Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/13/2001A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday September 13, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: David Ayraud Thad Pawlikowski Diane Shannon BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Martin Breth Andy Miscio Steve Remington William Stockover STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nuckols, Zoning Inspector Sandra Kendrick, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Shannon and roll call was takerL 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Board Member Ayraud to approve the minutes from the August 9, 2001 meeting. Board Member Pawlikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. APPEAL NO. 2355 -- Approved with Conditions ZBA September 13, 2001 Page 2 Address: 626 W. Oak Street Petitioner: Chip Steiner, Owner Zone: NCM Section: 3.8.3(1) Backmound: ound: The variance would allow a home occupation activity to be conducted in a detached building rather than in the house that is located on the front portion of the lot. Specifically, the variance would allow the owner to operate a consulting business in the upper floor of a proposed new detached garage with a finished upper floor. The new building would be constructed on the rear portion of the lot. The existing detached garage would be removed. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: There is no available space in the home in which to set up an office. The basement of the home is nonconforming with respect to ceiling height, so it could not be converted into an office. It is not unusual for properties in the older neighborhoods to have older detached buildings that are converted into living space or home occupation areas. The existing one -car detached garage is very small and not conducive to being converted into usable, finished space. There is not an attached garage that can be converted. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to the appeal. Bames commented that the June ZBA meeting had a request for the home occupations in detached buildings, however, it was in a brand new development. They were proposing to obtain a variance through the equal to or better than standard. There has to be a statement as to what the purpose of the standard is that they are requesting a variance for. In this case, the standard is that the home occupation activity has to be in the building where they live. The purpose statement of the home occupation ordinance is as follows, "The purpose of allowing a home occupation as a permitted accessory use to a dwelling is to permit the inhabitants of a dwelling to conduct self-employment on the property where that inhabitant resides in buildings with a residential character that one would normally expect to find on a residential lot (such as homes, sheds, or garages). This self-employment use is intended to only be permitted when the impacts to the neighborhood are minimal." The Applicant has already applied for a building permit for this building showing the upstairs area as an unlabeled room, but the application calls it a bonus room. Zoning has approved the application because if the upper level is not used as a home occupation activity, but finished as accessory living space for the inhabitants of the dwelling, that is all right and this building complies with those requirements. The permit has not been issued yet, but the building can be built and the issue at this meeting is that the Applicant is requesting permission to use the upper floor of the building for home occupation activity. ZBA September 13, 2001 Page 3 Applicant Participation: Chip Steiner, 626 W. Oak Street, addressed the Board. He explained the history of how he arrived at coming before the ZBA with this appeal. Over a year ago he submitted a plan to build this building. At that time they were told they had to attach the building to the house in order to have a two car garage and a unit on the upper level. A breezeway would be an acceptable way to accomplish that so they did move the entire structure south toward the house and attach it with a 30 - 35 foot breezeway. It took two months to get the design redone and by the time they resubmitted the plans, the rule had been changed and they were told they had to have a completely enclosed room and not a breezeway. The plans were taken back to the design people for a third time and had it moved closer to the house, enclosed it and made it an addition to the house. This was significantly more expensive because of breaking into the existing structure plus it divided the backyard. The Historic Preservation Department found this attachment to the house unacceptable. Also at that time the Applicant found out that a similar case had been brought to ZBA where it was decided there could be detached garages with an upper level. Steiner was then told he could do what was originally planned except they could not have an office on the second floor. The existing house is small with 1100 square feet on the main floor and 250 square feet stand up room on the second floor. There are two bedrooms on the main floor, one is a multi -purpose guest room. Since the Historic Preservation would not allow an attachment to the house, in order to gain an office, it has to be on the upper level of the detached garage. Steiner's consulting business consists of the Applicant and his wife. There are usually two to three people that visit per week. Most of his business consists of going to visit clients. The impact on the neighborhood should be less since he will not be leaving his house every morning and returning every evening. Pawlikowski asked if the office would be accessed through the front yard or alley. The Applicant stated access would be from the alley. Ayraud asked where the customers would park. The Applicant said they would park in the front on the street. Shannon asked Barnes if they had received any letters from the neighbors concerning this appeal. Barnes said no. Shannon asked the Applicant what his type of business was. The Applicant responded that he puts together public/private partnerships. He is now working for Larimer County on the Fairgrounds project, and is also consulting with the City of Loveland and the City of Laramie on their downtown development. His background is in downtown redevelopment. Board Discussion: Ayraud felt this appeal fell under the equal to or better than standard. Zoning has approved the size of the building and the issue is whether or not a business be allowed to be conducted in the building and how it would impact the community. The Applicant stated that the impact would be minimal. Shannon suggested making the agreement specific to this kind of business in case ZBA September 13, 2001 Page 4 someone else would purchase the property and want to put another kind of business there. Pawlikowski could see no detrimental impacts to the community. Ayraud made a motion that Appeal 2355 be approved based on it being equal to or better than standard finding that it is not detrimental to the public good and it will protect the public interest with the same standard equally well or better. The type of business that is proposed is a consulting business for downtown/fairground development and redevelopment and that specific type of business based on the owner's projection will have at the most two to three possible customers. The impact on the surrounding community would be negligible, if any, in fact a decrease in the impact because the owner will not be traveling in and out of the property. It does support the standard of equally well or better by making this an incidental use on the property. The business is not the primary use of the property and granting the variance will protect the purpose equally well. He added the condition that this variance is only to this owner and this occupation. If the owner should change the type of business or sell the home, the variance would be void and the property owner would need to come back to the Board. Pawlikowski seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Shannon, Pawlikowski Nays: None 3. APPEAL NO. 2356 — Approved Address: 125 Circle Dr. Petitioner: Fred Porter Zone: NCL Section: 4.6(E)(4) Background: The requested variance would reduce the street side yard setback along Lake Street from the minimum 15 feet to 10 feet to accommodate an added one -car garage to the existing single car attached garage (making a two -car garage) with a bedroom on the second floor. This same variance was approved on March 15, 2001, but will expire September 15, 2001. The Applicant will not be able to obtain a building permit prior to the expiration date. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting a six-month extension to the original variance. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The house is currently at a 10-foot exterior side yard setback and the Applicant wishes to continue the same footprint. A large 50 to 60 foot blue spruce tree and the rear yard would be impacted if the addition were recessed from the existing exterior side by five feet. Also, see minutes from March 15, 2001 meeting. Staff Comments: ZBA September 13, 2001 Page 5 Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to the appeal. Ayraud asked why the appeal was only for six months. Barnes stated that in Section 2.10 of the Land Use Code which is the chapter in the Code that gives authority to the Zoning Board of Appeals, states that "any variance which applies to the issuance of a building permit shall expire six months after the date that such variance was granted unless all such necessary permits have been obtained provided. However, that for good cause shown the Zoning Board of Appeals may authorize a longer term if such a longer term is reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. In no event shall the period of time for obtaining all necessary permits under variance exceed 12 months in length. One six month extension may be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals." Unless there is a specific request or it is part of the motion at the original hearing allowing longer than six months, it automatically expires six months after the date of the granting unless the applicant has obtained a building permit. Then the applicant would deal with the expiration terms of the building code. In this case, there was no request for a longer period of time and the Board did not include in their motion that it would be granted for a longer period of time, so therefore, it is automatically lapsed and the Board is authorized to grant one six-month extension. Applicant Participation: Fred Porter, 125 Circle Drive, explained to the Board that the reason for the request for the extension is because the design has been changed to reduce the size. Cost issues and to make it fit better with the house were the reasons for the design change. The applicants just had a baby, so has not had time to do the work. Ayraud asked if the Applicant would be able to get the permit in the next six months. The Applicant said he was confident that he would. Shannon asked if the new design was better than the original in regard to the Code. Barnes said the same variance is being requested and the size is not an issue. The Applicant said the footprint will remain the same maintinaing the existing character of the home and the roof height has been reduced to make it appear smaller. Ayraud asked Barnes if it was necessary to find a hardship or equal to or better than or just to find good cause to extend the variance. Barnes said that was correct. Ayraud made a motion to approve Appeal 2356 which is an extension of a previously granted variance for a second six month period. Pawlikowski seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Ayraud, Shannon, Pawlikowski Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2357 - Approved Address: 2034 South Taft Hill Road Petitioner: Erika Keeton, City Engineering Department Zone: RL Section: 3.8.11(A) and 3.8.11(C)(1) & (2) ZBA September 13, 2001 Page 6 Background The variance would allow a new fence to be constructed at a height exceeding four feet in the front yard of the home at 2034 South Taft Hill Road. Specifically, the proposed fence would be six feet in height, matching the height of the other existing fences along South Taft Hill Road. The variance would also allow the 114 linear feet of fencing along the new sidewalk to be constructed without having to vary the setback of one-third of its length by the required five feet. The new fence is being proposed as a way of mitigating the impacts associated with the new eight -foot wide sidewalk that is being constructed as part of the City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Access Program Petitioner's Statement of Hardship Please see attached petitioner's letter A. In addition, the large, existing trees on the owner's lot are too close to the proposed fence line to accommodate an additional five feet of varying setback. Staff Comments The Board may find that the topographical situation of the trees may present a hardship with respect to the five feet varying setback requirement. With respect to the six foot fence in the front yard, the Board must determine that a hardship exists or that the proposal will promote the purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a proposal for which complies with the standard. The purpose of the four -foot height limit in a front yard is to allow the active, visually interesting features of the house to dominate the streetscape rather than tall privacy fences. The purpose of the five-foot setback along arterial streets shall be made visually interesting and shall avoid creating a "tunnel" effect. In order for the Board to be able to apply the "equal to or better than" standard, it must be found that the proposed fence will not be detrimental to the public good and that the proposal is equal to a proposal that complies with the code. The Board may find that the existence of all the other six-foot high, non -setback -varying fences may essentially make the purpose of the standard non -applicable in this situation, since adding 114 feet of additional fencing will have no impact on the streetscape whether it meets the standard or does not. Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property is across the street from Blevins Junior High School. There are no sidewalks at this time, but an eight -foot wide sidewalk is proposed. The trees in front of the property will be removed. Shannon asked to have the Code explained as to this appeal. Barnes said they are requesting two variances, one is to allow the six foot height instead of the four foot in the front yard. The purpose of that standard is that the City believes that having tall privacy fences in front yards along streets is not appropriate. It detracts from the streetscape of the active area of the home so four feet is the limit for a front yard fence. The need to vary the setback to five feet along major ZBA September 13, 2001 Page 7 streets is to avoid creating a tunnel effect. Six foot high fences on both sides of the street dominates the streetscape. In order to avoid a long line of six foot high fences, the Code requires that the setback be varied for a one-third of every 100 feet by at least five feet. Applicant Participation: Erika Keeton, City of Fort Collins Engineering Department, addressed the Board. The Pedestrian Access Program which is funded through the City would like to install a sidewalk at this location. There are two properties at this location which do not have sidewalks and with the close proximity to the school it is a high priority for the Pedestrian Access Program In order to meet the City requirements the four trees in the front of the property need to be removed to accommodate the sidewalk. Two existing trees would remain within the lot that will limit the location of the fence. Ayraud asked what the impact would be on the trees and fence if the sidewalk was seven feet wide. The Applicant said the trees would still have to be removed whether the sidewalk was seven or eight feet wide. (Detached sidewalks can be seven feet wide.) Sidewalks should be one foot wider if they are on arterial roadways and attached to the curb. Ayraud asked if the trees will be inside the fence. The Applicant said the fence will be where the trees are after they are removed. The two remaining trees are closer to the house. Ayraud asked if the trees could be moved. The Applicant said they are too large to be moved. Shannon asked if the sidewalk could be located inside the tree line. The Applicant said the City Forester has evaluated all of the trees and if the sidewalk was located inside the four trees it would be impacting the two trees they are planning to keep. Those two trees are identified as more valuable than the four at the front of the property. Shannon said she thought that according to the site plan, the sidewalk could be placed inside the trees. Barnes explained that the closer the sidewalk is moved to the house the more it impacts the quality of life of the residents of the house with the students walking that close to the home. The Applicant said if the sidewalk were to be placed inside the four trees and installing a fence with a two foot setback, it would be impacting the two trees and also eliminating the front yard of this home. Ayraud asked if the sidewalk project is already proposed and going to be installed regardless or is it dependent on this homeowner agreeing and the only way she will agree is if there is some privacy. The Applicant said the City had to purchase right of way from the homeowner to complete the project and her concern was privacy. Pawlikowski asked if the property line has been changed as a result of the sidewalk installation. The Applicant said the property line has been changed. She also stated there is a pedestrian crossing near the property. The property owner, Pat Gifford, addressed the Board in support of the project stating it is very dangerous not having a sidewalk for the students to walk on. She also said the trees are diseased Dutch Ehn trees and the City will balance with new landscaping. The trees and bushes that are going to be removed will open up the house to the street, so that is why they are requesting a higher privacy fence. Ayraud asked if the proposed fence will be consistent with the other fences in the area. The homeowner said it would be. ZBA September 13, 2001 Page 8 Board Discussion Ayraud said in any other situation, he would not agree, but because there is a school across the street there is no alternative. Shannon asked if the school services students from both sides of Taft Hill Road and the homeowner answered that it does, but more students seem to come from the east side. There are two other crosswalks, one at Prospect and Taft Hill, and one at Drake and Taft Hill. Shannon thought this has been well thought out considering the safety concerns. Ayraud made a motion that Appeal 2357 be approved based on the standard of streetscape and community impact of having taller fences. The standard being the City is trying to minimize the amount of tall fences, however, when compared to having children walking along the street this privacy fence needs to be constructed. It would not be detrimental to the public accordingly, on the condition that the fence is the same construction and type as the already existing fences. It would be equal to the standard and would promote consistency along the streetscape. Pawlikowski seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes: Ayraud, Shannon, Pawlikowski Nays: None APPEAL NO. 2358 - Approved Address: 2540 East Drake Road Petitioner: Allen Curtis Zone: T Section: 4.9(B)(1)(b) Background: The property is located in the T-Transition zoning district. The code does not allow the construction of a new building or an addition to any property in this zone unless the Zoning Board of Appeals grants a variance. Cargill, Inc. proposes to construct a 2304 square foot addition on the north side of their existing office building. The additional floor area will be for lab and office space associated with the Cargill research use. Statement of Hardship: Without a variance, the needed expansion can only occur when the property is rezoned by the City Council at a later date. Cargill is a viable business that needs this extra space in order to continue to operate efficiently. The expansion will not result in any new operational activities that do not already occur on the site. A variance is preferable over rezoning due to the time delay involved with approving a rezoning request. The addition will be located in an area on the ZBA September 13, 2001 Page 9 site where it will not be visible from Drake Road, so it should not be detrimental to the public good. Please see attached petitioner's letter B. Staff Comments: Jenny Nuckols presented slides relevant to the appeal. Shannon asked to have the transition zone explained. Barnes read the purpose statement which is as follows, "The transition district is intended for properties for which there are no specific and immediate plans for development. The only permitted uses are those existing at the date the property was placed into this district". Shannon asked why it would take so long to get a rezoning. Barnes said rezoning property requires going first to the Planning and Zoning Board who would have to recommend a rezoning to the City Council. It would then be put on a City Council agenda and City Council would have two readings and then it would be effective ten days after the second reading. The rezoning process is faster than other types of processes, but since it is in the T-District the code allows the petitioner to request the City Council at any time to take it into different zone. The City Council would have to hear the request within 60 days from the time the P & Z Board had their hearing. Shannon asked if this zoning would create problems in the future. Barnes said this property does not have specific and immediate plans for development other than the addition which is now being considered, but the T-District does specifically say that if after the property has been placed in the T-District, the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance in accordance with Division 2.10 of the Land Use Code which is the variance chapter, subject to the criteria established for City Council permitting installation or enlargement of a permanent structure containing a use which was existing at the time the property was placed in this district or containing a use which is ancillary to such existing use. If the property were to be rezoned it would probably be rezoned to LMN. In the LMN zone, this use would still be allowed to continue and would be classified as a existing, limited, permitted use which could expand up to 25 percent without the need for any public hearing and without the need of having to bring the property into compliance. Ayraud had some questions regarding the regulations of the Land Use Code concerning the T- District zoning. Barnes explained that variances could be granted as long as a site plan was submitted and without substantial detriment to the public good. Eckman explained that this is what the ZBA Board already does by finding it is not detrimental to the public good and there is a hardship. He said the Board should use the criteria found in Section 2.10 to maintain compliance. Applicant Participation: Allen Curtis, architect for the project, 3109 South Taft Hill Road, addressed the Board. Cargill, Inc. has been a business that is trying to grow and they have a lot of ground at that address. They do seed research and a lot of good for the community. The proposal is to expand the lab capability. They are keeping in character with the existing structures. They were surprised to find out they were in the T-zone, and are planning to go ahead with rezoning. They have already ZBA September 13, 2001 Page 10 set aside funding for the new addition which creates a hardship as far as their funding on a year- to-year basis. Ayraud asked if the consolidation research and development will bring in more staff from elsewhere or if this is more space for current staff in the building. The Applicant said the lab facility needs to be expanded because of overcrowding in the existing facility. They have cold rooms in storage buildings where seeds sit to incubate, so increasing the size of the building will move the cold rooms closer to the labs. Board Discussion: Ayraud asked if the Board had to find that the variance is detrimental to the public good in order not to approve it or if the Board had to find reason to approve it. Eckman explained that the Board needed to find that it is not detrimental to the public good and work on either the hardship approach or the equal to or better than approach. Ayraud had concerns about the variance meeting the standards. He questioned staff regarding existing and proposed uses. Barnes said the purpose of the T District is a holding zone. It is used quite often when property is annexed into the City which was the case with this property. The property owners at the time of annexation do not have immediate development or redevelopment plans. They can be placed in this holding zone and when they decide what they want to do they can come out of that zone. The idea of hardship is awkward because City Council authorizes variances to be granted to allow these additions. One option under the equal to or better than standard is it could be rezoned to the LMN zone without any public hearing. The plan the Applicant submitted is equal to what they would submit if they were zoned in the appropriate zone. The City has a structure plan map which guides City Staff and City Council as to how properties should be zoned within the urban growth area. This was used when the entire City was rezoned in 1997 for properties already in the City. For those properties that are outside the City limits, but within the urban growth area, the structure plan is the adopted plan showing how annexed property should be zoned. The structure plan map for this property shows it is LMN. If they want to rezone it to something other than LMN, the structure plan map would have to be amended which would go to City Council and if that gets approved, it would go through the rezoning process. The T district incorporates a very large area which includes this property and many, many acres around this property. Eckman explained the legislative history of the T zone. Shannon asked staff if the appeal could be approved using the equal to or better standard with no detriment to the public and its unusual circumstances being the T zone. Eckman explained that they do not have to do both. They need to find that there is no detriment to the public or a hardship. ZBA September 13, 2001 Page I Ayraud made a motion to approve Appeal 2358 based on what is proposed is equal to or better than the standard currently in place. Shannon seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes: Ayraud, Shannon, Pawlikowski Nay: None Other Business: Barnes discussed proposed code change that will be going to City Council this fall. Barnes handed out a memo prepared by Eckman with guidelines for preparing motions. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 a.m Diane Shannon, Vice -Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator