Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 09/09/2004Minutes approved by the Board at the October 14, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — September 9, 2004 8:30 a.m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11Chairperson: William Stockover JjPhone: (H) 223-7138 II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday August 12, 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 Dana McBride Steve Remington • William Stockover BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dwight Hall Andy Miscio 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: Dickson made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 12, 2004, meeting. Remington seconded the motion. The motion passed with Stockover abstaining. E ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2475—Approved with conditions. Address: 1414 East Harmony Road Petitioner: Cahen Architectural Group Zone: HC Section: 3.8.7(G)(7&8) Background: The Applicant requested a variance that permitted the placement of a second ground sign along Wheaton Drive which would not be perpendicular to Wheaton Drive nor would it abut the street. LUC 3.8.7(G)(7&8) required that such a sign abut the "...street frontage which was the bases for the allotment..." and the two-sided sign "...be most nearly perpendicular to the street frontage...". Specifically, instead of locating the sign directly along Wheaton Drive, and perpendicular to Wheaton, the sign would be approximately 175' east of Wheaton and perpendicular to the driveway in the parking lot on the south side of the building. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: A case of equal to or better may be made as the sign is 175' setback from the curb along Wheaton Drive and thus it is less exposed to public right-of-way. Similarly, it can be said that only a single side of the sign will be exposed to the right of way as opposed to two sides. Therefore, the intent of the sign code to reduce the number of development signs along Wheaton Drive is promoted since the proposed sign will be considered a Wheaton sign and will have less street exposure than if it was placed in compliance with the code directly abutting the street. Staff Comments: This would seem to satisfy the equal to or better than standard provided the Board places a condition that no other freestanding sign is allowed along Wheaton Drive for the development. Staff Presentation: Bames presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was located in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The Residential Sign District has three categories of uses including auto related and roadside commercial uses which are usually free-standing buildings that are not related to a multi -building development, convenient shopping centers or a neighborhood service center. The particular property was part of a neighborhood service center. The Sign Code in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District allows two monument signs per street frontage, regardless of how many different lots or properties there are within the development. The property was surrounded by four streets (to the east was McMurray, to the north was Monte Carlo, to the west was Wheaton Drive, and to the south was Harmony Road). Barnes showed an aerial photograph. The Code would allow two monument signs along Wheaton Drive. One sign would be considered a monument sign which could be no larger than 55 square feet, and a ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 3 • secondary sign which could be no larger than 32 square feet. There was a secondary sign near the Village Inn, which was the only sign currently along Wheaton Drive. The issue was a sign already existed on Wheaton Drive, and the Applicant wanted one more would be allowed on Wheaton Drive. The Code required that the signs along Wheaton Drive would have to be abutting the right-of-way Wheaton, and perpendicular to Wheaton Drive. The structure for the sign has already been constructed. The sign the Applicant proposed would be perpendicular to the parking lot entrance drive instead of perpendicular to Wheaton Drive. The Applicant proposed leaving the sign where it was instead of moving it closer to Wheaton Drive. Remington asked Barnes what the intent of the Sign Code was to have the sign abut the street and be perpendicular. Barnes stated that the Code was changed in 1994, and prior to 1994 there was not a requirement that a monument sign abut and be perpendicular to the street which it gets it allowance from. The Code has always allowed at least one monument sign per street. Bames gave the example of signs along College Avenue and Mason Street. Barnes said that the overall intent of the Sign Code was to control street clutter by regulating the number and size of signs along streets. Remington asked if the variance request included the square footage of the sign. Bames said that size was not a component of the variance request because it could be as large as 55 square feet per side if it was on Wheaton Drive. Remington asked if the address sign counted as signage. Barnes said the Fire Department required that address numerals to be of a certain size and it did • not count against signage. Dickson stated that she noticed that the permanent structure that the sign would go on was already in place and, if the Board were to not allow the sign to be moved to the side street could the structure stay there and not be called a sign. Barnes replied no and stated that it would have to become some sort of landscape element or a work of art element, but staff would have to review it. Applicant Participation: Chad Burgsland, representative for Cahen Architectural Group, addressed the Board. He stated that he was not seeking a sign on Wheaton Drive. The owner felt the proposed sign location would be more advantageous and have less clutter on Wheaton Drive. McBride asked if the sign already existed. The Applicant stated just the structure for the sign. McBride asked if the area of the sign was considered the entire sign or if the monument base was considered part of the sign. Barnes responded that in this particular instance the way the sign was designed the base did not count, although the Code had a complicated formula to ensure that the size of bases on monument signs does not get too large. Dickson asked if the 10-foot height was acceptable with the primary sign. Bames said yes and that maximum height allowed for a primary sign was 10-feet. • Board Discussion: ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 4 Remington was in favor of the appeal and stated that it was a good example of the equal to or better than standard, and felt that it met the intent of the Code by reducing sign clutter. He wanted to place a condition on the approval that no other signage was allowed on Wheaton Drive. Stockover and Dickson agreed with Donahue. Donahue asked if the Applicant would be able to install a sign along Monte Carlo. Remington stated that the Applicant was able to have two signs on each street. Barnes said yes that the Applicant was allowed to have two signs on each of the four streets that surround the property. Stockover asked if the signs were for the entire development or each building. Barnes replied it was for the entire development and noted that was the difference between properties in the Neighborhood Sign District. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2475 based on the equal to or better than standard. Remington noted that the approval was not detrimental to the public good. The intent of the Sign Code was to avoid clutter and reduce the visual impact along the street, and to avoid individuals using their sign allotment to move signs around within a development. The Applicant's proposal met the intent of the Code by reducing the sign clutter along Wheaton Drive. Remington placed a condition on the appeal that no other signage was allowed on Wheaton Drive. McBride seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Remington, Stockover, Donahue, and Dickson. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO.2476—Approved. Address: 901 Whedbee Street Petitioner: Andrea Carey Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(4) Backeround The variance would reduce the required street side setback along Locust Street from 15' to 6' in order to allow the construction of a one-story addition to the rear of the house. The wall of the addition along Locust Street will line-up with the existing wall, which is already at a 6' setback from the property line. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The wall already exists and the recessing of the new wall 9' further back from the existing wall would effect both the design and reduce the bedroom space being sought by the applicant. This is a corner lot, wherein the property line is 20' behind the curb along Locust Street. Therefore, the lot appears to be larger than it is and the addition will actually be 26' from the street. ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 5 • Staff Comments The board has granted a few variances in the past to reduce the street side setback on corner lot, using the standard that the extra land between the lot line and the streets helps to satisfy the intent of the code equally well. Staff Presentation A letter was read in support of the appeal from Velma Mason of 905 Whedbee Street. Barnes stated that the property was a comer lot. The Board has considered several variance requests for proposed additions to older homes in the Old Town neighborhood. Many of the properties contain buildings that are non -conforming because they were constructed at a time when code requirements were different and/or prior to the City adopting a Zoning Code. The property had a six-foot setback from the Locust Street right-of-way. Barnes referred Board members to the site plan that was included in their packets. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was on the comer of Locust Street and Whedbee. Barnes noted that the aerial displayed the property line on Whedbee. The addition will line-up along a wall and pine trees would screen the area of the proposed addition. Barnes referred Board members to the architectural elevations in their packets that would illustrate the design of the addition. • McBride had a general question about setbacks. He asked if a lot was on a comer if both the front and side had the same setback. Barnes replied not always, but in this particular zone the front setback requirement and street side happened to be 15-feet. Applicant Participation Mike Twogood, contractor for the Careys addressed the Board. He commented that there have been similar variances allowed in the neighborhood. Board Discussion McBride stated that request was common. Stockover agreed and stated that the right -of -away in the front made it appear more open. Donahue stated that the intent of the setbacks was to allow light, air, and circulation between properties and he felt it met the intent of the Code. Remington agreed with Donahue and stated that it was not detrimental. Donahue asked Barnes what the lot area to floor area ratio requirement was in the NCM zone. Barnes replied 2 to 1 and noted that the proposal was in compliance with the Code requirement. Stockover stated that the amount of the non -conforming addition would be minimal because the Applicant was only adding 16 feet and the impact was minimal. McBride made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2476 based on the hardship standard. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The hardship was the existing • condition on the lot and Code changes have taken place. ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 6 Remington asked Eckman if the Code change could be considered a hardship. Eckman noted that the hardship standard was a two prong task. There had to be something unique and unusual about the property, and the uniqueness coupled with the City's law must then create a hardship upon the owner. Dickson stated that the lot was narrow and could be used as a hardship. McBride revised the motion to be based on the equal to or better than standard. The general purpose of the standard was to allow light, air, and circulation between properties. The Applicant's proposal met the intent of the Code. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Remington, Stockover, Donahue, and Dickson. Nays: None. 4. APPEAL NO. 2477—Approved. Address: 2025 Hyline Drive Petitioner: John Strong Zone: LMN Section: 3.5.2(D)(1) Background The variance would reduce the required setback from the property line along S. Taft Hill Road from 30' to I Pin order to allow the construction of a 572 square foot detached garage. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship Taft Hill Road is a major arterial street. A curb cut from Taft Hill would not be allowed. Therefore, access to the garage has to come from Hyline Drive. I£ the garage is located to comply with the setback requirement, then it would have to be located behind the house, and most of the lot would be driveway. In addition, the recent Taft Hill Road construction project resulted in the west portion of the yard being sloped. This slope, in combination with a garage placement that complies with the Code and the resulting driveway, would result in very little usable yard space. Staff Comments None. Staff Presentation Barnes stated a year or two ago the City widened Taft Hill Road. The widening of Taft Hill Road required the taking of some additional right-of-way from properties that abutted Taft Hill Road and also elevated the road that caused slopes on certain properties. The property at 2025 Hyline Drive had a slope easement due to the construction. The easement regulated what can ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 7 • occur in the easement and what type of structures would be allowed in the easement. There was no possibility for access off of Taft Hill Road. There was an existing driveway on the property located on the west side of the house that currently goes back toward the area where the proposed garage was proposed to be located. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes showed the location of the proposed garage that utilized the access point off of Hyline Drive, where there was currently a driveway. Remington asked where the 30-foot setback originated. Bames replied that the property was in the LMN zone and stated that in Article Four of the Land Use Code there was no mention of setbacks. Article Three had specific setback requirements for residential uses when the zone district did not specially address them. The setback in the LMN zone required a setback of 15- feet from the right-of-way line along any street other than an arterial street, and Taft Hill Road was an arterial street and the Code required a 30-foot setback. The intent of the Code, according to Barnes, was that on arterial streets for residential uses it was not desirable for people to live that close to an arterial street. The 30-foot setback was in place to protect the residential properties. Dickson asked staff if the City owned proportion was to be privately owned. Barnes stated that the owner would have to speak to that. is Applicant Participation John and Lori Strong addressed the Board. Mr. Strong stated that he did own the property before the Taft Hill Road widening; the City took 17-19 feet of their property. Strong stated that he always planned to build a garage in line with the existing driveway. Prior to the widening of Taft Hill Road, the driveway was bigger. Strong was not aware of the 30-foot setback requirement. Strong said that if he were to comply with Code the garage would be in the far east of the property and behind the house which would leave him with no usable yard space. Dickson asked if the proposed garage would be to the east of the wood fence. Strong stated that the slope easement on the front half of the property ended where there was a retaining wall. In the back, the slope came down and ended at the fence. Strong stated that the City's slope easement ended at the retaining wall and jogged to the East into the fence line, and went straight back. According to Strong, the property to rear of them also had another retaining wall. Strong referred Board members to his plan and stated that part of the garage wall would be part of the retaining wall. Board Discussion Remington asked staff that if the variance were granted would the Applicant have to do something outside of the variance to comply with the City to be able to build in the slope • easement. Barnes replied yes and stated that staff first noticed it when the Applicant applied for a building permit. ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 8 Donahue asked what the side -yard setback was to the east and if it would be 5-feet. Barnes said yes. Donahue stated that the property was 80-feet wide and with the easement and setback requirements the Applicant was left with a 35-foot building envelope. Donahue considered the lot to be narrow. Stockover stated that if the garage were built within the setbacks it would be in the middle of the back yard. Remington agreed with Stockover and stated it would be close to compliance. He noted that there were a number of unique characteristics to the property that could be used as a hardship. Donahue asked if the irrigation easement was deeded. Barnes responded yes and that it was part of the widening project. Donahue asked if the proposed garage would exist outside of the irrigation easement. The Applicant said yes and stated that the irrigation easement was past the fence line. Donahue stated that the Board should use the hardship standard to approve the variance request. Donahue made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2477 based on the hardship standard. Donahue noted that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Donahue stated that exceptional hardships were present on the site including: (1) that the City acquired an 18-foot section along the west side of the property which narrowed the lot; (2) the 30-foot setback requirement and other setbacks created a narrow lot of only 32-feet of building envelope that was usable. Stockover seconded the motion. Remington noted that the overall effect had a minimal impact because the garage was 29-feet from the street versus the 30-feet. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Remington, Stockover, Donahue, and Dickson. Nays: None. 5. APPEAL NO. 2478—Approved with conditions. Address: 601 West Mountain Avenue Petitioner: Bud Frick Zone: NCM Section: 4.7(E)(3) and 4.7(E)(4) Background The variance would reduce the required rear setback along the south lot line from 15' to 3' and along the west side lot line from 5' to 3' in order to allow the existing shared garage that straddles the rear lot line to be demolished and replaced with a new 360 square foot detached garage that will no longer straddle the lot line. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The existing detached garage is in poor structural condition. The existing house has no basement and no storage area, so the owner would like to replace the existing garage with a new one that has some limited storage area and is structurally sound. The existing garage straddles the rear lot line and is only 1 1/2 feet from the side lot line. So the new garage will be more in compliance ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 9 • than the existing one. The lot depth of 80' is very shallow. The normal lot depth in this neighborhood is 190'. Staff Comments The shallowness of the lot can be considered to satisfy the hardship standard with regards to the rear setback. Staff Presentation A letter from Sharon Conley, owner of 105 Whitcomb Street, was read to demonstrate her concerns with the appeal. She did not want the setback approved until she had written agreement from the owner that there will be no obstruction. She also wanted to see the site plan in order to see the impact on her property. Conley did not want to pay to have the garage demolished and wanted compensation for losing any use of the garage. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The property was on the comer of Mountain Avenue and Whitcomb Street. The original lot, according to Barnes, went all the way back to the alley. A house was built on the rear portion of the property years ago. Barnes noted that the situation was not uncommon in older neighborhoods. What was unusual about the property was that two lots were created behind the property. A portion of the garage was on the lot at 105 • Whitcomb Street. The proposal was to remove the existing garage and construct a new one that, did not straddle the lot line. Remington asked staff how wide the lot was in the middle. Barnes was unsure. The driveway for the garage was entirely on the lot of 601 West Mountain Avenue. The rear of the garage was at a 1.5-foot setback. Dickson asked how the garage could be shared. Barnes did not know if it was shared even though it straddled the property line. Barnes referred Dickson to the Applicant. Barnes noted that there were instances in the Old Town Neighborhoods where buildings straddle the lot lines. Dickson wanted to clarify that the Ms. Conley did not want to pay for the garage demolition. Barnes said yes and stated that Ms. Conley may need to be compensated for losing any use of the shared garage. .Applicant Participation Bud Frick, representative for the property owner, addressed the Board and stated that back in the 1920s the lot was split to allow the addition of the extra residences. Frick did not know when the garage was built and stated that a fungus was growing in the garage. According to Frick, the garage has always straddled the property line. In the 1950s, there was an agreement between the property owners to share maintenance of the garage. The current owner and the previous owner of 105 Whitcomb have said that they do not want to spend any money on the garage. Frick stated that this was an attempt to remedy the lot line situation and to create an enclosed weather- proof storage for the owners of 601 West Mountain Avenue. Remington asked if the agreement • was a recorded agreement between the property owners. Frick stated that it was not recorded, but it was in the title work. ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 10 Stockover asked Frick to share any dialogue that he has had with the neighbor. Frick stated that he has sent some letters and there have been a couple of phone calls. Ms. Conley indicated that she had no money to improve or demolish the garage. Stockover asked if he has asked if it was okay to tear down the garage. Frick stated that issue was whether there would be any compensation. Frick noted that he was considering cutting the garage off at the property line. Stockover stated that it appeared to be a neighborhood feud. Stockover wanted to know if Frick has tried to come to a resolution with Ms. Conley regarding the demolition of the garage. Frick said yes but Ms. Conley has not returned any of the phone calls. Dickson asked Eckman if he had any suggestions. Eckman stated that Ms. Conley complained in her letter that she has not seen a site plan and was concerned about the views. Frick stated that the proposed garage will be four -feet behind Ms. Conley's window. Eckman said that Frick's client would pay for the demolition. Eckman asked if Ms. Conley had access to the garage by a door. Frick replied yes but the door straddled the property line. Eckman advised the Board that Ms. Conley had an opportunity to attend the hearing or send a representative to attend the hearing and has not done that. The evidence that the Board received at the hearing was the best evidence that the Board had and the Board should act on it. Eckman noted that some items are enforced in court and not at the ZBA meeting. Dickson stated that the Board should be concerned with the setback and the placement of the proposed garage. Remington asked Frick if the agreement included shared use of the garage. Frick replied that it was not stipulated. Remington wanted to know if there were terms or conditions included in the agreement about tearing down the garage. Frick responded no and that it only included shared maintenance. McBride asked staff if the property owner to the west has commented on the variance request. Barnes said he has not received any phone calls or letters from other property owners. In support of the Appeal Sue Walker, 601 West Mountain Avenue, expressed her support for the appeal. Board Discussion Dickson stated that the new configuration of the garage was an improvement regarding the existing setback. She said that limited space was available for a garage especially the challenge of the 15-foot setback to the south. Remington stated that he was struggling with the appeal. Barnes clarified that the Applicant could build a storage shed up to 120 square feet in which a building permit was not required and it was not regulated by the Zoning Code setbacks. A 120 square foot storage shed would give them more storage space than what the property owner currently has. Stockover asked Frick if there was an access agreement. Frick stated that there used to be shared use of the driveway which no longer existed. Remington stated that the owner of the garage was questionable and asked if that would create any issues. Eckman stated Remington had a good ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 11 • point because the Applicant almost admitted that they were acting without the authority of Ms. Conley. Remington asked if an acknowledgment was needed in order for the Applicant to demolish the garage. Eckman stated that the Board should void from acting outside of their jurisdiction. Stockover recommend that the Board break the appeal down into two issues: (1) the removal of the garage and (2) the setback issues. Dickson felt the Board should stay out of the demolition issue. Remington was concerned with the ownership issue. Stockover asked staff if in order to obtain a building permit would both owners have to sign. Barnes stated that owners do not have to sign building permits if the permit was issued to a licensed contractor. Eckman suggested that staff not issue the building permit to a contractor unless both property owners sign. The Applicant was agreeable that both she and Ms. Conley would have to sign the demolition permit. Stockover stated that there was a condition placed on the appeal that both owners would have to sign the demolition permit. The Board discussed if the appeal should be approved under the hardship or equal to or better than standard. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal 2478 based on the hardship standard. Remington stated that there was no detriment to the public good. The property was unique in that at some point the lot was divided into three separate lots which created a shallow lot at 601 West Mountain Avenue. The building envelope was impractical to place a garage anywhere else on • the lot other than its current placement. The garage was shared and straddled the property line. Remington placed a condition on the approval that both owners provide an agreement to the Building Department that the garage be demolished prior to obtaining a demolition permit. Stockover seconded the motion. Stockover addressed what if Ms. Conley did not respond. Eckman stated that the Applicant would have to work with Ms. Conley and it could possibly be a legal matter. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Remington, Stockover, Donahue, Dickson. Nays: None. 6. APPEAL NO. 2?79—Approved Address: 1208 Belleview Drive Petitioner: Jason Underhill Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D)(2)(b) Background The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20' to 15.81' for the new home • that was recently constructed. The setback distance, is from the front property line to the comer of the side -loaded garage. ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 12 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship There was a mistake made in staking out the foundation prior to digging the hole. The setback was measured inadvertently from an off -set pin instead of the actual property pin. This development was approved as a PUD under the prior zoning code. All of the lots on the east side of Westbury are allowed a front setback of only 15' under the requirements of the approved PUD, so this setback is not out of character with what is already existing in the neighborhood. Staff Comments In addition to the old PUD allowing other nearby houses to have a 15' setback, a minor amendment was approved in 1995 to allow another house to have a front setback of only 15'. Therefore, there are numerous homes that are at about the same setback as the one in question. If one of the intents of the front setback requirement is to establish and maintain a streetscape character, then the Board might be able to determine that it purpose of the code is satisfied equally well with regards to promoting the purpose of the standard with regards to the Westbury development. Staff Presentation A letter was read in support of the appeal from Lisa Thyme of 1203 Belleview Drive. Barnes said the house was already constructed. Three years ago the City started requiring, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that an improvement location certificate (ILC) be given. The ILC was to confirm that the building was constructed in compliance with the required setbacks. The house has been under construction for two years, and the ILC was received a couple of weeks ago. Staff noted that the front setback was 15.81 feet from the property line, and the zoning requirement required a 20-foot setback from the property line to the building. The variance request would include four feet. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The house to the east was setback further than the other homes in the area. The homes on the side of Westbury Drive through the PUD were allowed a setback of 15-feet. In addition, Barnes indicated that in 1995 the City approved a minor amendment for another house on Westbury to have a 15-foot front yard setback. Prior to 1997, in PUDs if someone wanted to vary the requirement they did not have to go through a public hearing process only submit a minor amendment request to the City of Fort Collins. The amendment would then be reviewed to make sure it did not change the character of the development. The minor amendment was approved. It was a portion of the garage that violated the setback requirement. The property line was three feet behind the sidewalk. Remington asked if the City performed foundation inspections. Barnes reiterated his comments regarding the ILC and stated that the City does not perform footing inspections. The inspections are currently performed by an engineer. Remington asked when the ILC survey was performed by the engineer. Barnes said that it was up to the Applicant, but staff recommended that an ILC was performed after the foundation was poured. ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 13 • Applicant Participation Jason Underhill, 1208 Belleview Drive, addressed the Board. Underhill wished he would have checked the setbacks prior to the house being built. Underhill was the contractor during the construction of the home and stated that he has been a contractor for nine years. The house was Underhill's personal residence. McBride asked when the error was noticed. Underhill originally staked out the house and noticed the error when staff informed him. Board Discussion Remington stated that Board should consider that the house was already built and irrelevant to the granting of the variance. Remington noted that other homes in the area were at a 15-foot setback and felt the request could be approved under the equal to or better than standard. Stockover stated that the Board needed to consider the request as if the house were not on the lot. If the house were not there the Board would not consider how much green space there was between the property line and the street. Stockover was in favor of approving the appeal. Donahue felt the impact would be more if it were on the side or rear of the property. McBride asked if the property line was the back of the sidewalk. Bames replied that all residential subdivisions that were approved and developed after March 27, 1997, the property line would have to behind the sidewalk. • McBride made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2479 based on the equal to or better than standard. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. McBride referenced staff comments to demonstrate that the intent of the Code was being met. Remington seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Remington, Stockover, Donahue, and Dickson. Nays: None. 6. APPEAL NO. 2480—Denied. Address: 1101 Wooded Creek Court Petitioner: Christopher Ingham Zone: UE Section: 4.1(D)(2)(b) Background The variance would reduce the required front yard setback along Wooded Creek Court for the proposed house from 20' to 12'. Only the covered front porch would encroach into the required setback. The rest of the house would comply with the required 20' setback. 0 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 14 Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A. In addition, the approved PUD landscape plan requires that the existing trees on this lot must remain undisturbed. Staff Comments The Board has previously determined that existing mature trees can be considered as a topographical condition that may create a hardship or some unique circumstance. Staff Presentation A letter was read from an unknown property owner to the Board members. The property owner was concerned was about the proximity (of the proposed modification) to the street, and how it may effect the appearance and property values of the area. The property owner stated that if the proposal did not have an impact on the property value he was not opposed to the appeal. Bames said the property was located along Wooded Creek Court. The lot configuration was wider than it was deep. The proposal was to construct a house and the Applicant desired it to be as far away from Shields Street as possible. The lot consisted of existing trees and a ditch. The petitioner, according to Barnes, stated that his hardship was topographical conditions. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. Barnes showed the existing trees and stated that they were to remain undisturbed as part of the development plan. The house would be a considerable distance from Shields Street. Remington asked if the trees were on the property line. Barnes referred Remington to the site plan because it offered a better idea of the location of the trees. A number of the trees, according to Barnes, appeared to be within the boundaries of the subject lot. Donahue stated that the site plan showed two trees on the property. Applicant Participation Christopher Ingham, 4606 Mariposa Court, addressed the Board. Ingham and his wife owned the lot and were hopeful homeowners of the property at 1101 Wooded Creek Court. Ingham stated that it was not an easy decision to purchase the lot because he had concerns regarding the proximity to Shields Street. Ingham noted that to the south of the property, there was a rental home that was fairly close to the property line on the backside. Ingham's goal was to put the house as far way from Shields as possible to shield noise and maintain privacy. Ingham stated that the primary redeeming feature of the lot was the trees. The house was designed to minimize street noise and maximize their view. The building envelope was smaller than what appeared on the plan. The city forester came to the property and assessed the trees which were found to be healthy. Ingham stated that all the trees were within the property lines. The variance was requested due to Arbor Works showing where the best location of the house was on the lot. Ingham stated that he was surprised that a neighbor was in opposition to the appeal. He felt it was an issue of aesthetics. The development, according to Ingham, was small with custom built ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 15 • homes. Ingham stated that if the variance request was granted he would still need to obtain an amendment to the covenants of the Homeowners Association. Ingham stated that he planned on living in the area for awhile. Ingham stated that his hardship was decreased enjoyment of the home on the lot. Remington wanted the Applicant to clarify the location of the trees. Ingham mentioned that the site plan did not accurately note the number of threes. The Board and the Applicant discussed the location of the trees. Donahue asked Ingham if he considered putting the porch on the west side of the house. Ingham replied no. Opposed to the Appeal Mike Palmer, 1107 Wooded Creek Court, addressed the Board. Palmer expressed that he was in opposition because it dramatically effected the character of the development. Palmer gave the board members photographs that he had taken of the property. Palmer noted that a character has been established by the setback. Palmer was also concerned with the house having to be 18-24 inches out of the ground which would cause a significant slope. The slope was not in character of the development. Another concern of Palmer's, was the one foot setback for the one inch of caliper of the tree. The requirement was optimal but not necessarily required by the City. Lastly, Palmer was concerned with the design of the home and that the home was nearly a square. • Dickson asked if the one foot per inch caliber was an arborist's desired spacing. Palmer stated it was the first time that he heard it. Board Discussion Dickson asked staff why the front porch was calculated as part of the house. Barnes replied that the front setback was from the support posts of the porch to the property line and an eave overhang of up to two feet was allowed beyond the posts. Barnes stated that there was a twelve foot setback to the posts. Barnes noted that the elevation drawings showed a slight overhang. Remington was concerned with the request. He noted that the Board has granted variance requests in the past due to large mature trees being t,.n the lot. The trees, according to Remington, could be considered significant. Remington felt that the Applicant had other options. He wanted a letter from the arborists stating that his findings were substantial. Dickson stated that she liked McBride's comment pertaining to relocating the porch and felt if the porch was relocated it would satisfy the code. McBride commented that the house could easily be elongated, the floor plan rearranged, and noted that he saw several alternatives to the design. Dickson asked if it would be possible to angle the house so it was not parallel to Wooded Creek Court. Donahue agreed with Dickson and mentioned that some of the other residences along Wooded Creek Court have an angle as well. 0 ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 16 Stockover was concerned with setting a precedent and noted that the Applicant had a lot of options. Stockover felt it was not the Board's position to redesign the Applicant's dream home. Donahue noted that proposed house was not in character with the neighborhood. McBride made a motion to deny Appeal Number 2480 because the owner had a number of other options other than the variance request to improve the situation. Stockover seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Remington, Stockover, Hall, Donahue, and Dickson. Nays: None. Stockover left the meeting at 11:05 due to a prior obligation. The vice -chair person was absent and Stockover had to select a member of the Board to serve in his capacity. Stockover made a motion that Remington act as co-chair for the last variance. Donahue seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Remington, Stockover, Hall, Donahue, and Dickson. Nays: None. 7. APPEAL NO. 2481—Approved with conditions. Address: 1300 Oakridge Drive Petitioner: Stuart McMillen Zone: HC Section: 3.8.7(1))(5)(a) Background The variance would increase the sign allowance along the north frontage of this property from 110 square feet to 152 square feet in order to allow one ground sign along Harmony and one 38 sq. ft. wall sign on the north wall. Petitioner's Statement of Hardshin Please see attached Petitioner's Letter B. Staff Comments This can be an "equal to or better" situation if the Board places conditions on the size of any future ground sign that can be placed on Lot 1 of the development. By doing so, the end result will be the same as if no variance is required (the 2 signs allowed by Code on Harmony would be of a certain COMBINED size with or without a variance). Staff Presentation ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 17 • Barnes noted that on the site plan there was a lot one and a lot two. Lot two was the property in question. The Applicant wanted to increase the sign allowance to allow a monument sign as well as a 38 square foot wall sign on the north side of the building. Bames pointed out that lot two had frontage on two streets —Harmony Road and Oakridge Drive. It was not possible, according to Barnes, to transfer unused allowance from Oakridge Drive to any other side of the property that fronted on another street. The Applicant will have unused allowance on Oakridge Drive and it cannot be used on the north side of the property. Bames demonstrated where the monument sign will be placed. The monument sign will advertise various tenants on the property and will function as a development identification sign. Barnes commented that the property was not in the Neighborhood Sign District. Bames presented slides relevant to the appeal. He showed the buildings on lot one and two. There currently was not a monument sign along Harmony Road. The 38 square foot wall sign will be placed on the north wall of the building. The buildings are far back from Harmony Road and mature trees existed between the buildings. Dickson asked Barnes if the property was considered one development even though they had different businesses and buildings. Barnes replied that Dickson was correct and noted that the development was approved as one PUD. Bames thought the property had been re -platted into one development. • Donahue asked if the subject property was addressed on Oakridge Drive. Barnes said yes. Donahue asked what the Code requirement was for placing the sign on Harmony Road. Bames noted that the address came off of the street to which they gain their access. Donahue wanted to know if it would impact the amount of allowed signage. Barnes replied no because Oakridge Drive had a sign allowance based on the building frontage or lot frontage on Oakridge Drive for this particular lot. Barnes noted that since the property also fronted on Harmony Road there was also a sign allowance on Harmony Road. The Applicant was not allowed to transfer unused signage. Applicant Participation David Everett, 2413 Brookwood Drive, and Bob Michelles, representative for Vaught -Frye Architects, addressed the Board. Everett stated that he was trying not to increase the amount of signage along Harmony Road. Everett noted that due to the narrow nature of one of the buildings he would like to borrow sign allowance. Michelles referenced the Petitioner's Letter. He noted that there was 358 square feet of sign allowance if the properties were combined. He proposed a 152 square foot wall sign and the balance would be for the monument sign. He stated that if the building on the comer received a new tenant and they would like a sign then the future tenant's sign would be limited by the total number. Michelles noted that lot two has been penalized by the narrow nature of the building. Donahue asked if the medical center had a different owner. Everett stated no that he owned the • building. Everett noted that he sold lot three and that he had a signage agreement with them. ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 18 Board Discussion McBride asked if the Sign Code was based on the individual lot. Barnes mentioned that a number of years ago there was a provision in the Sign Code that allowed the transfer of unused allowance from a multiple building development. This has since been stricken from the Code and now each lot stands on its own. McBride stated that the Board could approve the appeal and noted that the proposal was 138 square feet less than the combined allowance. Remington gave the suggestion that a condition could be placed on lot one that the signage be limited. Dickson asked why the sign was not relocated to the western portion of lot one. The representative from Vaught -Frye stated that the existing mature trees hindered sliding the sign over to the western location. Donahue wanted the Applicant to demonstrate the location of the sign. Donahue asked staff if the Code allowed for two signs including a wall sign and a monument sign. Barnes stated that the only restriction on the number of signs was the number of monument signs per lot, but wall signs were unlimited as long as the sign allowance was not exceeded. Dickson asked what the remaining balance would be on the medical center. Barnes said currently there was a remainder of 180 square feet. The medical center could put a 90 square foot per face monument sign on lot one. Remington stated that he was in favor of the appeal if a condition were placed on lot one that no additional signage be placed on lot one without coming back to the Board. According to Remington, the equal to or better than standard could be justified because the sign allowance would be below the combined total. Barnes commented that if the Applicant proposed any size sign on lot one they would have to come before the Board. The Board would need to review the size and design. Donahue asked if that was within the Board's jurisdiction. Barnes replied yes. Remington asked the Applicant if he had a plan in mind for lot one. The Applicant stated that he was trying to consider the present and the future. He noted that currently there was not a plan to place a monument sign on lot one due to the trees. He would like to preserve the rights for the future and stated that it would be in the best interest of the property owner. Donahue asked staff if there was any information regarding the context of other monuti!ent signs within the area. Barnes stated that he did not have the information readily available. Dickson wanted to deduct the remaining sign allowance from lot one which was currently 180 square feet, and would leave the Applicant with 138 square feet of allowance or 69 square feet per face, instead of the current 90 square feet per face. McBride concurred with Dickson. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2481 based on the equal to or better than standard. Dickson noted that the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. The variance met the intent of the Code by preserving the overall allowed square footage of the development along Harmony Road by reducing sign clutter. Dickson stated that lot two would be allowed to borrow from lot one so that lot two instead of being allowed 110 square feet would ZBA September 9, 2004 Page 19 • be allowed 152 square feet. Lot one would be allowed 138 square feet of sign allowance instead of 180 square feet. The two signs would be allowed. McBride seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McBride, Remington, Donahue, and Dickson. Nays: None. 8. Other Business There was no other business. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m. William Stockover, Chairperson • E Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator RUG-26-2004 17:04 URUGHT FRYE ARCHITECTS 970 224 1662 P.02iO3 Petitioner's Letter B *TA7 VAU6NT•FJIVE ARCHITECTS MEMORANDUM August 26, 2004 PROJECT / NO.: Oakridge Business Park, Lot 2 #03-15 TO: City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department RE: Signage variance request REMARKS: This letter is to present our request for signage variance on Lot 1 & Lot 2 in the Oakridge Business Park along Harmony Road just east of Lemay Avenue. This variance request is to allow the signage area allowed per the code to be divided between the two lots based upon need and circumstances and not strictly the street frontage calculation delineated in the code. Until recently, the two lots in question were one larger lot and the existing building was planned for a large expansion. The subdivision of the lot into two smaller ones actually provides more open space, less FAR coverage and more opportunity for small businesses to own their own building. Being on a comer lot along a major arterial, lot 1 has a code allowance for signage that, greatly exceeds its need. Lot 2 on the other hand, has great limitations in allowable signage based on the same code while the owner/occupants desire the same exposure to Harmony Road granted to Lot 1. We believe the nature of this variance request is in keeping with the general purpose of the code. The undivided lot would allow 358 s.f. of signage area per the Code and we what we propose would be much less than that total area allowed. Lot 1 is currently granted 248 st of signage on it north side and is currently using only 68 s.f.. Lot 2 is currently granted 110 s.r. of signage on it's north side and would like to have 152 s.f. of signage. Therefore if we subtract the combined total requested (220 s.f.) from the combined total allowed (358 s.f.) our combined total would be 138 s.f. under the combined code allowable signage area. 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 •970-224.1191 FAX 970-224-1662 0 E-MAIL bmechels@vfavfr.com RUG-26-2004 17:04 VAUGHT FRYE ARCHITECTS 970 224 1662 P.03iO3 • • U The reasons the code cannot be met are as follows: 1) Both building owners are in need of prominent signage for visibility from Harmony Road. Lot 1 building owners have existing signage, which meets their needs, and it is well under the area allowed them based on the large frontage. 2) The Harmony road easements and setbacks are substantial and there fore require larger signage for adequate exposure. 3) There are many mature trees and other landscaping which further hinders the impact of the code allowed signage. The reasons the proposed variance requested is equally well or better than complying signage are as follows: 1) The owner's goal is to attract stable, long-term occupants, which will require high impact signage and visibility for that building and site. 2) The owners have invested in a quality building, which further enhances the character and feel of the harmony road corridor, which is a benefit to the community. To build such quality requires higher lease or sale rates. To get higher rates tenants or buyers need to see greater value in the location. Higher value comes from greater exposure. 3) Lot 2 is unusually long and narrow while maintaining significant size. The current Code penalizes this type of lot configuration. 4) Significant efforts have been made to retain all the existing landscaping. If signage area cannot be increased to raise signage impact, pruning and landscaping adjustments would need to be made to increase building visibility. All parties directly involved in this matter have been contacted and are in favor of this signage variance. If you have any questions regarding our proposed sign variance, please contact meat your convenience. BY: Bob Mechels - Vaught Frye Architects, Inc. TOTAL P.03 Petitioner's Letter A Christopher and Cheryl Ingham 4606 Mariposa Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fort Collins Building & Zoning Dept. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 August 26, 2004 Dear Zoning Board Members: We are requesting a variance in the construction of a new home at 1101 Wooded Creek Court on the lot with legal description "Lot 10, Laurie Sub PUD, FTC", registered with the Larimer County Assessor as parcel number 96031-07-010, tax district 1107. Specifically, we are requesting an 8' variance of the 20' setback specified for the North border of the lot, which is the front of the property facing Wooded Creek Court. This .45 acre lot is wide and shallow, with rough dimensions of 190' wide by 105' deep. It is separated from South Shields St. to the East by a narrow common area owned by Laurie Subdivision (commonly known and signed as Chelsea Ridge). The Southwest comer of the lot contains an irrigation ditch bordered by several large, healthy walnut, cottonwood, apple and plum trees. We have had these trees inspected and pruned by Arborworks LLC of Fort Collins, who has recommended that the foundation of our home be placed no closer than I foot per 1" diameter of these trees. This recommendation effectively reduces the depth of the lot at the West setback by approximately 46'. It is our desire to position our home, with an East -facing side -load garage, as far West on the lot as possible to reduce the significant traffic noise from Shields St., and make use of the shade and narrow view of the Cathy Fromme Prairie available in the lot's Southwest corner. We are requesting that the front porch, which will span the front of the house, be allowed to encroach on the 20' setback specified for the North border of the lot by its depth of 8'. This would result in the edge of the front porch being 12' from the North property line. The foundation/basement of the house would then begin at the 20' setback from Wooded Creek Court. Our hardship in meeting the strict application of the 20' setback would be having to choose between harming the mature trees on the lot, eliminating the front porch from the home's design, or relocating the house and garage further East (and South), closer to Shields St., which would greatly reduce the home's use of the aesthetic value of the lot and therefore adversely affect the future monetary value of the property. We hope the board will agree with our case and grant the requested variance. Sin, C� Christopher Ingham ��