Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/16/2008FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — October 16, 2008 8:45 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, October 16, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Bello Ronald Daggett Alison Dickson Dwight Hall Dana McBride David Shands EXCUSED ABSENCES: Jim Pisula STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator 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: Bello made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 14, 2008 meeting. Hall seconded the motion. Motion approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Shands Nays: None Abstain: 3. APPEAL NO. 2624 - Approved Address: 4020-4032 S. College Avenue Petitioner: William and Irene Woodall Zone: C Section: 3.8.7(G)(1) Background: The variance will reduce the required setback for the existing Fountainhead Retail center monument sign from 15' to 0', in order to allow the sign to remain in its current location ZBA October 16, 2008— Page 2 rather than be relocated by February 25, 2009. At the existing setback location, the sign complies with the size requirements of the code, but exceeds the height requirements of the code. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: This development has two monument signs along College Avenue. The Sportscaster/Le Peep sign is actually larger and closer to the travel lane of College Avenue than the Fountainhead sign in question, yet it complies with the code whereas the Fountainhead sign doesn't. The short right turn lane into the development is located in front of the Fountainhead sign, which resulted in moving the property line further to the east. Since the sign complies with the code as to its size, and since it's actually further from the street than the complying sign, the Board might consider this to be a unique circumstance which results in a nominal and inconsequential variance. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. Barnes stated signs which don't comply with the sign code revision adopted by City Council in 1994 must be brought into compliance by February 25, 2009. City Council allowed a 15 year amortization period to make the signs compliant. Early in 2008, letters were sent to the approximate 150 property owners who had signs that remained noncompliant. The expectation is that there will be some variance requests to allow exceptions to some of those nonconforming signs. The property at 4020-4032 S. College Avenue is the Fountainhead Retail Center. LePeep's and Sportscaster's Restaurant is on the abutting property. There is a monument sign in front of LePeep's. The subject sign is abutting the very short right -turn lane which turns into the center as one heads north on College Avenue. The right of way expands to accommodate that right turn lane. This sign would require a setback of 15' from the right of way line. The two options to bring the sign into compliance are (1) to leave the sign at its existing location and lower it to 7', or (2) to move the sign 15' to the east which would put it in the drive aisle of the parking lot. Dickson asked if the sign remains at its current location, what the allowed square footage would be. Barnes responded that at a zero setback, the code would allow a maximum sign size of 45 square feet. Currently, it is about 42 square feet. setback. Hall asked about the intent of the sign sign is, the further back from the street it must be. The height is the noncompliant issue at the zero code. Barnes stated that the larger and taller a Applicant's Presentation: Bill Woodall stated that he and his wife have owned the center since 1993 and were not aware of the sign noncompliance issues until this year. The sign is on an island between parking spaces, and the bottom 3 to 4' of the sign are not visible. If the sign height was reduced to 7' and a large SUV was parked in those parking spaces, it would leave about 3' of visible sign per side. The sign location also enables drivers to locate the entrance to the shopping center. Audience Participation: None. There was discussion among the applicant and board members regarding several alternative sign locations in the center and changing the sign orientation from vertical to horizontal. McBride stated that this is an unusual situation because there is a right turn lane in front of the sign instead of greenbelt. Dickson asked if the right turn lane were not there, would the sign be in compliance. Barnes stated that it would. Hall said that he doesn't see any improvement by pushing the sign back 15' and that if there are signs on either side of this sign that are the same scale, he is not ZBA October 16, 2008— Page 3 sure what the improvement would be to moving that sign. McBride stated that he felt the visual effect of the sign is in compliance with the code. Bello asked if the sign was in place before the right of way was granted. Barnes replied, no, that the right of way was deeded with the plat. Barnes added that when the sign was installed, it was in compliance with the code in effect. McBride made a motion to approve appeal number 2624 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. 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. The right of way granted for a turn lane for the street is a penalty for the property owner in this situation. Shands seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Shands Nays: Bello 4. APPEAL NO. 2625 - Approved with condition Address: 900 E. Lincoln Avenue Petitioner: DaVinci Signs Zone: I Section: 3.8.7(G)(1) Background. The variance will reduce the required setback for the existing Vanworks monument sign from 15 feet to 0 feet and increase the maximum height allowed at a 0 setback from 7' to 15' in order to allow the sign to remain at its current location and height rather than be brought into compliance with the code by February 25, 2009 as required by ordinance. The size of the sign does comply with the size requirements of the code at its existing setback, but exceeds the height allowed at the 0 foot setback. If the existing sign is converted to a freestanding sign, then the 15' height is okay, but the needed setback variance would be to reduce the required distance from the front line from 22.5' to 0'. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is an irrigation ditch between the street and the property line along Lincoln. A security fence is located on top of the ditch at the lot line and the sign is located just inside the fence. If the sign is lowered to comply with the 7' height requirement it won't be visible above the top of the fence. If it is moved back 15' it will be in the driveway. The owner believes that the security fence needs to remain in its current location and can't be moved back. The property line is located 60' from the street, instead of the normal 15', so the existing sign is set back far enough from the street to meet the intent of the code. If the sign were a freestanding sign instead of a monument sign, the existing height would be allowed if it were set back 22.5' from the lot line. So, converting it to a freestanding sign would allow the height, but the required setback would still place it in the driveway. Again, given that it's 60' from the street, the intent is met. Staff Comments: There are some unique circumstances regarding the property which the Board might take into consideration. (1) The front property line is 60' behind the street, when 15' is normal. This results in the sign being set back from the street a much greater distance than would usually be the case, (2) the wrought iron fence and gate could be relocated to behind the sign and the sign lowered in order to comply. However, moving the fence to the appropriate location isn't feasible since it would end up on top of a couple of underground grease traps which are required ZBA October 16, 2008— Page 4 by code. Existing mature trees would also need to be removed. In lieu of moving the fence, staff believes a reasonable option to consider would be to require that the sign be converted from a monument sign to a pole -mounted sign in order to reduce the mass of the structure, and to require that the top module of the sign be removed. Staff Presentation: Barnes submitted slides relevant to the application. This property houses Vanworks. The property is quite deep, and the property line is set back 60' from Lincoln Avenue; normally property lines are within 15' of the street. An addition was made to the top of the 45 square foot sign after the permit was issued saying "Vanworks Autoplex". Barnes stated that if the Board granted the variance, he would recommend the board put a condition on the variance that it be removed. This sign is 15' tall, and the code allows monument signs at a zero setback to be only 7' above ground. The applicant has stated that if the sign is lowered by 8', it would not be visible behind the fence. Another option includes moving the fence which would also necessitate moving a tree. The other possible area would be where the grease traps are located, but nothing can be placed on top of them, and the underground tanks would also have to be moved. Dickson asked if the height on the existing sign would be okay if it were converted to a free- standing sign. Barnes responded that a free-standing sign could have a height of 18', but that height would require a 22.5' setback and a variance would still be required to allow it at a 0 setback. Applicant's Participation: Virginia Elgin, DeVinci Sign Systems is the applicant. Elgin stated the property owner has a unique situation in that the right of way in front of the property is quite large in comparison to many other property owners with signs. Keith Hess, owner of Vanworks, stated that customers have difficulty finding their address because the sign is so far back from the street. It would become even more difficult if the sign were to be moved back 15'. Also, six of the twelve parking spaces would need to be removed in order to relocate the sign back 15'. Bello asked Hess if he would have any objection to removing the lettering from the top portion of the sign. Hess stated that he did not have an objection to removing that lettering. McBride asked Hess if he knew why there was 60' between his property line and the street. Hess responded that it was because of the flow line for water retention runoff. Audience Participation: None Board Discussion: McBride stated that this appeal seemed similar to the first one in that the property owner is being penalized because of the large drainage easement in front of the business which creates an unusual situation. Shands stated he also thought it was similar to the first appeal, and he would support a motion to grant the variance. Eckman stated that since the point was made that the 7' sign would not be visible because of the fence, that if the fence were ever removed, the board might want to consider a condition that the variance would be null and void if the fence were removed and then the sign would have to be lowered. McBride suggested that the fence could be moved back at an angle to the back of where the monument sign is and then there would be visual access to the shorter sign. Barnes responded that the rolling gate requires a straight fence. McBride made a motion to approve appeal number 2625 for the following reasons: 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 as follows: There is a large drainage easement in front of the property. Because of the foregoing unique conditions, the strict application of the ZBA October 16, 2008— Page 5 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 the sign won't be visible above the fence if it's lowered, it can't be moved in front of the fence and it can't be moved back because it would be in the parking lot driveway. There are two conditions for this approval (1) if the fence is removed, the sign will have to be brought into compliance; and (2) the noncompliant part of the sign above the enclosed illuminated sign cabinet must be removed to bring the sign into the 45 square foot code requirement. Dickson seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Shands Nays: None 5. APPEAL NO. 2626 - Denied Address: 119 Lyons St. Petitioner: Felix Duerr Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(E)(3) Background: The variance will reduce the required setback from the rear lot line from 5 feet to 3 feet for a proposed 14' by 26' detached garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: The owner can move the garage location 2' to the east in order to comply, and reduce the width of the garage from 14' to 12' at the same time, thereby not taking up any more of the back yard space. 12' is the typical width of a one -car garage. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. Buildings in this NCL zoning district must be set back at least 5' from the rear property line when the rear property line abuts an alley. The rear setback is 15' when the lot does not abut an alley. The applicant is proposing to construct a 14' x 26' garage at a 3' setback from the rear lot line. The property abuts two alleys. The proposed detached garage would be 3' from the rear lot line and 5' from the lot line along the side alley. Applicant's Participation: Colleen Duncan, 199 Lyons Street, represented Felix Deurr. Duncan stated they are requesting this variance to maximize the size of the backyard. The biggest driver is to minimize having a 5' space at the back of the alley that would essentially be concrete and gravel versus having a garden or vegetable bed on one side. She also stated that several neighbors had written letters in support of this proposal. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Bello stated that it was hard to justify the variance request. Options could include moving the garage 2' or building a 2' narrower garage. Duncan responded that there were several letters supporting the variance request in the file. She also stated that there are a number of other buildings in the old town area that have the same setbacks they are requesting, so she doesn't think the request is unique for that neighborhood. Those letters have been made part of ZBA October 16, 2008— Page 6 the record. Hall and McBride both stated that there was no justification to grant the variance request. Barnes read two letters into the record from neighbors. Hall made a motion to deny Appeal number 2626 for the following reason: The board finds that the applicant has not justified the criteria for a hardship or an equal to or better than situation. The applicant has not shown that 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. McBride seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Shands Nays: None 6. APPEAL NO. 2627 - Denied Address: 211 E. Lake St. Petitioner: Torey Lennoch Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(E)(3) and (4) Background: The variance will reduce the required rear yard setback from 15' to 101" and reduce the required side yard setback along the west lot line from 5' to 17 in order to allow a 10'x 19' addition onto the rear of the existing detached garage. The west wall of the existing garage is already at a 17 setback from the alley, and the wall of the addition will line up with the existing nonconforming wall. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Due to the topography of the lot and the alley, the location of the garage addition is limited. If the addition were placed on the north side of the garage, the access into the garage from the alley would be at a steep incline. The proposed location of the addition on the south side eliminates that concern. The existing garage is already nonconforming, so the VY side setback variance won't result in a greater deviation from the code than what already exists. Staff Comments: None. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. A 15' rear setback is required because the property does not abut an alley. Parking at this location is extremely difficult because of its proximity to CSU. The applicant has stated that if the addition were constructed on the north side of the garage, there would be a slope. Since the garage is very close to the alley, there would be a very short apron with the slope. Applicant's Participation: Torey Lennoch, 35 South Taft Hill Road. Lennoch is the contractor for Mr. Richardson, the owner. Lennoch stated that parking is very difficult, and the intent of the garage addition is to alleviate some of the parking problem. Although it is possible to put the addition to the east of the structure, that would not create any additional parking. Hall asked if gravel or a concrete slab could be placed, eliminating the need for a complete outbuilding. Lennoch stated that would be an option, but the goal is to also create more storage. Hall asked why an additional 5' setback is required if there is already an alleyway. Barnes ZBA October 16, 2008— Page 7 responded that it is required to create adequate back-up space to avoid running into a fence or other detached building on the other side of the alley. Hall asked Lennoch what he felt the justification was for the variance. Lennoch stated that it would be a hardship if the addition had to be placed on the north side of the structure. There would be an added expense in bringing the grade down to achieve an extra parking space to the north of the structure. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Hall and Bello stated that they could not justify the variance request. Bello made a motion to deny Appeal number 2627 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance is neither nominal or inconsequential, does not comply with the criteria of the code, and it doesn't appear to be a hardship with regard to the circumstances around the property. Hall seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Shands Nays: None 7. APPEAL NO Address: Petitioner: Zone: Section: 2628 - Approved 830 Maple St. Steve Whittall NCM 4.8(E)(1), 4.8(D)(1) Background: The variance will reduce the required lot width from 40' to 35' and the required lot area from 5000 sq. ft. to 4900 sq. ft. in order to allow the existing property to convert back to its original platted configuration of 2 separate, 35' wide platted lots. The 2 lots (Lots 23 and 24, Block 293) were combined into one parcel years ago, and the owner desires to re-establish the original lot lines. The existing home will be demolished and 2 new homes will be constructed, one on each of the original lots. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: 35' wide platted lots with 4900 square feet of lot area are common in this neighborhood, and other similar variances have been approved. The request is to simply convert the lots back to the original configuration. The new homes will comply with the required lot area to floor area ratios and with all setback regulations. Staff Comments: The Board has granted similar requests in this neighborhood to return the lots to their original configuration, and there are other 35' wide lots on this block. If the Board grants the variance, a condition should be placed on it that the homes comply with the setback and lot area to floor area ratio requirements. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. Barnes also read a letter into the proceedings from Don Richmond, a neighbor who owns the parcels north of 830 Maple. "We are the architect and part owner of the property north of 830 Maple. The family room, kitchen, and dining room of the home we are constructing on the property view the rear lot of the 830 Maple properties and a 10' wide alley. We request that a minimum, 15' rear yard setback be maintained for any structures constructed on those proposed lots." ZBA October 16, 2008— Page 8 The applicant is proposing to split the lot down the middle to the original 35' wide lots, thus enabling houses to be built on each of the lots. The applicant has indicated that the houses will meet the lot area to floor area ratio for the zone and setback requirements. Bello asked if the setback on Wood Street is more than 5'. Barnes responded that it is 15' and added that it would be difficult to put a house on that lot without a setback variance. Applicant's Participation: Steve Whittall with By Design Homes, 400 Whedbee, Fort Collins. Whittall stated they are in the process of eliminating the RVs and junk that currently back up to the Wood Street parcel. He also stated that he now realizes he will have to ask for a variance on the side setback. Whittall stated that it was his opinion that it would be more prudent to design the proposed house before returning to the board with the variance request for the side setback. According to the survey that Stewart Engineering prepared, the lots will have 35 1/2 foot frontages and be 140 feet in length. The square footage variance would only be 30 square feet. Whittall thinks that this proposal would create lots which are equal to what currently exists in the 800 block of Maple Street. The current house has a lot of issues, and Whittall stated he is currently trying to find a safe environment for the previous owner to live in. Whittall also stated he does not have an issue with doing a 15' setback at the back property. Hall asked if the applicant had considered orienting the two lots to face Wood even though it would be necessary to replat. Whittall replied that he had considered doing that, but felt that Maple was really the dominate curbside and (1) there would need to be a curb cut on the corner of Maple and Wood because of the need for off-street parking on one of the lots, (2) it would provide very little yard space, and (3) it would eliminate one of the alley accesses. Whittall provided addresses of several locations where he had successfully built homes on 5,000 square foot lots. Audience Participation: John Shaw, Creekwood Homes. Mr. Shaw is the property owner to the north and one of the partners in several of the new houses in the immediate area. Shaw stated he is neutral about the variance, but would like the garage structure that abuts the alley removed if this variance is granted. The structure blocks the view of the property to the north. Whittall responded that he understood Shaw's concerns, but he didn't feel the board could place itself in a code enforcement position and add additional conditions to the variance. Whittall did state that if the variance would be approved today, he would be glad to remove the garage and RVs as a neighborly gesture as long as the board would recognize those actions when he returned to request the side setback variance. Hall stated he just needed to make sure he included those actions in the next variance request for this property. Board Discussion: Hall stated that this type of request has been granted before. Bello stated the 35 V2 foot lot width is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood, but that he does not think it is the responsibility of the board to put additional conditions on the variance. Bello asked Barnes if there is anything in the code that would address continuing the sidewalk. Barnes responded that since this is not a replat, the Engineering Department does not have a mechanism to extend the sidewalk. They can only require those sections with cracks or breaks be replaced before the certificate of occupancy is issued. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal number 2628 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. 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. McBride seconded the motion. The motion was approved. ZBA October 16, 2008— Page 9 Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride, Shands Nays: None Barnes informed the applicant that he should not have the expectation that he will automatically receive a side yard setback variance just because the variance was approved today. Note: Shands left the meeting at this time 8. APPEAL NO. 2629 — Approved with condition Address: 1506 W. Oak St. Petitioner: Paul Kenny Zone: NCL Section: 4.7(D)(1), 4.7(D)(5) Background: The variance will reduce the required overall lot area to floor area ratio from 2.5 to 1 to 2.33 to 1 and increase the maximum floor area ratio allowed in the rear half of the lot from .25 to .55 in order to allow the owner to demolish 310 square feet of existing, deteriorated floor area on the back part of the house and replace it with a 484 square foot one-story addition. This results in a net increase of 174 square feet. All setbacks will be complied with. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: The Board has determined in other cases that the rear half of the lot floor area ratio requirement was not intended to apply to these situations where the back portion of the lot was sold off years ago, and where such a lot split results in a shallow lot. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the application. The board has had a number of variance requests in the last few months in the old town neighborhoods where the rear portion of the lot was sold off years ago, and the lot is shallower than the intent of the code, Also, in this case, the construction that is already there doesn't comply with the rear half floor area ratio. The applicant is proposing a net floor area increase of 174 feet. The overall lot area to floor area ratio would change from 2 Y2 to 1 to 2.33 to 1, and the floor area in the rear half of the lot would increase from .25 to .55. The applicant is proposing to attach the current detached garage to the house as part of this construction project. Hall asked if the house currently complies with the 2 Yz to 1 ratio. The applicant stated that it does comply right now. Barnes stated that the current house is 2401 square feet, and in order to comply with the 2 Y2 to 1 lot area to floor area ratio, it would need to be 2400, so it is basically in compliance. Applicant's Participation: Paul Kenny, 1506 W. Oak Street. Kenny stated that the reason for the variance request is that the deteriorated portion of the house is an eyesore and that his family needs more room. The neighbors have all approved the plans they have prepared. Kenny stated that the 174 square feet addition is inconsequential. Board Discussion: McBride stated that an additional 174 square feet over the compliant 2400 square feet is not nominal and inconsequential. Dickson stated that if the protrusion on the west side of the house were flush with the house, it would save approximately 47 square feet and asked ZBA October 16, 2008— Page 10 the applicant if he would be agreeable to that change. Kenny stated he would be agreeable if the variance would be granted. Bello stated that the increased floor area ratio is not consistent with the neighborhood. Kenny stated that a lot of homes in the neighborhood exceed the floor area ratio. Bello then suggested removing the garage. Barnes stated that most properties in the area do have garages. Dickson stated that she is in favor of the variance because it is a good design, and there is not a second story mass at the back of the lot. Bello asked Kenny if he could live with the variance approval being conditioned on the addition not being any closer to the side lot line than the existing building. Kenny replied that would be acceptable. Hall told the applicant that he could have the option of tabling the variance request to conduct research on the average floor area to lot area ratios in the neighborhood and bring that information back to the board. Kenny replied that his family can live with not having the new structure any closer to the side lot line then the existing building is now. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal number 2629 for the following reasons: The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public good. 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. The motion included a condition that the addition could not be any closer to the west lot line than the existing house, thus reducing the floor area by 47 square feet. McBride seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Vote: Yeas: Bello, Daggett, Dickson, Hall, McBride Nays: None 9. Other Business: None. Meeting adjourned at 11:33 a.m. Dwight Hall, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator