Board Member Breth saw the importance of having the identification sign on Timberline Road rather than on the other streets and does not object to having two signs on Timberline Road and Stetson Creek Drive, but would like to see a condition that no other signs would go up on Stetson Creek Drive. Board Member Remington asked Peter Barnes whether the other developments that have two signs had to obtain a variance. Examples were discussed. Board Member Remington discussed putting a condition on the fifth filing. Board Member Ayraud agreed to having the two signs at the intersection as long as there were not going to be any more signs advertising the development. Board Member Remington was concerned about consistency, the hardship, and if the Board were setting a precedent for the next subdivision. Board Member Breth stated the hardship is the entrance into Saddlebrook is not off of Timberline. Road, but off of Stetson Creek Drive, meaning the Stetson Creek entrance would have low visibility. Peter Barnes stated that when the Board has granted a variance in the past, it is because one of the qualifying entrances for the placement of a sign is very close to the arterial street. Since the Board is concerned about numerous signs appearing on Stetson Creek Drive, it would be up • *A November 9, 2000 Page 8 to the Homeowners Association to want to put up signs and be willing to pay for them. At that time the variance would need to be reconsidered. The Applicant was asked what he considered the hardship to be. He stated that Vignette Studios was under the assumption that they could put a sign on this comer and from a marketing standpoint, it would be better to have the sign on Timberline Road to direct people into the development. Board Member Ayraud questioned staff about the authority under the code, and if the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship. The answer would be a practical difficulty. Board Member Breth made a motion that we approve Appeal 2315 for the hardship with the condition that no other signs be allowed at the other entrances to Saddlebrook which would be Stillwater Creek Drive and Stetson Creek Drive. Board Member Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Ayraud, Stockover, Breth, and Remington. Nays: None. Appeal Number 2315 was approved. Other Business: Peter Barnes presented a draft of the 2001 Work Plan. This plan is to be presented to the City Clerk's Office by the end of November and then it will go to City Council. Peter Barnes mentioned that on the last variance on the sign code with one sign per entrance. There has always been the question about what is the entrance into a subdivision. He will bring to a future meeting a different type of map which shows every intersection along major arterial streets and what project that intersection serves. This will show what possible impacts there are so that if the Board is going to grant these type of variances, the Code needs to zero in on what is unique about the project that is being presented. He will also bring a before and after slide show of the sign code and how it has evolved. ZBA November 9, 2000 Page 9 The memo from Paul Eckman regarding the proposed change to the code which expands the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant variances was discussed. Miscio asked that the definition of hardship be discussed. Paul Eckman discussed the terms "hardship" and "practical difficulties". The Planning and Zoning Board has also struggled with the new standard as will the Zoning Board of Appeals if it is passed. The new standard says that the proposal as submitted will advance or protect the public interest and purposes of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than a proposal which complies with the standard would. Peter Barnes stated the introductory language to the standard would state that the granting of the variance would neither be detrimental to public good nor authorize any change in use, etc. The Board would have to decide whether it advances the public interest equally well or better than a standard. A training session will be necessary,to determine how specific findings show the proposal as submitted meets the requirements and criteria. Some examples were discussed. Board Member Remington made a motion that the Board recommend approval of the change to Section 2.10.2(1) of the Land Use Code. Board Member Miscio seconded the motion. The City Clerk's Office and the City Attorney's Office will be conducting a training session after the fast of the year for Board members on various things including conflicts of interest, liability issues, etc. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Ayraud, Stockover, Breth, and Remington. Nays: None. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m. I C-L-- - /)u ,'gGt t v.at-. William Stockover, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator