Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 05/10/2007FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — May 10, 2007 8:30 a.m. 11 Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 11 Chairperson: Dwight Hall 11 11 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Daggett Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Andy Miscio Jim Pisula BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dwight Hill Dana McBride STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Angelina Sanchez -Sprague, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Donahue asked that the minutes be revised to reflect his vote on Case 2572. Donahue made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 14, 2007 meeting as revised. Daggett seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 3. APPEAL NO. 2575 —Approved Address: 1015 S. Taft Hill Drive Petitioner: Carolyn Alexander Zone: NC Section: 3.8.7(E)(10) Background: The variance will allow Snap Fitness to have two wall signs on the north fascia of the building in front of their tenant space instead of the one sign allowed. Snap Fitness currently has one sign which is partially hidden from view by the projecting portion of the fascia in front of one of their ZBA May 10, 2007— Page 2 main entrances. A new sign is proposed to be placed on the portion of the canopy fascia that projects in front of the canopy on which their current sign is located. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The portion of the fascia to which the new sign is proposed to be mounted previously held a second sign for the previous tenant, Rent -A -Center. At that time, Rent -A -Center occupied the current SNAP Fitness space as well as the adjacent 1200 square feet to the east of SNAP that is currently vacant. There is available space for signage directly in front of the adjacent vacant space and this request does not impact that location at all. The other two similar situations of projecting fascia at Cedarwood Plaza each have two separate tenants in the same amount of space that SNAP is currently occupying. In these cases, each tenant has fascia matching the line of their store front in one flat plane. SNAP is the only tenant that has this situation of the store front not being parallel to the canopy fascia. The resulting jog in the plane of the fascia limits the visibility of the existing sign from the street and from the entrance into the shopping center. The code allows each tenant to have one wall sign provided the length of the sign doesn't exceed 75% of the width of the tenant storefront. The combined 24' 4" length of the two signs will only be 53% of the total width of the storefront, well under what would be allowed for one sign. Staff Comments: This is somewhat of an unusual situation because if the canopy fascia was all in the same plane, this would not be an issue. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. Due to Cedarwood Plaza's architectural design, most of the canopy fascia runs parallel to the store fronts, except where it juts out including directly in front of the SNAP Fitness' main entrance. This property is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The regulations allow each tenant to have one wall sign provided the length of the sign doesn't exceed 75% of the width of the tenant storefront. The combined 24' 4" length of the proposed two signs will only be 53% of the total width of the storefront. The issue is whether two signs should be allowed. Dickson asked if it would be the same situation if both signs were on the same plane. Barnes presented an example of signage proposed at a Walgreen's store. They proposed three signs ... the name, the photo shop and the pharmacy spread out along the widht of the store. After revising the signs by grouping them in one location, the net affect was one sign that read Photo _Walgreens_Pharmacy. Another logo would have been problematic. Applicant Participation: Carolyn Alexander, 830 Sandy Cove noted her main concern is their main door is under the jog in the fascia and it cannot be seen by people entering the shopping center. People looking for them cannot find them. Additionally, it is unclear from the sign they currently have whether it's a fitness center or whether they sell fitness accessories. They are severely limited ... the placement and size of the sign does not reflect their space/purpose for the potential customers of this new business. Board Discussion: Many members agreed the request seems reasonable and that they were not fully using the total signage allowed. Additionally, they believed a hardship exists. Donahue expressed some reservations about the sign code's intent, which is to reduce sign clutter, but he could see where a hardship exists. Miscio did not see where it adds clutter in this particular ZBA May 10, 2007— Page 3 situation. It's only a small area. In fact, it appears as if it fits with others in the context of the neighborhood. Miscio made a motion to approve appeal number 2575 because the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and there are extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property which precludes the occupant from having a sign that conforms with the sign code. That situation was created neither by commission or omission by the occupant. In addition, the code allows a certain sign length and their proposed combined signs fall well below that. In some ways, the proposal as submitted will promote the general purposes of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. Daggett seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 4. APPEAL NO. 2576 —Approved with Condition Address: 729 Peterson Street Petitioner: Larry Dunn Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(E)(3),4.8(D)(1) Background: The variance will reduce the required rear yard setback along the west lot line from will reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 2 to 1 to 1.93 to 1 in order construction of a new 2-car detached garage which will be accessed from Plum garage is proposed to be 600 square feet, and to comply with the garage would not be allowed to exceed 489 square feet. The converted from a triplex to a single family home. 15' to 3% and to allow the Street. The lot area to floor area ratio, the home on this lot was recently Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: This lot does not have an existing garage and the only place to construct one is at the rear of the house. However, this is a shallow lot for this part of town, and even a one -car, detached garage would require a rear setback variance due to the size of the back yard. The two lots that abut this property contain garages that are right on the lot line, so granting a setback variance for this proposed garage would be in keeping with the context of the immediately adjacent lots. The owner is also converting this home from a triplex to a single family home, so the activity associated with this lot will be considerable less than the current situation. Staff Comments: The lot depth of 90' is shallow for this part of the city. Therefore, shallowness'can be considered as a hardship. However, since the standard width of a detached 2-car garage is between 20' and 24', the board could require that the width of the garage be decreased slightly. This would result in a greater setback and in a smaller garage, which would be more in compliance with the lot area ratio requirement. If the Board considers granting a variance, a condition requiring removal of the existing shed should be made part of the motion. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to this appeal. The residence is at the corner of Peterson & Plum. Like many lots in the downtown area it has been reconfigured over the years and the net result is a lot that is only 9 feet deep. Other lots adjacent to the property and on the same block are considerably deeper. Additionally, properties to the north and east have garages that were ZBA May 10, 2007— Page 4 built on the lot line. This application is asking for two variance requests —the first to reduce the required lot area to floor area ratio from 2 to 1 to 1.93 to 1 and the second to request a variance for a 3 foot setback. Normally when lots are on the alley, there is only a five foot setback requirement. Because this lot does not have an alley, the setback requirement is 15 feet. Applicant Participation: Larry Dunn resides at 729 Peterson. Their home does not currently have a garage. He currently uses a shed in the location of the proposed garage for storage. In addition to space for two cars, he would like to have an area for a home shop. Miscio asked why a 600 square foot garage. Would he consider a 489 square foot garage with a larger setback from the lot line? Dunn replied that over a year ago, upon learning that a 600 square foot structure is normally allowed, he proceeded with developing plans using that information. Misco asked if they'd keep the tree that is aligned at the end of the lot in the area between the sidewalk and the street. Dunn replied yes. He'd spoken to the City Forester and plans to eliminate the grass and to create a shared driveway with his adjacent neighbor to preserve the tree. The neighbor, Jack Miller, has agreed with that plan. Miller, who resides at 1205 W.Oak Street and owns the home at 330 E. Plum, spoke. He read a letter that stated he agrees to the proposed plans and asks only that the garage have gutters installed if the roof slope runs from east to west and the Dunns remain the owners and occupants and do not convert the property to rental property. Board Discussion: Initially board members stated they were having trouble finding a reason for allowing the variances because they believed the hardship was self-imposed. They believed that if he reduced the size of the structure, it could be built further from the lot line. Dickson noted that one car garages in the old town neighborhoods was more the norm. In her opinion not having a two garage, in the context of the neighborhood, did not constitute a hardship. The Board also had reservations about setting precedence for a 3 foot setback (when the requirement in this case was 15 feet.) The Board agreed to proceed evaluating the merits of the requests considering each separately. Donahue agreed that the floor to lot area ratio was nominal considering they wanted to move from a requirement of 2 to 1 to 1.93 to 1 with a 600 square foot garage. They could also consider the home is on a corner lot and the parkway between the sidewalk and the street added to the open space in this situation (a similar finding that the Board has applied for othe corner lots in the old town areas). Donahue asked Dunn about the placement of the garage 5 feet from the home. Miscio wondered if they had considered attaching the garage to the home. Dunn responded that besides an insurance issue, there was a problem with planning the driveway to the garage because of the placement of the existing, large tree in the parkway which they were trying to preserve. The Board concluded that due to the tree and the shallowness of the lot, a hardship exists and could be justification for a 3 foot setback. The tree limits where a garage can be placed on the lot. Donahue made a motion to approve appeal number 2576 with regard to the request for the variance to a 1.93 to 1 floor to lot area ratio because granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal as submitted would not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of ZBA May 10, 2007— Page 5 the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 considering the property is on a corner lot with parkway. The approval is conditioned on the removal of the shed on the northwest corner of the lot. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Miscio, Pisula Nays: Dickson made a motion to approve appeal number 2576 with regard to the request for a three foot setback because the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good and there are exceptional physical conditions or extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property which is the subject of the appeal as follows: a shallow lot not allowing much room for a garage to be placed, a number of garages in the neighborhood abutting the property line, and a very large tree at the end of what would be a driveway for the property so that it would be difficult to put the garage anywhere else than where its proposed. The approval is conditioned on this property remaining as a single family residence to control the clutter of activity for the neighborhood. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Donahue, Miscio, Pisula Nays: 5. Other Business: Both Alison Dickson & Jim Pisula will be out of town at the time of the next regular meeting — Thursday, June 14`". The meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m. .Dwrg—ht Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Building and Zoning Services City of Ft. Collins, CO May 10, 2007 Ann. Mr. Peter Barnes, Administrator Re: Letter, dated April, 27, 2007 This letter addresses a request for variance from the Zoning Code, City of Ft. Collins. I have been acquainted with Mr. Dunn for several years through Colorado State University related activities. Now, he is our neighbor next door to our property at 330 East Plum Street. Lary and I have discussed his wishes to build the garage described within the letter and have come to this agreement : L That the garage unit have gutters installed if the roof slope is east and west. 2. That he remains the owner and occupant of said home at 729 Peterson Street and not convert it back into a rental unit, for there is one of those west of 330 East Plum Street, at 326 East Plum. The owner of that particular property seems to be concerned with rental monies alone, for it is a neighborhood blight. Mr. Dunn has done an exemplary amount of quality work on his new dwelling and it has become a showplace. The grounds are excellent, as well. My wife and I, as owners of the Plum Street property, will enjoy having his family as neighbors .Please grant the variance requested. yp Sincerely, Jack and Frances Miller 1205 Fort West Oak Street For[ Collins, CO 80521 482-3 706