Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/09/1994ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 9, 1994 Regular Meeting 8:30am Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 9, 1994 in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll was answered by Perica, Michelena, Gustafson, Clark, Cuthbertson, Huddleson. Board members absent: Anastasio. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gustafson. Council Liaison: Staff Liaison: Staff Support Present: Ann Azari Peter Barnes Peter Barnes Ann Chantler Paul Eckman The minutes from the May meeting were approved. Appeal 2104, 512 Owl Court, by James and Dawn Mitamura, approved. Section 29-148 and 29-133(4). The variance would reduce the required rear setback from 15' to 11' for a portion of a proposed porch cover to be built over an existing concrete patio slab. ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The patio slab is existing and the owners desire to build a porch cover over the slab. The home is built at an angle to the rear property line, so only part of the cover will be closer than 151. The south side of the lot is shallow (at 811) so there is not much lot depth to work with at the part of the house where the slab is located. The lot is an irregular shaped lot, where the north lot line is almost twice as long as the south lot line. ----- Staff comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated the patio was poured at the time of construction. Mr. Barnes referred to a variance granted a year ago with the same circumstances. Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 1994 Page 2 James Mitamura, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated the back side of the house faces west and the patio gets very hot. By covering the patio the house would be cooler and the patio more useable. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board member Huddleson stated this was a classical case of the configuration of the lot and moved to approve this appeal for the hardship stated. Board member Perica seconded the motion. Yeas: Perica, Michelena, Gustafson, Clark, Cuthbertson, Huddleson. The motion passed. The Board moved this appeal to the end of the agenda as no one was present to support this appeal. The Board then moved to table this appeal to the next month's meeting because no one ever showed up. ----- The applicant is appealing a staff determination. The applicant is desiring to obtain a building permit for a 50' x 50' metal building, 18' high which would be placed on his 47,600 square foot lot, as an accessory, detached, building. City staff has classified the building as a principal building because of its size. Such and principal building and use is not permitted in the RL zone. The applicant is appealing this determination, and believes it should be classified as an accessory building and use. The building will be used for storage of the owner's R.V., boat, trailer and other material. The building would comply with all required setbacks and the owner will plant tress to provide some screening of the building. The applicant believes that his proposed building and size are consistent with other buildings which have been approved by the City. The applicant owns the building which is currently sitting on land he owns in Iowa. ----- Staff Comments: Section 29-456 of the Zoning Code defines an Accessory Building and Use as a "subordinate use of a building, other structure or tract of land, or a subordinate building or other structure, which is: Zoning Board of Appeals June 9,'1994 Page 3 1) Clearly incidental to the use of the principal building, other structure or use of land; 2) Customary in connection with the principal building, other structure or use of the land; 3) Ordinarily located on the same lot with the principal building, other structure or use of land. It is staff's opinion that the proposed 2500 square foot building does comply with criteria (1) and (3) above. However, staff believes that the building does not comply with criteria (2) because it is not customary to have a large, detached accessory building of this nature in a residential neighborhood. The code allows detached garages or storage buildings in such neighborhoods when they are of a size which is customary or common for a particular neighborhood. While the petitioners's lot is large, it is located in an RL zone which is characterized by one story homes, most of which are on normal size lots. The other detached buildings in the neighborhood appear to be about the size of a standard two -car garage (400-500 square feet). Staff believes that while the proposed use of the building is customary, the 2500 square foot size is not customary in connection with the principal building of the lot, which is a single-family dwelling. Therefore, the structure should not be classified as an accessory or subordinate building. Instead, the building should be considered a principle building. As a principal building, used for storage, it is not permitted use in the RL zone. The petitioner has presented staff with photographs of three accessory buildings which he believes have set a precedent for his proposal. The largest of the buildings is 1408 square feet, and it is located on a lot that is 2.3 acres in size. As specified in Section 29-41 (a) of the Code, the Boards decision should be "in harmony with the purpose and intent of Articles III and IV and in accordance with the public interest and the most appropriate development of the neighborhood." Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 1994 Page 4 Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes reviewed the process and reminded the Board they needed to affirm, modify or reverse the staff decision. Mr. Barnes stated Mr. Pettigrew wants to construct a 50' X 50' detached building on his lot. Mr. Barnes stated the staff decision was that the size of the building was out of character for the neighborhood. The lot is located on the corner of Taft Hill and Lake. Mr. Barnes showed the Board slides of other locations that Mr. Pettigrew submitted pictures of, believing them to be similar to his proposal. Mr. Barnes stated Mr. Pettigrew has a large lot, but no other lot has a detached building of that size. Mr. Barnes reviewed accessory building use. Mr.Pettigrew, owner, appeared before the Board. He stated he owns the building, would like to relocate it in Fort Collins and would plant trees and shrubs to soften the building. He stated he talked to the neighbor on the north, and he had no problem with the appeal. Board member Perica asked Mr. Pettigrew what "other material" he would store in the building. Mr. Pettigrew stated he would store farm equipment, lawn mowers, etc. Board member Michelena stated the size of the building appeared to be a problem fitting in, or being in "harmony" with the neighborhood was a problem. Mr. Pettigrew stated he would locate the building towards the back of the lot. Mr. Pettigrew submitted pictures of other buildings that "did not fit in the neighborhood" either. Board member Huddleson stated this was unusual, no one else had buildings that were this large. No one was present in favor.or in opposition of this appeal. Jim Waterson, a member of the audience, but not a neighbor to this property, stated that since this was a steel building and it had to be taken apart to be moved, it could be made shorter and more compact. Board member Perica asked Mr. Pettigrew if he did not already own the building in Iowa, would he construct a smaller building. Mr. Pettigrew stated he would. t 0 0 Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 1994 Page 5 Board member Perica moved to affirm the decision of the Zoning staff, adding that Mr. Pettigrew could build a smaller.structure. Board member Huddleson seconded the motion. Yeas: Perica, Gustafson, Clark, Cuthbertson, Huddleson. The motion passed. Appeal 2107. 6101 South Lemay by Rob Layton, landscape architect, denied. Section 29-591(6). ----- The variance would allow more than one subdivision identification sign at an entrance into a subdivision Specifically, the variance would allow a 14 square foot sign to be located on each of the two entry wall structures. One entry wall is located on the north- west corner of South Lemay and Fossil Creek, the other entry wall will be located on the southwest corner of South Lemay and Fossil Creek. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The configuration of the intersection, along the required landscaping along Lemay, does not lend itself neatly to functioning with a two-faced ground sign. The entry wall structures will be built anyway, and the owner desires to place a sign on each wall. The signs will be smaller than the 35 square foot per face ground sign that is allowed. The sign faces are integrated into the wall, and should be less intrusive than a double-faced, freestanding sign. ----- Staff Comments: None Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated the code only allows one sign per entry into a subdivision. Mr. Alex Bishoff of Design Concepts appeared before the Board. He submitted photo's of similar situations. Mr. Barnes reviewed the sign code regulations and currently adopted amendments. 1 • • Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 1994 Page 6 Board member Huddleson stated he needed a clear understanding of the hardship. Mr. Bishoff stated they wanted to develop a "high class" design effect. The sign indicated the development image. No one was present in favor or in opposition of this appeal. Board chairman Gustafson stated the sign would look nicer as proposed and if the subdivision had two filings, no variance would be needed. City Attorney, Paul Eckman, reviewed the charge of the Board. Board member Huddleson stated he could not find a hardship with this case. Board member Michelena agreed. Board member Perica stated although the proposed sign would be attractive, the Board needed to find a hardship and he agreed with Huddleson and Michelena that there was not a hardship. Board member Huddleson moved to deny Appeal 2107 for a lack of hardship. Board member Perica seconded the motion. Yeas: Perica, Michelena, Clark, Cuthbertson, Huddleson. Nayes: Gustafson. The motion passed. Appeal 2108 122 W Laurel by Bob Piccaro owner. denied. Section 29-303. The variance would reduce the required lot area from two times as large as the floor area of the building, to 1.52 times as large as the floor area. Specifically, the variance would allow a 2610 square foot addition to the B & B Pickle Barrel restaurant (405 sq. ft. let floor, 2205 sq ft. second floor addition). The addition would be for more floor area for the restaurant and associated office space. The lot size is 7840 square feet. 1 0 0 Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 1994 Page 7 ----- Petitioner's statement of hardship: The kitchen of the restaurant needs to be enlarged. The building footprint will be enlarged only slightly. The restaurant is quite crowded and the traffic flow needs to be improved. There is no additional land available to buy. Up until two years ago, this property was zoned BG, and a variance would not have been required. A number the other buildings in the block built a second floor addition under the old zoning, and the owner would like to be able to do what others have done. ----- Staff Comments: None Board member Perica had to leave the meeting at this time and was excused. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes stated this was now zoned BL, limited business, this property used to be BG. Board member Perica asked Mr. Barnes if the owner of this property chould reqeust a change of zoning for this one property. Mr. Barnes stated to change just this one property would be spot zoning which is not allowed in the City. Owner, Bob Piccaro, appeared before the Board. He submitted some photos of properties in the neighborhood of properties that have added on second story. Mr. Barnes stated these additions were added under the BG zoning. He stated they would like to expand the kitchen to improve traffic flow, put a patio on the second floor and take the patio dining off the sidewalk and would like to keep with the character of the neighborhood as well as improve the neighborhood. He stated all fire and health codes will be in compliance. Jim Waterson, owner of Roberto's Burritos, appeared before the Board in support of this appeal. He stated he had designs to add a second story to his property also, and would have to apply for a variance too, when the time came. Mr. Waterson stated there has been an increase in business over the years, an increase in the amount of people in the area and an increase in trash. Board member Huddleson stated because a certain area's zoning has been changed, that does not make it a hardship, and he felt the property itself does not present a hardship. 0 • Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 1994 Page 8 Board member Gustafson stated by changing the zoning it has presented a hardship in this case. Board member Perica stated if this Board granted this variance, it tranforms ZBA into a different body with a different charge. Board member Michelena stated if this variance was granted, then it would negate the zoning as it is. Paul Eckman, City Attorneys office, stated zoning in itself is not considered a hardship. He also stated the buildings that presently stand in this zone are non -conforming structures, if they were to burn down and not be rebuilt in a proper length of time, they could not be rebuilt in this way. Board member Huddleson stated down -zoning cannot be a hardship, and he could not find anything about the lot that would present a hardship. Board member Huddleson moved to deny Appeal 2108 for a lack of hardship. Board member Clark seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Clark, Cuthbertson, Huddleson. Nayes: Michelena The motion passed. The meeting was adjourned. Robert Gustafson,.ZBA Chair Peter Barnes, Zoning Admin. 0 11, 'f -v 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 9, 1994 1. Roll call. 2. Appeal 2104. The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15' to 11' for a portion of a proposed porch cover to be built over an existing concrete patio slab. Section 29-148 and 29-133(4) by James & Dawn Mitamura, 512 Owl Ct.. 3. Appeal 2105. The variance would allow a housing project ID sign to be located at the project at a location other than at an entrance to the project. Section 29-591(6) by Steve Pink, P.A. Signs, 2212 Vermont Drive. 4. Appeal 2106. The applicant is appealing a staff determination. The applicant is desiring to obtain a building permit for a 501X50' metal building, 18' high which would be placed on his 47,600 square foot lot, as an accessory, detached, building. City staff has classified the building as a principal building because of its size. Such a principal building and use, is not permitted in the RL zone. The applicant is appealing this determination, and believes it should be classified as an accessory building and use. The building will be used for storage of the owner's R.V., boat, trailer and other material. The building would comply with all required setbacks and the owner will plant trees to provide some screening of the building. The applicant believes that his proposed building and size are consistent with other buildings which have been approved by the City. The applicant owns the building which is currently sitting or land he owns in Iowa. Section by Larry Pettigrew, 1497 S, Taft Hill Road. 5. Appeal 2107. The variance would allow more than on subdivision identification sign at an entrance into subdivision. Specifically, the variance would allow a ' square foot sign to be located on each of two entry wa. structures. One entry wall is to be located on the northwe corner of S. Lemay and Fossil Creek, the other entry wa will be located on the southwest corner of S. Lemay and FosE Creek. Section 29-591(6) by Rob Layton, 6101 S. Lemay Aveni 6. Appeal 2108. The variance would reduce the required lot a from two times as large as the floor area of the building, 1.52 times as large as the floor area. Specifically, variance would allow a 2610 square foot addition to the Pickle Barrel restaurant (405 sq. ft. 1st floor, 2205 sq. second floor addition). The addition would be for more f ! 0 area for the restaurant and associated office space. The lot size is 7840 square feet. Section 29-303 by Bob Piccaro, 122 W. Laurel Street. 7. ether business.