Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/11/2018Heidi Shuff, Chair Ralph Shields, Vice Chair Daphne Bear Bob Long Cody Snowdon Butch Stockover Karen Szelei-Jackson Council Liaison: Ken Summers Staff Liaison: Noah Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2018 8:30 AM • CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL Bear and Jackson were absent. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) • APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1. APPEAL ZBA180035 - Denied Address: 505 S. Taft Hill Road Owner: Hi-Vue LLC Petitioner: Jim Moran Zoning District: L-M-N Code Section: 3.8.7.1(G)(1) Project Description: This variance request is for a proposed ground sign with a height of 13.5 feet. The maximum sign height allowed is 8.5 feet. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request noting the property is used as a car wash. There is an existing monument sign structure which is on a raised podium with car vacuums and a pole on both ends of the structure. The proposal is to use this existing structure and existing poles for a new sign. The variance request is for the sign height of 13.5 feet from the top of the existing structure. The applicant mentioned he might be able to remove part of the poles on the structure. The setback requirement from the property line is 6.5 feet; at that setback a ground sign can only be 8.5 feet tall. There are other available locations to place the sign on this property. This is located in a residential sign district, so there are additional restrictions to help signs be more compliant within the residential context of this neighborhood. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 October 11, 2018 Applicant Presentation: James (Jim) Moran, 3558 W. 110th Place, Westminster, one of the owners of High Vue LLC and owner of the carwash addressed the Board. The proposal is an effort to utilize the existing sign structure. The sign was in place for many years and was taken down previous to their ownership; it was not replaced because of new regulations. In an effort to try and comply with regulations, the applicant took into consideration the traffic patterns and how the carwash traffic flows. The main exit of the carwash is just south of the current sign structure, so if they lowered the sign they would cut off the vision of drivers exiting the lot and entering Taft Hill Road. This proposal is to lower the sign to about 6 inches above vacuums, to leave space for vacuum maintenance; and also leave a space between the support island and the bottom of the sign so drivers can see the Taft Hill traffic. This structure also supports the lights that are necessary to operate the vacuums at night. The top of the sign itself is 10 feet. Shuff asked about reducing the height of the poles. The applicant explained that only the pole closest to the street could be shortened. The pole further from the street has a flood light and currently stands at 13.5 feet tall. Boardmembers questioned the current signage. Mr. Moran verified there is a business sign on the building awning, and that the new sign dimensions of 3.25 feet would be the same as the dimensions of the previous sign. Snowdon asked about relocating and lowering the sign as there are 2 driveway entrances. Mr. Moran explained the area further down is a waiting area for cars when the service bays are full. Currently, there is just enough room for 2 cars to wait and one to pass. Mr. Moran says the structure has been like this for quite some time without a sign, customers comment that they are not sure the carwash is still in business. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: Snowdon asked Beals if there has been any discussion regarding increased traffic accidents at this location. Beals replied that there have not been any conversations with the traffic operations department. The sign also has a 6.5 foot setback from public right away so cars can edge forward. Stockover acknowledged the owner’s comment that customers might think the carwash is out of business. He remarked that the building, cleanliness and grade of equipment should make that statement. This is not an impulse purchase; everyone around this area knows this carwash is there. If you do a good job the customers will come back, the sign itself doesn’t drive customer traffic. Boardmembers discussed and agreed that there are other opportunities to meet the height requirement while still staying in code compliance with the residential district. Shuff agreed and understands the location difficulty and existing conditions, but has a hard time finding evidence for this variance request meeting hardship, or that the proposal will be nominal and inconsequential in context of the residential neighborhood. Long made a motion, seconded by Snowdon, to deny the variance for the following reasons. Within the residential sign district, which is across from residential uses, an additional 5 feet in height is not nominal and inconsequential, insufficient evidence has been provided in establishing a unique hardship to the property, insufficient evidence has been provided in showing how the proposal supports the standards in way equally well or better than a proposal that complies with the standards. Vote: Yeas: Snowdon, Stockover, Shuff, Shields, Long Nays: None The Motion was approved to deny the appeal. 2. APPEAL ZBA180036 – WITHDRAWN 3. APPEAL ZBA180037 – POSTPONED Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 October 11, 2018 4. APPEAL ZBA180038 - Approved Address: 305 N. Shields Street Owner/Petitioner: Mark Neubauer Zoning District: N-C-M Code Sections: 4.8(D)(2)(a)2., 4.8(E)(4), 4.8(F)(2)(a)1., 4.8(F)(5), 3.8.19(A)(6) Project Description: The variance request is for a 2-story addition that will connect the primary building to the existing garage. The request requires the following four variances (1) The allowable floor area for the property is 3,575 square feet; the proposed addition exceeds the allowable floor area by 468.17 square feet. (2) The allowed height of the building is 25.33 feet; the proposed addition exceeds the allowed height by 1.82 feet (3) Any new off-street parking shall take access from an alley; the proposed addition includes a new garage accessing from the street (4) The required side-yard setback is 5 feet; the proposed addition encroaches 1.5 feet, matching the setback of the existing building on the lower portion and the upper portion is setback 6 feet and is 19.5 feet tall, the required a maximum height is 18 feet with a 9 feet setback. Additionally, the eaves encroach further than permitted. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance. This property is located in the middle of the block. There is a single-family house and detached garage that currently exist on the property. The proposal is for an addition that would connect these 2 structures into one structure. A new garage would be built with the addition on the front. The addition would match the setback of the existing garage, which already encroaches into the 5 foot required side setback and is located about 3.5 feet away from property line. The upper story is setback 6 feet and has a height of 19.5 feet. Code states a wall height requirement of 14 feet at the 5 foot setback, and then the wall height can be extended by one foot for every foot further from the setback, to a maximum of 18 feet. If a building is 18 feet in height, that required setback would be 9 feet. The new garage takes access from the front. Code requires when you have access to an alley, that new off-street parking areas take access from that alley. The other variance request for overall height exceeds the allowable 25.33 feet by 1.82 feet. There is driveway access from the street, but a new garage is considered a new parking area. The existing garage does take access from the alley. To the north of this property there is a single-story multi-unit building, with parking in the front. Snowdon asked if this addition would require an engineering variance, for access off an arterial street. Beals explained since a curb cut is already there, that may not be required. Boardmembers inquired as to any circumstances that might close the driveway to Shields Street. Beals responded that the Land Use Code would not require the driveway to be closed. Any new off- street parking is supposed to take access from the alley. The code is intended to enhance the pedestrian environment, with less driveways and vehicle motion interacting with the sidewalk. If they scraped the house completely and started over, or if there is a change in use, that might change the access. Applicant Presentation: Mark Neubauer, 305 N. Shields St., stated he already proposed variance requests to the Board regarding this project about 1.5 years ago. Mr. Neubauer did take some of the recommendations from the last hearing, such as setting back the 2nd story. He couldn’t get it setback enough to lower the gable height and still leave a livable area on the 2nd floor, so they tried to get as close as possible. As shown on the floor plan, the entire ground floor is garage space; there is a proposed addition that would all be woodshop. The only portion on the ground floor that is not garage is a small section that is an addition to the master bedroom. The current garage section is where Mr. Neubauer’s vehicle is kept now and there is one additional parking spot at front of the house. The goal is to get rid of one of the parking spots at the front of house and park that car in the garage. This would improve the overall appearance of the property. Due to the proximity to property line, they are hard pressed to get a wide enough garage door to accommodate a vehicle. So for cohesiveness with the other garage and ability to put a wide enough garage door in, they are keeping the ground floor within 3 feet of the property line. Regarding street parking, the City recently upgraded Shields Street and he lost all of his on-street parking. The alley way gives access to parking for the apartment building to the west. There are always cars parked near the entrance so it’s hard to access that driveway. Also, the alley is never plowed or kept up by the City. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 4 October 11, 2018 Boardmembers asked about functionality of proposed garage. Mr. Neubauer confirmed that the one section that is currently garage would be left for parking as well as a metal shop, so they do still need a door wide enough to accommodate a vehicle. The new addition would be woodshop, and they would like to separate the spaces between wood and metal working. There is a pass through from the existing garage to the proposed garage. Stockover inquired if this wood and metal working is for business or a hobby. Mr. Neubauer explained he does own a mechanical contracting company here in town, so occasionally this would be for work, but for the most part it is hobby. Shuff asked about possibly dropping the eve height 1.5 feet on the 2nd floor. Mr. Neubauer stated he was trying to match roof lines on the east elevation. On the back of the building is an addition that was done previously. Keeping the roof line on the back of the house set the roof pitch for the whole addition. By shrinking the 2nd floor and dropping the peak down then the space is an unlivable, corridor type space. Audience Participation: None. Board Discussion: The Board had a discussion regarding all 4 variances. These requests are mitigated somewhat in that this property is in the middle of multi-family enclave. Individually, these requests are seen quite often and any of these would get approved. Snowdon remembered talking about solar access on this property during the last hearing; to the north of the property they have a side yard as their front door, so they are not building up to the southern setback or denying solar access for that building. Also, the building use might change in the future. Boardmembers discussed the neighboring properties. To the north and south are both one story apartment buildings. Stockover liked everything about this project; it’s well thought out, and nobody from the public is opposing it. Mr. Neubauer owns 2 of the neighboring properties so it’s not affecting anyone else. Long proposed approving all variances but the height issue. The floor area does not seem to be such a problem in context with the large neighboring buildings. Encroachment is not as much of an issue because the garage is matching another current condition. Snowdon noted that the taking access off of Shields is appropriate for this area but wanted the applicant to be aware of the Engineering Department’s requirements. GIS does show that the back alley is a public alley which is the lowest priority in maintenance after arterial, collectors, and residential streets. Shuff shared her concerns with the floor area ratio, solar access setback, and height. A floor area of 468 square feet is not nominal and inconsequential in the context of the neighborhood. The allowable height is something the applicant can probably address. The new off-street parking is an existing condition. Neighboring properties also have driveways that take access off the street. The side yard setback request is nominal and inconsequential since there is an existing garage at that setback. There is a 6-foot tall fence and there is not an abutting property. There is open space directly to the north. She understands matching the roof pitch, but currently the height on the west side is lower than the eave height at the south. It seems they could probably lower that height and still have head room and make the space viable. Snowdon inquired if there is a certain height where attic or storage space is counted as usable square footage. Beals responded that in the primary building it does not matter where that ceiling height is because it all counts as floor area. It is only in detached accessory buildings that the 7.5-foot ceiling height counts. Snowdon noted that on the second floor there is a 4 by 11.5 open to the garage area below and inquired if that was counted in the additional square footage. Beals added, if it is not second story, anything that has a ceiling height above 14 feet counts as 200% of the floor area calculations. Snowdon commented that might be why the request is over by 400 square feet. Long questioned if the applicant did not attach the back existing garage would he be allowed additional square feet? Beals replied that an additional 250 square feet is granted for a detached accessory building. Long noted that he could build the whole thing 2 inches from the back garage and he would gain back 250 square feet of allowable area. The requested 468 square feet is not nominal and Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 October 11, 2018 inconsequential, but the aerial views show there are large poor-quality structures around this property that could help mitigate the request. Mr. Neubauer asked to address the Board regarding the square footage. The last time he applied for a variance, his proposal was over by about 180 square feet. The only change that was made to this new proposal was that they shrunk the second floor and somehow the total square footage calculations changed. This may be because the 18 feet high clear space in the garage may not have been caught last time. We have added a storage loft, which may add square footage but it is literally storage space. Last time we discussed a chicken coop that will be moving away. We also enlarged the open outdoor front porch area. Mr. Neubauer was concerned with the calculations going from being over 180 square feet to 468 square feet when the second floor has been shrunk. Snowdon questioned there is a certain height that does not count for useable square footage such as attic or storage space. Beals responded that concerning attic space, if you can access the attic space via stairs and a door way, then it is counted as floor area. If it is accessed by a hole in the ceiling, then it is not counted. In the primary building the ceiling height is not counted as floor area, but if you go above 14 feet it counts twice. The intent of the Code is to reduce massing and reduce solar impacts. Snowdon noted that open space to the garage is being counted twice. The Board had a discussion regarding the square footage of the plan and how it was calculated. Beals calculated the square footage from outer wall to outer wall. The wood shed/chicken coop was not counted in Staff’s calculations but is space that the applicant included in the proposal. The existing second floor square footage is not shown in the submitted floor plans, and we are assuming that the existing building is 2 story. The applicant says the only thing that is 2 story is the older back addition and that is unusable space. Mr. Neubauer calls this the cigar room, which is 10 feet by 8 feet, with the highest center point at 7 feet. Beals stated the definition does not look at the height of that ceiling if they have access to that second story through a staircase. This square footage was still included in staff calculations, as a low ceiling height in a primary residence does not eliminate that square footage and is counted as floor area. Mr. Neubauer stated there is no access to the cigar room from the second-floor addition, access is from an existing staircase that comes out of the existing structure. The roof is sloped, and the room is stepped in with low side walls and picks up the angle of the gable and capped off on top with a couple of lights. Long commented that their software did not include the staircase on the second floor in their calculations, and if that is subtracted the square footage is closer to that on their plans. Beals noted that open balconies and open porches are not included in the square footage. Staircases are counted as floor area for both levels. Mr. Neubauer enquired about the Board’s concern with the roof height. The applicant wants to keep aesthetic consistency and match the current roof pitch. To lower the height by 1.5 feet would mean to change the pitch of one section or one end of the wall. That would create a space that has an end wall that comes up to maybe 6.5 or 7 feet before proceeding up to the ceiling, sacrificing usability. Shuff referenced the view of the rear elevation, pointing out that it’s already not symmetrical; the south end is higher and it’s hard to see significance in taking off another foot. Additional discussion ensued regarding the possibility of lowering the existing roofline, setbacks, square footage calculations, massing and height. This does seem to be a unique area, surrounded by multi-family apartments with large footprints, but they are all one story and this residence would be two story. These items seem more inconsequential within the context of the neighborhood. Plus, the addition is not being placed at the front, but in between two existing structures. They would be allowed an additional 250 square feet if the addition was not attached to the house or garage. Stockover remarked that this project is not harming anyone else. He is not bothered by the massing and height due to the amount of greenspace next to the property. Mr. Neubauer owns one of the neighboring properties. This area still has 2 story buildings in the area if the scope is widened and is not out of character for the basic neighborhood. Shields agreed and noted that the addition is set back from the main structure. Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 October 11, 2018 Long made a motion, seconded by Snowdon, to approve ZBA180038 for following reasons: These variance requests will not diverge from standards except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered in context of this immediate neighborhood. Long accepted additional suggestions by Shuff and Snowdon as amendments to the motion: As far as allowable floor area being over, they are attaching an existing detached garage, which allows for an additional 250 square feet, additionally there is vaulted 1.5 story space within the proposed garage which is adding to that area which we feel are both nominal and inconsequential. Within the context of the neighborhood, the new off-street parking; the neighboring properties both north and south of the existing property already accommodate off- street parking and that is an existing condition. Additionally, there is a hardship in that the improvements to Shields have eliminated any on-street parking, so he wants to accommodate some additional off-street via a garage off Shields. Regarding the height, this is only allowable for a small portion of the building and it’s not for the entire structure. Also, the depth that the neighboring property to the north is set back is quite far from the southern property line so the additional height on the proposed structure is not going to negatively affect any other existing one-story buildings. The project that’s proposed is not detrimental to the public good. Vote: Yeas: Snowdon, Stockover, Shuff, Shields, Long Nays: None The Motion Carried. 5. APPEAL ZBA180039 – Approved Address: 320 Willow Street Owner/Petitioner: Lance Debar Zoning District: R-D-R Code Section: 3.5.2.E(3) Project Description: An existing accessory building is being torn down in order to construct a new building on the adjoining property. The variance request is to rebuild the accessory building in its current location encroaching 4 feet into the required 5 feet side-yard setback and 7 feet into the required 8 feet rear-yard setback. * Note: Boardmember Snowdon disclosed that he was the civil engineer for the neighboring property to the east and north of this project but had no conflict regarding this item and he will be participating in the discussion. Staff Presentation: Beals showed slides relevant to this property which is located near Linden and Willow. The properties to the North and East are being redeveloped, and as part of the reconstruction, this property space is needed where a building currently exists and is being torn down. This property owner is requesting a variance to be able to reconstruct the building at a later date and to place a new building in the same location where the old building was located. The existing building currently encroaches 4 feet into the rear yard setback and 7 feet into the side yard setback. The current building height is 11 feet. The new building that is being constructed on the abutting lot will be taller than this building. The wall facing this property will be devoid of openings and right at the property line, therefore the impact onto the neighboring property is minimal. The replacement building will still be required to pull a building permit for construction and will be required to meet current building code standards. The Board had a discussion regarding the neighboring property being at the lot line. The proposed “Confluence” is a mixed use 5 story building, so according to code they are allowed to have a zero-lot line setback. This variance request is for a residential building, and the standards are 8 and 5 foot setbacks. In this case, there are buildings for 2 different uses butting up against each other. Snowdon asked if this variance is approved, can the applicant decide to move the structure further away from the lot line in the future. Beals confirmed that would be their choice, this is for a minimum one foot of separation.