Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 02/14/2008FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — February 14, 2008 8:30 a.m. IICouncil Liaison: Kelly Ohlson 1IStaff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 IlChairperson: Dwight Hall II 11 A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 14, 2008 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: Michael Bello Alison Dickson Dwight Hall Dana McBride Jim Pisula David Shands EXCUSED ABSENCES: Ronald Daggett STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Lynn Suess, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Pisula made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 13, 2008 meeting. Dickson seconded the motion. Motion approved. Vote: Yeas: Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula Nays: None Abstain: Bello, Shands 3. APPEAL NO. 2596 - DENIED Address: 309 S. Sherwood Street Petitioner: Nancy L. Bryan Zone: NCM Section: 3.8.11(C)(3) ZBA February 14, 2008— Page 2 Background: The variance will allow a new fence along the south lot line to exceed 6 feet in height above the original grade of the lot. Specifically, portions of the picket section will be 10' 9" above the original grade and a 4 foot wide brick column will be about 12 feet above the original grade. The pickets themselves are generally 6 feet in height or shorter. The majority of the existing fence along the south lot line will remain. There will be 52 feet new fencing. A portion of the new fence which is more than 6 feet above the original grade is a result of the stormwater requirement that the elevation of the new house be raised above the original elevation. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The Stormwater requirement to raise the grade results in a unique situation wherein this house sits higher than the surrounding homes. The applicant and the owners of the property to the south have worked together regarding a fence design that would address privacy concerns. Staff Comments: The approximately 50 feet of new fencing that is in excess of the height requirement is only about 25% of the total length of the side lot line, and it appears to be just in the area that is mostly directly opposite the neighbor's house. The neighbors are in favor of the proposal in order to maintain a level of visual privacy that they feel existed prior to the Stormwater Department to elevate the new structure. The Board may determine that this is nominal and inconsequential since most of the visual impact of the fence area in question is limited to the area adjacent to both houses, thus minimizing the view from the street. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. Barnes stated that 309 South Sherwood is an old town neighborhood property with Olive Street to the north and Magnolia to the South. The Stormwater Utility Department has required the house to be elevated because it's in a flood plain. The applicants also need to be aware that a flood plain use permit for the fence is required. Katherine Woods and Christopher Koziol, the property owners at 315 South Sherwood Street that will be sharing this fence, have also forwarded a letter to the City regarding this appeal. The fence ordinance limits front yard fences to 4 feet and all other fences to 6 feet. Measurements are taken from the original grade of the lot. The older house on this site has been demolished; a new house is being constructed to replace it. The fence will be constructed on the lot line between 315 South Sherwood and this property. The fence height variance is requested for the recessed area which will be the patio of the new home. A 6 foot high concrete wall would be constructed and then pickets will be placed on top of that wall. Applicant's Participation: Nancy Bryan is the owner of the property at 309 South Sherwood. She and her husband currently reside at 2144 Raintree Drive, Apartment 0281. Her husband, George Bryan, made the presentation. He placed a 2 foot piece of wood upright on the floor and said that with the elevation of the new house, that is the extent of privacy there will be between their neighbor's house and their own new house. He requested that the board consider this request for privacy because their living room and bedrooms are on that side of the house. Hall asked about the purpose of the concrete portion of the fence. Bob Sutter with Architectural Horizons is the architect working with the Bryans on this new home. He stated the entire patio area will be raised 4 feet and the concrete is a retaining wall that holds back the grade allowing the patio to be filled. Mr. Bryan has a disability and is unable to negotiate steps. The house has been designed to accommodate this disability and the patio was raised to place it at the floor level of the house. A small planter bed will be placed on the outside of the wall. Dickson asked if the neighbors to the south were to raze their house, would they also have to elevate the new house the same amount for the flood plain. Sutter replied that would probably be true and that the corner house to the north also had to be elevated. Dickson then asked if the flood plain extends the entire length of the house. Sutter replied that the flood plain goes through the entire house and that the crawl space is set up so water can flow through it. There are break away ZBA February 14, 2008— Page 3 vents in the crawl space that will allow 3 to 3 %feet of water in the crawl space if there is another 500 year flood. Sutter stated that about 42 feet of the fence will be above that 6 foot height and that the ends will taper down. The fence will have staggered pickets so it will look nice on both sides. Hall asked about the brick portion of the fence. Sutter replied that the brick portion is designed to provide a solid anchor for their work counter. Bello asked if it was true that there was no need for a fence variance on the north side because there is enough distance between the homes. Sutter replied there is no need because there are no outdoor living spaces on the north side of the house. Audience Participation: Christopher Koziol resides at 315 South Sherwood. Mr. Koziol stated that the Bryans have been very accommodating given the constraints they are facing. He stated the Bryans have allowed them to comment and have provided the visual privacy needed between their bedrooms and kitchen. He requested that the board inform city council that he feels there will be many more angry neighbors because of the way the flood plain standards are being applied. Hillary Foshee and Mike Sherman, 301 South Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. Mr. Sherman stated they do not oppose the variance, but have a statement. Their property is on the north side of the Bryan's property at the southwest corner of Sherwood and Olive Street. The three points they put forth were: (1) they do not necessarily feel that this request for a variance of Code Section 3.8.11(C)(3) meets the three criteria under which variances are granted: the application of this regulation clearly would not result in a peculiar and practical difficulty or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of 309 South Sherwood Street; (2) they want to go on record that they will oppose any future requests for a modification of this particular section of the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins on the same property regardless of the location on that property but particularly any place on the north edge of the property; and (3) some changes do not promote the integrity, stability and beauty of the area. He stated they feel in general fences in old town residential properties above 6 feet in height and especially upwards of 11 and 12 feet do not preserve nor promote the integrity and beauty of old town Fort Collins. Hall stated that he was trying to understand if Ms. Foshee and he are opposed to it. Mr. Sherman said they wanted to ensure that approving this variance would not set a precedence and that it was felt that they would promote that by being present at today's hearing. Carl Denton, 301 South Whitcomb. Mr. Denton also owns property at 306 South Whitcomb. He stated he felt the house was too large and tall for the lot size. He also presented a letter from Natalie Beaver, the owner of property at 322 South Whitcomb stating she is also opposed to the variance. Generally, he felt that large houses like this are ruining the quaintness of old town Fort Collins. Hall asked him about the proximity of his house to the Bryans. Mr. Denton stated his property almost backs up to it. Hall asked if his objection was to the size of the house or to the fence in particular. Mr. Denton stated that his objection was to the fence in addition to the house; the house is too big for the neighborhood and the lot and is ruining the neighborhood. Hall asked if the house were smaller but there was still an issue with the flood plain and privacy, would he be in favor of the fence. Mr. Denton replied that the house could have been designed with the patio towards the back so there wouldn't be privacy issues. Hall then asked Denton to reiterate if he is fundamentally opposed to the fence. Denton replied that he is, as is Natalie Beaver. Joe Herschman lives at 300 South Whitcomb. He stated that if the neighbors to the south want the fence, then he doesn't formally oppose the fence. He did state the house is contrary to the entire neighborhood, will never fit into old town character, and sets a bad precedence for new construction. ZBA February 14, 2008— Page 4 Rebekah Mooney, 310 South Whitcomb. Ms. Mooney stated she is not opposed to the privacy fence for the neighbors to the south, but wants to go on the record as opposing big homes being built in the quaint neighborhood. Board Discussion: Bello asked staff why the issues were not addressed at the time the building permit was issued. Barnes responded that detailed site plans showing fences are not provided at the time of building permit application. He stated that the house did meet requirements for the lot area to floor area ratio and that on a lot this size, a proposed house could be as large as 4,750 square feet. Since the design complied with the code, the fence was not part of the original permit review. Hall asked Eckman if someone's disability is a consideration in a hardship situation. Eckman replied that the uniqueness has to do with the property, not the owner. McBride asked if there was a limit to the size of a retaining wall on a property line. Barnes responded that a retaining wall is regulated the same as a fence; i.e., a retaining wall behind the front wall of the house is limited to six feet in height. Dickson stated she felt most of the concerns were centered around the height and mass of the house, and this hearing is a public method for people to voice their displeasure with the height and mass. She stated she did not know if it was a hardship, nominal, or equal to or better than. Mr. Hall stated that he did not see a way to justify it from the board's perspective. McBride stated he felt there were architectural alternatives and the apparent 12 foot fence could be avoided. Shands stated that he felt the need for privacy was justification for the variance because it benefits both of the neighbors. Hall then asked if one of the board members could provide a justification. Shands stated he felt it was nominal and inconsequential to the neighborhood. Most of the public comments related to the size of the house, not the fence. Pisula agreed, stating that the two parties most affected by this would be benefited by the fence installation. Pisula felt it is a nominal and inconsequential justification. McBride reiterated that a precedence is being set with a 6 foot retaining wall and a six foot fence on top of that retaining wall. Barnes stated that it is up to the board to determine if a precedence is being set. Eckman stated that there are two sides to the precedence issue: legal and political. From the legal standpoint, he stated a precedence is not being set. There is always a right to change course if it is decided it is wrong and make a right decision in the future. On the political side, it becomes more difficult because a person might feel morally compelled to follow the same course as has been politically followed in the past. McBride asked if the retaining wall is installed. Barnes replied that it was not as of last week. McBride made a motion to deny appeal number 2593 for the following reasons. The applicant has not satisfied the criteria necessary to justify a hardship or variance. The applicant has not shown the proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose for the standard for which the variance is requested. There is a solution that could meet the code and still provide the parties with the privacy they desire. Hall seconded the motion. The motion was denied. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Dickson, Hall, McBride Nays: Pisula, Shands ZBA February 14, 2008— Page 5 4. APPEAL NO. 2597 - APPROVED Address: 2402 Ballard Ln Petitioner: Mark Foster Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(E)(3) Background: The variance will allow the width of the garage door of the proposed home to comprise more than 50% of the width of the ground floor building frontage. Specifically, the width of the garage door will comprise 53% of the width of the home. The home is 30 feet wide and the garage door is 16'. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: A 16' wide door is the normal size for a two -car garage. This requires that the home be at least 32' wide. This corner lot is not wide enough to accommodate a 32' wide home within the required setbacks. Staff Comments: The board may determine that the granting of the variance for the garage door width is nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood since (A) there would be only 2 homes out of 260 homes which would be out of compliance, and (B) the deviation from 50% to 53% is minimal. 5. APPEAL NO. 2598 - APPROVED Address: 2450 Ballard Ln Petitioner: Mark Foster Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(E)(3), 3.5.2(D)(2) Background: The variance will allow the width of the garage door of the proposed home to comprise more than 50% of the width of the ground floor of the building frontage. Specifically, the width of the garage door will comprise 53% of the width of the home. The home is 30 feet wide and the garage door is 16 feet wide. The variance will also reduce the required side yard setback along Clarion Lane from 15' to 14' 5 1/2" for the new proposed house. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: The board may determine that the granting of the variance for the garage door width is nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood since (A) there would be only 2 homes out of 260 homes which would be out of compliance, and (B) the deviation from 50% to 53% is minimal. Staff Presentation: Appeals 2597 and 2598 were heard simultaneously. Barnes submitted slides relevant to the applications. With the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997, standards for single family homes were set to mitigate garages from dominating the streetscape. The code requires, among other things, that garage doors comprise no more than 50% of the width of the front of the house. The garage doors at these two properties are 16' in width and comprise 53% of the width. The petitioner has indicated that constructing these houses with a one -car garage would be out of character and incompatible with the neighborhood. Petitioner has also indicated that the homes designed for these lots are as small as possible. The lot width for Appeal 2597 is 50.76 feet and Appeal 2598 has a 49.46 foot lot. The applicant is also requesting an approximate 6 inch setback on the side lot on Appeal 2598 the rationale being they want to put the same model on the end of the block, but the lot is approximately % to 1 foot shorter than the other lots. Hall asked if the garage door size would be 16'. Barnes responded that it was ZBA February 14, 2008— Page 6 Applicant's Participation: Larry Buckendorf with Journey Homes, 7251 West 20'" Street, Greeley, Colorado. Buckendorf was accompanied by Mark Foster, project manager for the Maple Hills Subdivision. Buckendorf stated that the subject lots are the only two that narrow in the entire subdivision of 260 lots. Journey Homes designed a specific plan that will fit on the subject lots, given that corner lots require greater setbacks than interior lots. The houses have not been built yet because they first want the variance approved. Journey Homes did not plat the subdivision and therefore inherited the two narrow lots which are creating this hardship. Buckendorf stated that this is an entry-level home buyer subdivision, and two car garages are very important to the consumer. It would be very difficult to sell a unit with a one car garage. Hall asked if the 6 inch side yard setback would be on the street side. Buckendorf responded yes, that it would be 14' 51/2". Hall asked if Journey Homes has verified there will not be similar issues with the other lots. Buckendorf stated that was correct. He stated there are seven other narrow lots within the subdivision, but they're not corner lots, and the plan is to bump out the wall 2 feet to meet the 50% requirement. Bello asked if the board didn't like the requested approach, if Journey Homes would find it acceptable to build a 32 foot home which would then comply with the garage door standard but not the setback standard, which would then require a setback variance instead. Buckendorf responded that he would prefer to do that since that plan has better curb appeal. It is not much more expensive to construct and would be better for the consumer. Buckendorf also stated that it was his impression that the proposed variance would have a much less nominal impact with the 3% garage overage rather than a 2 foot floor plan increase. A 2 foot or 2 Y2 foot encroachment onto a 15 foot side yard setback is nominal to the lay person on two lots out of a 260 lot subdivision and a 13 foot side yard setback is very appropriate for the buffer that he believes was intended by the code provision. Barnes stated that the property owners would need to be renotified if the variance is changed to a setback variance; therefore, no action could be taken today. Hall suggested that the board hear the appeals before them today. If the applicant wants to come back and request a different action, that can be done. Buckendorf stated he would prefer to proceed with the action today. Board Discussion: Shands stated he agreed with the variance request . Hall said it seemed to be the best solution and does meet the nominal concept. McBride agreed. Bello agreed that it is nominal and inconsequential. Hall made a motion to approve appeal number 2597 and 2598. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good, and the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained In Section 1.2.2. Specifically, the 6 inch encroachment into the 15 foot yard setback and the allowance of the 3% garage door overage are both reasonable. Pisula seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: ZBA February 14, 2008— Page 7 APPEAL NO. 2599 - APPROVED Address: 417 S. Grant Ave. Petitioner: Roger Bank Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(E)(4) Background: The variance will reduce the required side yard setback along the north and south side lot lines from 9 feet to 7 feet in order to allow a portion of the wall on the north and south sides of the new homes to be 25' 9" tall instead of 22 feet. The portion of the wall in question is the triangular peak of the gable end, which is 15.9 square feet in area. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The new home could be built with a hip roof or other type of roof which would lower the wall height to comply. However, this would be out of character with the established style of other neighborhood homes. In order to continue the gable end construction of other homes on the block, a variance is requested. The portion that exceeds the height is very small, only 15.9 square feet, so it is a nominal and inconsequential deviation from the code. Staff Comments: The board has had much discussion regarding this type of variance, and has granted similar requests when it has been determined that the amount of wall surface in excess of the allowed height is minimal (usually the triangular peak of a gable end), and when an alternative roof or wall design could be constructed in compliance with the code but is not as aesthetically pleasing as what the applicant is proposing. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. This 50 foot by 190 foot lot is a typical old town lot. The applicant originally applied for a building permit to do an addition to the house, but the building department determined it was to be considered a new two-story house as opposed to the existing one-story house. There will be a 7 foot setback on both side lot lines, so the allowed height would be 22'. The applicant is requesting a 25' 9" height allowance at the peak of the gable which is only allowed with a 9 foot setback. Applicant's Participation: Roger Bank, currently residing at 417 South Grant, Fort Collins, Colorado. Bank stated he was trying to achieve a design with a porch and a balcony above the porch. There are three bedrooms on the second floor and a master bedroom on the main floor. Bank will remove the original house once the back half of the new house is built. Hall asked if the spruce tree separates their property from the neighbor to the south. Bank replied that it did, and that the tree would remain. Hall then asked if Bank had discussed the house plans with the neighbor to the north. Bank replied no, and stated that the relationship with that neighbor was strained. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Bello asked if the setback was greater could the wall height be greater. Hall said they would have to move it 2 feet on both sides to meet the setback requirements. Dickson stated that the applicant could bring the 22 foot height mass all the way back the entire length of the house and meet code, but the design suggested by the applicant will have less impact on the neighborhood. Pisula stated the effect is nominal and inconsequential. Hall stated he felt it was equal to or better than what the code permits because a 22 foot high wall that extends for 40 feet may not be as desirable as the proposed gable roof end. McBride made a motion to approve appeal number 2599. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better ZBA February 14, 2008— Page 8 than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested. It is equal to or better than another wall that would be longer and more intrusive on the property line. Additionally, the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Shands seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: 7. APPEAL NO. 2600 — Partially APPROVED Address: 3640 S. Mason Street Petitioner: Shaw Sign and Awning Zone: C Section: 3.8.7(G)(1), 3.8.7(G)(7) Background: The variance will allow the new proposed monument sign at the College Avenue entrance into the Cottonwood Corner shopping center to be set back 11' from the street property line instead of the required 15', will allow the new proposed monument sign at the northwest corner of College Avenue and Creger Drive to be set back 5' from the Creger Drive property line instead of the required 15', and allow the new proposed monument sign at the southeast corner of Horsetooth and Mason to be set back 11' from the Mason Street property line instead of the required 15', and allow this sign to be closer to Horsetooth Road than to Mason Street. These new signs are proposed as replacements for the existing nonconforming Cottonwood Corner signs. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The proposed sign at the corner of Horsetooth and Mason is to be located primarily in the landscape island at the corner of the lot. This island is encumbered with easements which require a new sign to be shifted closer to Horsetooth Road. A parking space is proposed to be removed in order to accommodate this sign even with the shifting to Horsetooth. The proposed sign at the corner of Creger and College is to be located in the existing landscape island. Moving it 10' to the north in order to comply with the 15' setback requirement would result in the sign being in the driveway. The sign at the College Avenue entrance would also be located in the driveway if it were moved west to comply with the 15' setback requirement. Staff Comments: The existing freestanding signs at this shopping center are nonconforming and will be required to be brought into compliance with the sign code in 2009. The owners of the property are going to be doing a major facelift of the shopping center, and the proposed signs reflect the architectural character of the proposed remodel. The proposed signs will comply with the code regarding size and height, but the existing landscape areas in which the signs will be placed lack adequate size to accommodate the sign setbacks, or are encumbered with utilities. The existing drive -aisles and parking lot would need to be reconfigured in order to enlarge the landscape areas to accommodate the proposed signs, and such changes would adversely impact vehicular circulation. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. All current signage on this property is nonconforming. The sign code, enacted in 1994, has a 15-year amortization period. All nonconforming signs within the city limits will have to be brought into conformance with the sign code by February 25, 2009. This shopping center at College and Horsetooth is Cottonwood Corners, and Albertsons is the anchor tenant. The shopping center is going to have a significant face lift, and the signs presented to the board today are intended to be compatible with the ZBA February 14, 2008— Page 9 changes in the site redevelopment. Code allows one sign per property per street frontage. The property has street frontage on Horsetooth, College, Creger, and South Mason. Sign No. 2 on the site plan at the corner of College and Horsetooth complies with the code and a variance is not being requested for it. All of the proposed signs comply with the code regarding size and height. The variances today deal with setback requirements. The request for Sign No. 1 is to reduce the required setback from 15 feet to 11 feet from the Mason Street property line, situating the sign closer to Horsetooth Road than to Mason. The applicant is proposing to have this sign considered a Mason Street sign. The code requires that if a sign is going to be considered a Mason Street sign, it has to be located closer to Mason Street than to Horsetooth. Because of the proposed location in the utility and easement encumbrances, the applicant feels it is difficult to move it closer to Mason. It is actually closer to Horsetooth, so the applicant needs a variance in addition to the 15' setback from the property line. They are also requesting a variance to allow it to be considered a Mason Street sign even though it's located 5 feet closer to Horsetooth than it is to Mason. Sign No. 2 is considered a Horsetooth Road sign as well. The owner will rename the shopping center Fort Collins Marketplace. On Sign No. 3, the applicant is proposing to reduce the setback from the property line along College Avenue from 15 feet to 11 feet. The applicant has stated that if they are forced to move the sign back to the 15 foot setback, the island would have to be enlarged thus impairing vehicular circulation at this point in the parking lot. The variance request for Sign No. 4 is to reduce the setback from 15 feet to 5 feet along the Creger property line, which would be 12 feet from the curb at the gutter. Half asked if there would be an issue if the signs were smaller. Barnes replied that the code uses a formula for monument signs and pole -mounted free standing signs. That formula is that the setback requirement increases as the signs become larger and taller. An example is the sign at the corner of Creger and College. To install a sign with a 5 foot setback without a variance, the sign would be limited in height and size to about half the size being proposed by the applicant. Hall also asked if any variance granted today would automatically mean it's in effect in 2009 when the code is in force. Barnes replied that the board would need to clarify that the variance will be approved for the next 12 months or that this variance is a permanent one that stays with the property and that it would not be affected by the requirement in 2009 to have nonconforming signs be removed. Hall then asked if the Streets Department would get involved because of the issue with visibility. Barnes replied that the sign code contains a sight distance triangle. A proposed sign cannot be in that triangle. The applicant has included the triangle on the drawings indicating that no site issues will be created if this variance is approved. Bello asked about the variance request for Sign No. 1. Barnes reiterated that the request is twofold: (1) the setback; and (2) to allow it to be closer to Horsetooth than it is to Mason which would allow it to still be considered a Mason Street sign. Applicant's Participation: Jonathan Harshaw, Shaw Sign and Awning, 901 S.W. Frontage Road, Fort Collins, Colorado. Shaw Sign and Awning is working with their client to install appropriate signage to keep existing tenants and attract new tenants to this center. There are several different buildings on the property, and they are set well back from Horsetooth and from College. Visibility is poor into the shopping center and one cannot see the storefronts very well. It is necessary to have the 90 square feet on the sign faces to ensure there is enough signage space for all tenants. Hall asked about the location of the utilities in relation to Sign No. 1. Harshaw stated that the utilities are to the west of the sign, precluding them from putting the sign closer to Mason Street. Hall asked if it could be moved further away from Horsetooth. Harshaw replied that if it were moved far enough back from Horsetooth to meet the criteria, the sign would be in the drive area. ZBA February 14, 2008— Page 10 Allen Ginsborg, owner of the shopping center, lives at 5700 Hearthstone in Fort Collins. He stated the center was purchased in October of 2006. In response to Shands' comment that there is one vacancy, Ginsborgh replied that the occupancy is currently 83%. Vacancies are 3500 square feet in the back, 2100 square feet on the side on Mason, 1500 square feet near Albertsons, and 5000 square feet that's vacant on the corner. Ginsborg stated that small signage would not be effective because the storefronts are not visible from the street. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Hall asked Barnes if this proposal is significantly closer to the 2009 code than what currently exists. Barnes replied that it was, especially with regard to the signs on the corner of College and Horsetooth. The Albertsons sign is very tall plus there is a restaurant sign right next to it. The new code requires a distance separation between signs so they can't be too close together and also has incentives to encourage monument signs as opposed to pole -mounted signs. Bello stated that Sign Nos. 3 and 4 will not make a big impact on the driveways. His concern with Sign No. 1 is that parking area seems like a back -door parking area. He stated that if that sign could be moved further south, then the board would not have to deal with a variance for that being a Mason Street sign versus a Horsetooth sign. Ginsborg responded that if the sign is moved further south, it will necessitate removal of a tree. Additionally two parking stalls would have to be removed. The retailers have approval rights built into their agreements over parking stalls that are removed, altered or changed so it is necessary to get their approval to eliminate stalls. Ginsborg also stated there are 168 trees on the site, and while they are beautiful it is challenging to work with them. Hall stated that he still has issues with Sign No. 1. Pisula said it is really a Horsetooth sign because that's where the prevailing traffic is coming in. Not much traffic is coming in from Mason Street because it only extends two blocks, and he could well understand the applicant's desire to place it in reasonable proximity to Horsetooth Road so that individuals driving from the west would see it. Ginsborg suggested that they withdraw their request for a variance on Sign No. 1 and see if they can work it out without a variance. Barnes replied that it would be acceptable to withdraw the request for Sign No. 1. Bello stated that the hardship exists because of the existing situation with the driveways. To make the developer redesign the parking stall layout and the driveways would cause a major financial hardship. Hall stated that a financial hardship doesn't matter, but an argument could be made that impairing the traffic flow is a significant issue. Barnes reiterated the two purposes of sign codes: one is safety, the other aesthetics. The sight distance triangle is used to make sure that even though the sign might comply with the setback requirement from the property line, it's still not allowed to be in the triangle. From a safety standpoint, the city uses the triangle to some degree to regulate the sign location. From an .aesthetics standpoint, the city uses separation and maximum height and size requirements to prevent signs from being installed too close together or from being so tall that the streetscape is cluttered. Hall stated that Sign Nos. 3 and 4 seem logical. Dickson said she was not necessarily in support of it. She felt some of the signs could be shrunk to accommodate their current proposed placement. Dickson stated that some panels might need to be removed and perhaps the panels rotated so that a tenant would have to take his turn being on the sign. She also stated that the name Fort Collins Marketplace is taking up a certain amount of square footage. ZBA February 14, 2008— Page I 1 Hall asked for information about the value of the branding, Fort Collins Marketplace, to the tenants. Ginsborg replied that what makes shopping centers viable in the long term is their identity. By rebranding the center and giving it a logo, they believe they will be able to attract the right tenants and the center will be more viable to the community. By rebranding, they will be able to do coupon books and newspaper marketing. Ginsborg stated that they might be able to push Sign 4 back a couple of more feet. He stated that Albertsons is the anchor store, but that Albertsons has closed a number of stores in Colorado, and he wouldn't be surprise if this store is closed at some point. Hall made a motion to approve appeal 2600 for the proposed Sign No. 3 and Sign No. 4. The approval of this variance would be a permanent variance for the property as configured. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. There are exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property which is the subject of the appeal in that this is a previously developed shopping center. Because of the foregoing unique conditions, the strict application of the standard sought to be varied would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the applicant/owner and that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant/owner. The unique conditions coupled with the strict application of the standards sought to be varied result in the practical difficulties or hardship because when this property was developed, traffic flow patterns were designed. With the new sign code, you would essentially have to put the new signage in the traffic flow, and that will create a significant hardship. Pisula seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Hall, McBride, Pisula, Shands Nays: Dickson Pisula left the meeting after the conclusion of Appeal No. 2600. 8. APPEAL NO. 2601 — APPROVED with condition Address: 350 Riva Ridge Drive Petitioner: Shaw Sign and Awning Zone: MMN Section: 3.8.7(G)(1)(f) Background: The variance will allow a new sign for The Preserve at the Meadows apartment complex to be located along Horsetooth Road in front of the development instead of at the northern entrance into the parking lot off of Meadowlark Drive. The code requires the ID sign to be located at an entrance into the complex. The proposed location is not considered an entrance. The existing sign at the northern entrance off Meadowlark will be removed. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The two entrances directly into this complex are off of the street which does not carry the majority of the traffic. Signs at these entrances do not provide adequate identification along Horsetooth Road, which is the major street adjacent to the development, and which is the street upon which visitors, delivery drivers, etc., will be driving on and looking for identification signs. Staff Comments: The board has granted similar variances in the past when a large apartment complex does not have direct access off the major street which it abuts. If the board considers granting this variance, a condition requiring the removal of the existing sign at the northern entrance should be part of the motion. ZBA February 14, 2008— Page 12 Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. The sign code allows one 35 square foot maximum sign per entrance, and the signs need to be located at those entrances. There is no entrance in the development off of Horsetooth; the two entrances are on Rive Ridge Drive and Rive Ridge Lane, and there is a sign at both of those entrances. The applicant is requesting to remove the sign that's at Riva Ridge and Meadowlark and install a new sign along the Horsetooth frontage of the development. The board has heard similar requests in previous years and has approved those variances with the condition that they remove one of their existing signs or that they not be allowed to erect any additional signs. Dickson asked Barnes if The Seasons was granted a variance under the hardship clause. Barnes responded that a review of the minutes for The Seasons variance stated that the hardship was basically traffic visibility for visitors and delivery people. Applicant's Participation: Jonathan Harshaw, Shaw Signs and Awning, 901 S.W. Frontage Road, Fort Collins, Colorado. He stated that it is easier for people to find the apartment complex if the signage is in a more visible location. They are requesting the variance on the basis that the relocation will promote the general purpose of the city sign code equally well or better than the current location. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: Shands stated that it seems inconsequential. Dickson stated that she felt it was equal or better than. Bello stated that he felt it was equal to or better than from an access viewpoint and recognition of the property. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal 2601. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. Under the equal to or better than justification, the general purpose of the standard is to limit the amount of signage based on the number of entries. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose 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. The reason that the proposal promotes the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies is because there will be the same number of signs as there are entries, and the location is being modified to a more visible location so that people can find the complex when they need it, thus creating a better traffic flow, better visibility for the complex, and safety. This will be a permanent solution, but the motion is conditioned on requiring the removal of the existing enty sign at the northernmost entry. Hall seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Shands Nays: 9. APPEAL NO. 2602 - APPROVED Address: 728 Maple St Petitioner: Steve Whittal Zone: NCM Section: 4.8(D)(1), 4.8(E)(1), 4.8(E)(4) Background: The applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment for the 4 platted lots at the northeast corner of Grant and Maple (currently addressed as 728 Maple Street) in order to allow the construction of 4 new single family homes, one on each of the newly configured lots. The lot line ZBA February 14, 2008— Page 13 adjustment will reconfigure the lots in such a manner that variances are required for lot width and lot area. In addition, a street side setback variance is requested for a new single family house that will replace the existing home at 728 Maple Street. Specifically, the variance will (A) reduce the required lot width from 35' to 40' and the required lot area from 5000 square feet to 4900 square feet for the original Lot 23 (which is going to remain in its originally platted lot size and width), (B) reduce the required lot area from 5000 square feet to 4,858 square feet and the required street side setback along Grant Avenue from 15 feet to 10 feet for a new home that is proposed to be constructed in place of the existing home, (C) reduce the required lot area from 5000 square feet to 4,907 square feet for the adjusted lot size of the proposed middle lot on Maple, and (D) reduce the required lot area from 5,000 square feet to 4,935 square feet for the adjusted lot size of the eastern lot on Maple (abuts the alley). Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The proposed lot reconfiguration deviates less from the lot width and lot area regulations than do the 4 originally platted lots. Each of the original lots would require a lot width and lot area variance, whereas with the proposed layout, 3 of the 4 lots comply with the lot width regulation. The wider lots allow for the construction of more functional homes, bring the layout more into conformance with the current code, and deviate from the standards only nominally. Staff Comments: The zoning of this property would allow up to three 4-plexes, for a total of 12 dwelling units. The proposed lot line reconfiguration is for four, single family homes, for a total of 4 dwelling units. The original plat of this area intended for four single family homes to be constructed. Therefore, the proposed density is in keeping with the intent of the original zoning and plat. The major difference between what is proposed and what was originally intended is that 3 homes will front on Maple and one on Grant, as opposed to all four homes fronting on Grant. The four originally platted lots are all nonconforming with regards to lot width and lot area. The proposal results in only one of the lots having a nonconforming lot width. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure four originally platted lots. The proposal is to reorient three of the lots so that the houses on those lots will be facing Maple, whereas the four lots were originally oriented towards Grant Avenue. The applicant had originally proposed a redevelopment of this property to have several 4-plexes. Four-plexes are a permitted use in the zone. But the applicant has revised his plan and is now proposing to do four single-family detached dwellings on these lots. The existing house at 728 Maple would be demolished. Hall asked when the lots were originally platted. Barnes replied that it was probably close to 100 years ago. Barnes stated that until 15 or 20 years ago, there was an exemption available if a lot was platted prior to a certain date. If the lot was deficient in lot width and area by no more than a certain percentage, a building could be constructed without a variance. Hall asked what the lot area to floor area ratio is in the NCM zone. Barnes responded that it is 2 to 1. Bello asked if the applicant is prohibited from putting a structure above the Arthur Ditch. Barnes responded that he is prohibited from building on top of the ditch which is underground. Applicant's Participation: Steve Whittal, Functional Forms, 400 Whedbee, Fort Collins, Colorado. Whittal stated that they pursued building multi -family through the conceptual review process, and it was met with a fairly favorable response. They also had a public meeting which was met with mixed responses. The concerns dealt with parking, configuration, building height, and impact to property values. Considering the neighborhood concerns, they reviewed their objectives as an infill development company and decided to build single family homes on the lots. ZBA February 14, 2008— Page 14 McBride asked why they thought houses could be built on the proposed configuration better than the old configuration. Whittal used Lot 26 as an example. For that lot, there would be a requirement to have a 15 foot setback on Maple Street and a 15 foot setback along Grant Street, and then a 5 foot setback. If you look at that 35 foot lot configuration, you would end up with a 15 foot building envelope. Bello stated that the original configuration allowed alley access to each of the units. In the new configuration, though, the alley will access only two of the units; and asked if that will require Lots 2 and 3 to have front yard garages? Whittal responded no, that Lot 2 on North Grant Street would have one curb cut that would be at the posterior of the lot or on the north most edge of the lot, and it would be a backload garage because the ditch requires the house to be moved onto the anterior of the lot. On Lot 3, there would be a driveway that would also have one curb cut along the eastern most edge. Dickson stated that if the proposal was reduced to 3 lots, those issues would not exist, but that there might be economic factors. Barnes responded that the developer is not increasing the density. In fact, even if they did only two multi -family buildings, there could still be twice as many dwelling units. Whittal stated that from an economic standpoint, if they were asked to do the 3-lot configuration, they would continue through the Type II review to do the multi -family development. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Bello stated he thinks the change to the configuration is inconsequential. McBride stated he would prefer the alley using the North Grant orientation, but there will be much less mass than the code would allow so he has no problem with it. Dickson stated it should regulate itself with the 2 to 1 ratio building envelope. Shands stated that the lower mass would be preferable. Barnes stated that he received an email from Patrick Reeves, a copy of which is attached. Mr. Reeves resides at 18 Maple Street, three houses west of the proposed development. Mr. Reeves stated that he supports the request for the variance because there are many 35' lots in the neighborhood with single family homes. He stated that he also supports the request for a lot size smaller than 5,000 feet and believes that both variance requests represent nominal or inconsequential modifications. He stated that Mr. Whittal should be commended for producing a project that is compatible with the neighborhood. McBride made a motion to approve Appeal 2602. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. Under the equal or better than justification, the general purpose of the standard is to ensure that lots are wide enough and large enough to accommodate functional homes, while providing enough open lot area for privacy and setbacks. The proposal as submitted will promote the general purpose 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. Bello offered a friendly amendment stating that the proposed variance satisfies the purpose and intent of the code equally well or better than would a plan that complies; i.e., four single-family homes meet the existing pattern of development in the neighborhood better than the three 4-plexes which would be allowed under the code. The friendly amendment was accepted by McBride. Additionally, the proposal as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Shands seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Dickson, McBride, Shands Nays: Hall 7BA February 14, 2008— Page 15 10. Other Business: Barnes stated that the election of officers will take place at the next monthly meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. lwighTFiafl, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator