Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/14/2004is 0 Minutes approved by the Board at the November 18, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — October 14, 2004 8:30 a.m. 11 Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 11 Chairperson: William Stockover JjPhone: (H) 223-7138 II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday October 14, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Dickson Robert Donahue Dwight Hall Dana McBride Andy Miscio Steve Remington William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Remington made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 9, 2004, meeting. Stockover seconded the motion. The motion passed with Miscio and Hall abstaining. ZBA October 14, 2004 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO.2482—Approved. Address: 220 Wood Street Petitioner: Frank Connolly Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would reduce the required side -yard setback along the north lot line from 5' to 3' in order to allow the existing front screened porch to be removed and replaced with an addition to the front of the home. The screened porch is already at a 3' setback; however, the new wall construction replacing it must comply with the code or receive a variance. The variance would also reduce the required side -yard setback along the north lot line from 5' to 3' in order to allow an existing shed at the back of the lot to be removed and replaced with a new, 20' x 20' detached garage. The north wall of the garage will be at the same setback as the wall of the existing shed. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: The 35' lot width is narrow. The existing home and the existing shed are already at a 3' setback. The owner would like to reuse the existing concrete slab of the shed for the new garage. Staff Comments: There are existing structures currently at the requested setbacks, and it is a narrow lot. The proposed construction on the house is perhaps easier to support than the new garage. However, narrow lot can be grounds for a variance. Staff' Presentation: Barnes commented that the Board was familiar with the location. Barnes said a couple of months ago a variance was requested by the property owner in one of the adjacent lots. The lot was 35-feet wide. A 35-foot wide lot was uncharacteristic of the Old Town neighborhood because most lots were 40-50 feet in width. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes noted that the existing house was setback three feet from the property line, which made the structure a non -conforming building. The Petitioner would like to reuse the existing slab for the garage, and proposed to demolish the existing shed. Barnes showed the existing house and noted that the enclosed porch area will be removed and reconstructed. Barnes commented that all new construction needed to comply with code requirements. Barnes referred to the site plan that was included in Board packets. The Petitioner also proposed a ten -foot addition on the front of the property. The proposed addition will comply with the required setbacks. ZBA October 14, 2004 Page 3 • Applicant Participation: Frank Connolly, 220 Wood Street, addressed the Board. Connolly stated that Barnes covered most of the request. Connolly said that the house was already at a three-foot setback and felt the proposal was insignificant. Connolly noted that the houses to his right and left both extended forward. Remington stated that he understood the Petitioner's rationale for the existing wall. Remington asked if the Petitioner could move the garage over two feet to comply with the requirements. Connolly responded the lot was too narrow, and it blocked off a good portion of the backyard. Connolly stated that it would be convenient to use the existing slab, although he understood if it was not possible. Board Discussion: Hall asked Barnes if he knew the address of the property he referenced in the introduction to the appeal. Barnes did not recall the address but thought it was on the 200 block of Wood Street. Stockover wanted the Board to discuss the porch first. Stockover felt the request was an improvement and that the encroachment would be minimal. Stockover noted that the request was common in the older neighborhoods. Stockover commented that the plans looked nice and • he was in favor of approving the porch section. Hall and Remington concurred with Stockover. Miscio asked if there was an alley behind the property. Stockover said yes. Miscio wanted to know if the garage had access to the alley. Connolly said that the garage would be accessed by the back alley. Miscio asked if the Petitioner currently had a garage. Connolly replied that he did not have a garage at the present time. Stockover asked Connolly how far the proposed addition would extend from the other side (not the three feet side). Barnes responded that it would be 12 feet. Miscio asked where the Petitioner kept his vehicles. Connolly said that he parked in front of the house and on the side of the house. Stockover stated that he did not have a problem with the garage. Stockover remarked that the narrow lot could be used as a hardship standard. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2482 based on the hardship standard. Remington noted that approval of the appeal would not be detrimental to public good. According to Remington, the lot was narrow (35-feet wide) and was in the older part of town. The house already existed at a non -conforming setback. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Miscio, Remington, Stockover, Hall, Dickson, Donahue. • Nays: None. ZBA October 14, 2004 Page 4 4. APPEAL NO. 2483—Approved. Address: 2537 Research Blvd. Petitioner: Leo Peterson Zone: E Section: 3.8.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would allow two monument signs along Drake Road adjacent to the Centre for Advanced Technology 4th filing at the northwest corner of Drake and Research Blvd., instead of the one monument sign allowed. Specifically, the variance would allow a new, 38 square foot double-faced monument sign to be located on the south side of the building at 2537 Research Blvd., in addition to the large, existing Centre for Advanced Technology (CAT) development sign at the corner of the two streets. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The existing development sign at the comer was the first CAT sign installed. It was installed prior to most of the subsequent filings being approved and developed, and prior to the adoption of the residential neighborhood sign district regulations. It has no relevance to the 4th filing and does not advertise any of the buildings in the development. Identification signage along the street is important in order to assist customers in finding the businesses. Additionally, all of the buildings are addressed off Research Blvd, but some actually abut Drake Road. The address also adds to the confusion of finding these businesses. Staff Comments The new proposed sign is a considerable distance from the CAT sign at the corner, so street clutter would be minimized. It might be hard to argue that this is an "equal to or better" than situation, but there are some unusual circumstances that might support a hardship approach. Since the CAT sign is the original sign and has nothing to do with this development, a hardship may have been imposed on this property owner. Staff Presentation Barnes commented that the property was in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The Residential Neighborhood Sign District had strict sign regulations. The development Center for Advanced Technology, 4th filing, fell into the convenience shopping category in the Neighborhood Sign District. The category allowed one free-standing sign per street adjacent to the development. According to Barnes, the development had two streets, one that fronted on Research Blvd., and the one on Drake Road. ZBA October 14, 2004 Page 5 • Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes commented that the Center for Advanced Technology property was large and commercial in nature. Barnes outlined the boundaries of the fourth filing. The Center for Advanced Technology had a generic sign that did not identify any particular business. Barnes showed the placement of the two generic signs. One of the generic signs was considered a Drake Road sign, which took up the sign allowance for Drake Road for the fourth filing. Barnes said this meant that there cannot be any other signs on Drake Road unless a variance was granted by the Board. The proposed sign location was a reasonable distance from the Research Blvd. and Drake Road intersection. The proposed sign would advertise the building and prospective tenants. Barnes commented that the large Centre for Advanced Technology sign at the corner of Research and Drake did not comply with the size or height requirements allowed in the Neighborhood Sign District. Barnes noted that the Centre for Advanced Technology sign will have to come into compliance by 2009. Barnes showed examples of typical signs in the area. Remington asked what size sign would be allowed on Drake Road. Baines replied that the sign could be a maximum of 8 feet high and 40 square feet per face. Remington wanted to know if the existing sign was similar in size. Barnes noted that the existing sign was over 112 square feet, and commented that the sign would have to be modified in 2009 as well. Remington asked if signage was restricted by development. Barnes responded that in the Neighborhood Sign District each development was treated separately, and within the Centre for Advanced Technology there were a number of developments such as the shopping center and the various • office complexes. Dickson wondered if any more ground signage would be allowed upon the development being completed or if the owner would have to come to the Board for a variance request. Barnes said yes and noted that there would not be two new buildings, but additions onto existing buildings. According to Barnes, free-standing signs would not be allowed along the street. Dickson stated that the proposed sign would need to accommodate future tenants. McBride wanted Barnes to clarify the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Barnes said the Residential Neighborhood Sign District included areas with existing residential neighborhoods nearby. The Centre for Advanced Technology included a residential neighborhood across the street and that was why it was included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The Residential Neighborhood Sign District was more restrictive in size and illumination. Applicant Participation Leo Peterson, representative for the owners of the building, addressed the Board. Peterson noted that the request was to aid in advertising of the building and giving directions to business clients. Hall asked Peterson who the owner was of the Centre for Advanced Technology sign. Peterson replied that CSURF owned the sign and the owners of the building at 2537 Research Blvd. had no control over the CAT sign. Peterson stated that CSURF was informed that the CAT sign • would need to come into compliance by 2009, and in the interim CSURF was not willing to do Z13A October 14, 2004 Page 6 anything with the existing sign. Peterson noted that CSURF offered some solutions but it was at the owner's expense. Hall asked if the sign was moved to other side of Research Blvd. would the sign be an issue. Bames said yes and noted that if the sign was moved to the east it would not be a problem. Barnes commented that property in an area that was owned by CSU would not be regulated. Dickson addressed Peterson to see if an alternative would be to apply 12" lettering to the side of the building. Peterson said Dickson's suggestion would be an alternative. The building, according to Peterson, had five tenants and only the building would be advertised not the individual tenants. Barnes clarified that the Residential Neighborhood Sign District allowed one sign per wall per tenant space. Dickson asked staff if the sign that advertised the Drake Tech Center as well as Norlarco Credit Union was the only allowable development sign. Barnes said yes. In support of the appeal Raju Jairam, co-owner of the property at 2537 Research Blvd., addressed the Board. Jairam commented that the development has struggled since it was built. Jairam felt that advertising and visibility were important to the tenants. Hall felt the best case scenario was for the CAT sign to be moved across the street. Hall wanted to know Jairam's opinion about moving the CAT sign. Jairam noted that he has not come to a compromise with CSURF. Barnes added that the Applicant first approached staff about the sign a year ago, and the Applicant finally decided to approach the Board after failure to work things out with CSURF. Board Discussion Remington agreed with Hall that the ideal solution would be to move the CAT sign. Remington leaned towards approving the variance with a condition that in 2009 the existing sign would need to be removed from the corner. Hall concurred and asked staff if they saw any issues with Remington's suggestion. Eckman said yes and noted that CSURF was a stranger to the variance request. He noted that there was not a nexus between the two. Remington asked if the condition that no other signage be allowed without Board approval would be acceptable. Stockover commented that he was seeing the approval in a different light. Stockover stated that the whole area was the Center for Advanced Technology and felt the existing sign was a piece of artwork. Stockover noted that the directions for clients should include the Centre for Advanced Technology. The intention of the sign code, according to Stockover, was to limit advertising signage. Stockover felt the Meadowlark neighborhood was most affected by the signage and it was separated by four lanes of traffic. Stockover thought the neighborhood was already protected by a buffer of traffic lanes, and commented that the impact was fairly minimal. ZBA October 14, 2004 Page 7 • Miscio commented that the names were confusing and very similar. Jairam replied that the names were picked by the partners. Barnes added that the words Center and Tech were used repeatedly. Dickson commented that the sign on the top left was not being used to its full capacity. Jairam replied that the sign Dickson referred to was owned by CSURF. Bames pointed out that the sign will have to be brought into compliance with the size and height requirements for the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Jairam commented that the Norlarco headquarters building was originally designed to be CSURF's headquarters, and CSURF decided to stay across campus. Miscio inquired about the vacancy rate. Jairam said it was 40% and the structure was constructed five year ago. Dickson said economics could not be used as a hardship. Hall felt the existing sign that the Applicant had no control over was the hardship. Hall was in favor of the appeal because in 2009 the sign would need to be brought into compliance. Dickson commented that if the property were in a different zone the Applicant would be allowed to have a sign. The Board discussed which standard to use for the variance request. Hall felt strongly that the request should be approved under the hardship standard. Stockover concurred with Hall. Remington commented that a unique situation occurred at the Centre for Advanced Technology including: a sign that was owned by CSURF, although the buildings had various owners, and a road that separated the residential neighborhood. • Hall made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2483 under the hardship standard. Hall stated that there was not detriment to the public good. Hall noted that the hardship was that the original development put up a sign to identify a large area, and the current filing has no control over the sign because it was owned by CSURF. The Applicant did not have the ability to place signage on major arterial streets such as Drake Road. The Applicant would be able to have a sign if the CSURF's sign were removed. Remington amended the motion to include that the history of the development, ownership, lot filing, and development structure of the Centre for Advanced Technology was a unique situation. He also noted that in 2009 the existing sign will have to come into compliance. Hall agreed to add Remington's amendments. Remington seconded the motion. The Board discussed if the signs could only advertise the building or the tenants. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Miscio, Remington, Stockover, Hall, Dickson, and Donahue. Nays: None. 5. APPEAL NO. 2484—Approved. Address: 4920 Caravelle Drive Petitioner: Terry Heyne Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D)(2)(c) isBackground ZBA October 14, 2004 Page 8 The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the south lot line from 15' to 10' in order to allow a new home to be constructed on this lot. The rear lot line abuts an open space and the front portion of the lot is encumbered by two ditch easements and mature trees. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The front portion of the lot is encumbered by two ditch easements and mature trees. These topographical features necessitate that the home be constructed on the south half of the lot. The lot abuts open space; so the intent of the setback requirement is met and there is no detriment to the public good. Staff Comments The Board has granted similar requests using the "equal to or better than" standard when the lot line abuts an open space or non -buildable area, finding that the intent of the standard is met. Staff Presentation Bames presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes noted that the Cottonwood Ridge subdivision was located on South Shields Street south of Harmony Road. According to Barnes, the development was new, and the property in question was at the end of the cul-de-sac. Barnes commented that there was a ditch, trees, and open space to the rear of the lot and demonstrated where the lot lines would be located on the lot. At the end of Caravelle Drive, was road access that served two more lots behind the property in question. The two properties that had road access did not have street frontage. Applicant Participation Terry Heyne, building contractor for 4920 Caravelle Drive, addressed the Board. Heyne stated that he received an overview picture of the site and where it was located in relation to the other houses. Heyne commented that he spoke with residents that surround the property regarding the proposed location of the house. Heyne had a list of signatures from property owners in the surrounding area who were in favor of the appeal. Heyne gave the letter to the Board. Stockover stated that the Board would need to keep the letter. Heyne commented that the site was unique due to the number of trees, and felt the trees could be used as a hardship. The owners and neighbors, according to Heyne, did not want the trees removed. Hall asked Heyne what the "Tract F" referred to on the site plan. Hall wanted to know the distance between the existing homes and the proposed home. Heyne commented that he would need a scale to give Hall an accurate distance but felt an approximation was 15-20 feet. Heyne showed the plans to the Board. Remington noted that the plan showed the removal of one tree and wanted to know if that wa Heyne's intention. Heyne responded that the property had some dead trees. The City Forest r came out and identified which trees were dead and which ones will be preserved. According to ZBA October 14, 2004 Page 9 • Heyne, the site was being cleaned in order to prepare the lot for the construction of the house. Remington asked Heyne for an estimate regarding which trees will be preserved. Heyne referred Remington to the homeowner. Ken Saul, 4425 Chateau Drive, Loveland, Colorado, addressed the Board. Saul purchased the property. Saul stated that the large tree in the middle was the only live tree that had to be removed. Saul noted that he could not get insurance unless the dead trees were removed due to the possibility of a dead tree falling into the home. Saul intended to maintain as many trees as possible. Board Discussion Hall felt the request could be approved under the equal to or better than standard. Stockover was in favor of the appeal, and commented that there was a lot of neighborhood support for the request. Remington agreed with Stockover. He noted that the intent of the Code will be met by the property backing up to open space. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal 2484 based on the equal to or better than standard. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The purpose of the standard was to provide light, ventilation, and air. The intent of the Code was met by the property backing up to open space. Remington noted that a number of mature trees will be preserved. • Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Miscio, Remington, Stockover, Hall, Dickson, and Donahue. Nays: None. 6. APPEAL NO. 2485—Approved with conditions. Address: 49 South Taft Hill Road Petitioner: Heide Unger Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D)(5) Background The variance would allow the construction of a 1200 square foot detached accessory building. Code allows up to 800 square feet. The applicant wishes to use the building for storage and restoration of their own personal collectors' vehicles. The lot is 43,048 square feet in size. Petitioner's Statement ofHardshin There is currently a detached single car garage with workshop being used for a personal • recording studio and the applicant needs space for the restoration of classic vehicles and storage ZBA October 14, 2004 Page 10 for personal items. The code previously would have allowed this size structure but was reduced before the applicant could apply for the permit. Staff Comments The Board has previously applied the "equal to or better than" standard on lots of this size since the intent of the 800 square footage limit is to ensure that large detached buildings aren't constructed on normal size lots. Normal size lots are about 15,000 square feet or less. This lot exceeds 1 acre. Staff Presentation Bames presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes noted that the lot was one acre. Bames commented that two years ago the code was changed to restrict the size of detached accessory buildings to 800 square feet. The intent of the code change, according to Barnes, was to ensure that individuals on normal size lots did not construct large buildings relevant to the size of the house. The Board has heard similar requests for accessory buildings larger than 800 square feet. The Board granted the requests when the lot has been larger than the average lot. The lot was large and rectangular in shape. There was an existing garage on the property but the Applicant proposed to construct a new one. Barnes demonstrated where the proposed garage would be located on the property. Remington asked staff if property owners were allowed to have multiple detached accessory buildings. Bames replied that there was not a limit to the number of buildings that could be on a lot. Some zones, according to Barnes, had a lot area to floor area ratio which would limit the number of buildings on a property. The property in question does not have a lot area to floor area ratio, and could have an unlimited number of buildings as long as they did not exceed 800 square feet. Applicant Participation Heide Unger, 49 South Taft Hill Road, addressed the Board. Unger stated that the proposed detached accessory building will be located to the rear of the property. Unger noted that she owned a number of classic vehicles that need to be stored in the proposed garage. Remington asked if Unger would be in favor of the condition that the lot could not be subdivided. Unger replied that she would not subdivide the lot. Miscio asked Unger if the intent was strictly for the storage of vehicles. Unger responded yes. In support of the appeal Tim Corely, 49 South Taft Hill Road, addressed the Board. He expressed his support for the appeal. Corely noted that he had personal vehicles that needed to be out of the elements before ZBA October 14, 2004 Page 11 • they were destroyed. Corely commented that it was characteristic of the neighborhood to have multiple buildings, and said he did not intend to subdivide the lot. Board Discussion Remington commented that the variance request was similar to previous requests, and stated that he was in support of the appeal. Remington felt the equal to or better than standard could be used to approve the appeal. Remington wanted to place a condition on the appeal that the lot could not be subdivided. Hall concurred with Remington. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2485 based on the equal to or better than standard. Remington noted that the approval of the variance request would not be detrimental to the public good. The purpose of the standard was to allow an 800 square foot building and was to prohibit accessory buildings from becoming dominate features on a lot relative to the existing house. Remington stated that the lot was approximately an acre and larger than the average lot in the area. The granting of the variance, according to Remington, would meet the intent of the code. Remington placed a condition on the appeal that the lot could not be subdivided. Hall seconded the motion. • Vote: Yeas: McBride, Miscio, Remington, Stockover, Hall, Dickson, and Donahue. Nays: None. 7. APPEAL NO. 2486—Approved with conditions. Address: 957 Nightingale Drive Petitioner: Frank Vaught Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D)(2) Background The variance would reduce the required front -yard setback from 15' to 13'3" at the northwest comer of the recently constructed house. This results in 3.29 square feet of the house encroaching into the setback. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The original site plan showed two lines - an easement line and a setback line, with the house being setback at the easement line. The site plan was redrawn to show the home setback at the setback line. However, when the foundation was staked out the original site plan was used is to of the revised plan. This resulted in the comer of the house being located about 2' closer to the street than it was intended to be. ZBA October 14, 2004 Page 12 Staff Comments None. Staff Presentation Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes clarified that the request was to reduce the setback from 15 feet to 13 feet 3 inches. Barnes noted that the subdivision was currently under construction, and several homes have been constructed in the area. Barnes showed the house in question and said that Nightingale Drive was curved around this particular lot. The encroachment was the comer of the garage at 1 foot 9 inches. Barnes demonstrated how the setback was measured —right angle to the property line at the closest point to the house. Applicant Participation Frank Vaught, representative for Vaught -Frye Architects, addressed the Board. Vaught asked for forgiveness because the encroachment was an existing condition. Vaught stated he was responsible, and there was confusion with the setback and easement line. According to Vaught, two sets of plans were issued, and the house was staked out according to the old documents. Vaught addressed the equal to or better than standard. All of the garages on Nightingale Drive, according to Vaught, were front -load garages due to the design of the patio homes. The property in question was a corner lot that allowed for a side -loaded garage. Although more restricted, a side -entry garage was possible. Vaught felt the front elevation was nicer with a side -entry garage, and noted that 3.29 feet was not a detriment to the public good. Board Discussion Miscio was in favor of the appeal. Hall asked how the appeal could be considered equal to or better than the standard. Miscio felt the 3.29 feet was insignificant. Donahue commented that the property was adjacent to open space and a street. Stockover asked what happened to site surveys that were done when the foundation was poured. Barnes replied that staff encouraged contractors to get the improvement location certificate (ILC) at the time the foundation was poured, although the code did not require it. The ILC has to be done prior to the contractor receiving a certificate of occupancy. Staff noticed the error when the ILC was received. Remington asked staff what the impact would be if the Board did not approve the appeal. Barnes responded the contractor would not obtain a permanent certificate of occupancy until the building was remolded. Donahue noted that the aesthetic implication of modifying the property would be detrimental to the public good. Stockover felt the encroachment was minimal, but he did not want to open the floodgates. Remington felt the variance needed to stand on its own merit, and noted that the fact that the house was built was irrelevant. Remington was in favor of the appeal because the intent of the code was met and the impact was minimal. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2486 based on the equal to or better than standard. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The purpose of ZBA October 14, 2004 Page 13 • the setback standard was to provide adequate light, air, and ventilation between properties. The property in question was on a corner and lined up with other properties. The additional space adjacent to the property met the intent of the setback requirement. The impact was minimal. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Miscio, Remington, Stockover, Hall, Dickson, and Donahue. Nays: None. 8. Other Business Barnes informed the Board that there has been some discussion that would allow the Board to grant variances when something was minimal, nominal and inconsequential. The ordinance has been drafted and scheduled to go to City Council in December. A reception will be held on November 10, 2004 for board members. Barnes reminded the Board to R.S.V.P. by October 29, 2004. Barnes announced that Stockover will be getting an award for his service. The November ZBA meeting will be held on November 18, 2004 due to the normal meeting date • being scheduled on Veterans Days, which is a holiday for City employees. Meeti adjo t ed at 10:08 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson 0 Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator