Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 01/13/2005FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — January 13, 2005 8:30 a.m. 11Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 IlVice Chairperson: Alison Dickson 11Phone: (H) 221-5525 II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, January 13, 2005, 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 Andy Miscio Steve Remington BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Daggett Dwight Hall STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Mancha Hill, 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 December 9, 2004 meeting. Donahue seconded the motion. The motion passed. ZBA January 13, 2005 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 2491 - Approved with conditions Address: 815 East Mulberry Street Petitioner: Mark Beaner Zone: CL Section: 3.8.7(G)(2) Background: The Petitioner is requesting that a ground sign be installed to within 2.5' from the east interior side lot line. The code requires that no such sign shall be installed within 15' of any interior side lot line. The sign will replace the existing ground sign that is approximately in the same location as the new proposed sign will be. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: By installing the sign 15' from the interior side lot line the sign would be placed within the drive isle contracting and preventing vehicles from being parked in several parking stalls. Any further distances would cause the both drive isle and curb cut access to be partially blocked. The lot is 100' wide. Staff Comments Staff believes that a hardship does exist in that this property already exists and it would be difficult to comply with the standard without eliminating parking or a curb cut. There is an existing sign at approximately the same location as proposed for the new sign. The Board granted a similar variance for the existing sign on December 10, 1987. Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. If the sign were put 15' from the lot line, the sign would be in the parking lot. The Petitioner would lose parking spaces and it would interfere with their drive isle. The existing sign is 21 sq. ft. per side. The proposed sign is 24 sq.ft. per side and is moved to become more in compliance than the existing sign. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance in 1987 with a condition that if in the future the Carpet Mart store elects to place a sign within 30' of this sign that the variance would become null and void. In the 17 years since the variance has passed, the carpet store has not put any freestanding sign in this proximity. The proposed sign would be in compliance of the 72 sq.ft. allowance and would have 10 sq.ft. of additional signage allowed. Applicant Participation: Mark Beaner, Choice City Auto Body, 815 E Mulberry St addressed the Board. Beaner stated that the location of the sign has been the best for maneuvering delivery trucks, and parking space. The east side of the building has the main electrical boxes needed for wiring the sign and it would be the most convenient place for the sign. Board Discussion: Since the existing sign has been in place for 17 or 18 years and the changes are minimal. Donahue is in favor of granting a variance with conditions. Conditions being that there are not other ZBA January 13, 2005 Page 3 signs allowed on the property and that no signage larger than 72 sq.ft. is allowed without coming back to the Board for a variance. Another condition suggested was putting a restriction that this variance would be null and void if a sign is placed within 30' of this sign. The requirement is 15' on each property, which creates a minimum of 30' between any signs. If the carpet store would choose to move their sign, Choice City Auto Body would have to take their sign down or come back to the Board for a variance. Barnes stated that the front setback is 15' behind the curb in order to stay out of the sight distance triangle. Criteria for both the distances from the property line and the sight distance triangle need to be met. The Board discussed the impacts of selling the neighboring business and parking requirements. Barnes stated parking for nonresidential uses is not required. Losing some parking at a future date would not put them in violation of the Code. Beaner noted that there was a time when the neighboring business had a big single post sign in the middle of their lot. They removed that sign and now just have a sign on the front facade of the building. Barnes commented on the limitations of the neighboring business's signage due to their driveway. Putting signs along the property lines functionally works better. Remington made a motion to approve Appeal 2491 using the hardship standard. Currently there is no detriment to the public good. This is a unique situation in that existing sign has been in place for 18 years and the new sign is not significantly different from what is there. Given the parking and the curb cut that already exist, it would be difficult to put a sign in that complies without having a detrimental impact to the parking. Two conditions will be required: 1. That there is no other signage allowed on the property or that they can not exceed the 72 sq.ft. signage allowed without returning to the Board. 2. If the property to the east puts in a sign within 30' of this sign then this variance would be null and void, similar to the current condition that is on the 1987 variance. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Remington, Dickson, McBride, and Donahue Nays: None 4. APPEAL NO. 2492 —Approved. Address 239 North Grant Street Petitioner Derf Green — Erin Morgan Zoning District NCM Section 4.7(E)(3), 4.7(E)(4) Background: The variance would allow a single car property line. A 15' setback is required. along the south lot line from 5' to 1.5'. unsafe garage to be rebuilt with eaves will maintain the existing setback along rear lot line than the existing building. garage to be built at a 2' setback along the rear (west) The variance would also reduce the required side setback The variances are requested in order to allow the existing that do not overhang the property line. The new building the south side lot line, and be setback 2' further from the ZBA January 13, 2005 Page 4 Petitioner's Statement of Hardship The existing garage was deemed unsafe by the Building Official and approved to be rebuilt in the same 4ocation at a 0' setback. It was discovered that the eaves and gutters of the proposed new building would over hang the property line by 20", which is not allowed. The applicant would like to move the building in 2' from the property line. There is already an existing curb cut along Maple St. that was used for the previous garage. There is not enough room for the garage to be placed at a 15' setback due to the placement of the existing home. Staff Comments: The code allows nonconforming buildings that are declared unsafe to be rebuilt in the original location without the need for a variance. However, since the eaves over the property line violate the building code, the new building will be in a slightly different location, thus the building no longer qualifies for the automatic setback "exemption". Staff Presentation: Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The Code allows a nonconforming building that is damaged by natural causes or is determined to be unsafe to be reconstructed in the same location and the same size as the building being replaced. The Petitioner could apply for a permit to rebuild in the current location which is right on the rear property line and 1.5' from the interior south lot line. They are proposing to build the replacement garage so that it is 2' from the rear lot line in order to allow an eave overhang. The Building Code would not allow this building to be reconstructed at the current zero setback with an eave overhang. They would have to rebuild the new garage without an eave overhang or move the building over in order to have the eaves.. Since they are proposing to rebuild the building in a different location than the existing building, the grandfathering clause no longer applies. The house faces Grant and the garage is accessed off Maple. The existing south wall of the building is currently 1.5' from the south lot line, and is currently at a 0' setback. They propose moving the new building over about 2' in order to have an approximate 2' eave overhang. The eave overhang would be right on the lot line. Remington asked if the existing 6-8" eave currently overhangs the property line. Barnes replied yes, based on the survey. The wall of the existing garage sits on the lot line right now. Applicant Participation: Erin Morgan, the owner of 239 N Grant St, addressed the Board. Morgan noted that the City recommends that the current building be demolished. Morgan has talked with Historic Preservation and they are delighted that Morgan wants to restore the building into something better and keeping with the design of the house itself. The existing building will be demolished and moved 2' east. Morgan commented that there is not a concrete pad or foundation just dirt. The new building will have a concrete floor, will be upgraded, and will look better on the outside. Barnes stated that the property has been surveyed and the Improvement Location Survey shows the current garage is 15.5' wide. The site plan and architectural drawings for the proposed garage is 15.5' wide. The current garage appears to be L shaped with a storage area. The proposed garage is differently configured and is more of a rectangle. Dickson asked if Morgan accesses the garage from the neighbor's lot. Morgan replied no, the driveway is on her property and is accessed from Maple St. Morgan does not access the garage at all right now because she cannot get a car into it. ZBA January 13, 2005 Page 5 Miscio asked Morgan what is west of the existing garage. Morgan replied a tiny house. Dickson noted that the lot got divided at some point. Morgan agreed. Barnes stated the rear portion of the lot was divided off and sold. Morgan commented that actually there are 2 little houses and the alley goes on both sides and comes in. Miscio remarked that by demolishing and rebuilding the garage in the new location that there will be a little more separation between the properties. The encroachment on the neighboring property will be corrected, creating more space between buildings. The proposed garage is maintaining a similar size structure. Morgan remarked that they are also keeping the look of a 1909 building. Board Discussion: Miscio stated that this is a nominal inconsequential change and would like to make a motion saying that after the discussion. Donahue in favor of granting the variance and stated three benefits: 1) improving setback situation; 2) improving the dangerous building situation; 3) improving esthetics. Remington also in favor, but questioned whether this is a nominal inconsequential standard since the building will be moved 2'. Miscio stated that this has zero negative impact by moving the building and is actually an improvement. Remington again stated that he is in favor of the variance but questioned whether this is an equal to or better than incident. Miscio noted in this situation the 2' setback going the right direction is nominal impact. Miscio concurred that it is a better than case, but wants to use the nominal inconsequential standard. Dickson stated that the applicant is caught up in a technicality because if they opted not to move the structure and rebuilt in the current location that there would be no need for a variance. Since they are improving the situation, they have to plead their case. Donahue remarked that if they were to comply with a 15' setback, there would not be room to build a one car garage. The 15' setback would be right up against the house and there would not be room for a car. Barnes commented that this is the first time that the Board has had the authority to use the "Nominal and Inconsequential Standard" as a way to consider approving a variance. City Council approved that Code change and it went into effect December 31, 2004. Eckman and Barnes discussed this appeal and the nominal and inconsequential standard works for two reasons: the 15' rear setback and 0' setback standards. One of the standards in the Land Use Code would allow them to rebuild at a 0' setback. The equal to or better than standard could also apply if they build at 2' from the lot line is better than rebuilding at 0'. Then there is the hardship aspect that Donahue mentioned, because there is no way to build a garage back in this location without some sort of variance as the 15' setback requirement can not be met. This is a unique case and possibly all three standards could apply. Miscio noted that the nominal and inconsequential standard would allow a 0' setback. The current building has a 0 setback and the new building will have a 0' setback from the eaves versus the walls. He was referring to the 0' setback standard not the 15' setback going to 2'. Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal Number 2491 in that the proposal submitted will not divert from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. McBride seconded. ZBA January 13, 2005 Page 6 Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Miscio, Remington, Dickson, McBride, and Donahue Nays: None 5. Appeal NO. 2493 — Approved Address 2145 Centre Avenue Petitioner Jim Clark Zoning District Section 3.8.11(C)(1) and (2) Background: The variance would allow a fence in the front yard area of the Gardens on Spring Creek (Community Horticultural Center) to be 6' in height instead of the maximum allowed 4' in height. The main purpose of desiring a taller fence is to provide security around the Children's Garden area which is directly abutting two collector streets. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: See petitioner's letter. Staff Comments: The purpose of the standard is mainly to ensure that front yards of residential neighborhoods do not take on a "fortress" look. An additional fence standard regulates the design of fences along collector streets. The proposed fence does comply with the collector street fence standards. Given the unique use of this property, being the only horticultural center in the city, there are some unique concerns with regards to safety and vandalism. Staff Presentation: Barnes directed the Board to the packet material showing the site plan of the Children's Garden. Barnes noted that additionally, the City would be constructing a 6' fence around a good portion of the rest of the perimeter of the property. However that portion of the fence will not require a variance from the Board because that section of the fence is not closer to the street than the front of the building. The Fence Ordinance requires that any fence that is located closer to the street than the front of the building cannot be larger than 4' in height. The intent of that standard is to prevent a tunneling effect while driving on the streets. The tunneling effect can be found in residential subdivisions where the developer constructs a fence along an arterial or collector street. Those fences are usually in the backs of lots where the fence can be 6' in height, not in the front. A Code change was adopted a few years ago to require articulation and variation. Even though the fences are in the backyard, the fence cannot be 500 'straight of 6' high fences without variation. In residential front yards, people are not allowed to construct 6' high fences, which create a fortress type appearance. Barnes stated that this property, the Gardens on Spring Creek Community Horticultural Center, is a large development and is not completed. Barnes presented the slides relevant to the appeal showing the location and style design of the proposed fence. ZBA January 13, 2005 Page 7 A Board member asked about Code requirements of fencing around daycare centers for security and safety. Barnes replied that a lot of daycare centers have 6 foot high fences. The Code requires a 6' high fence when it is adjacent or abutting a residential development. Otherwise the State and the City would allow a 4' high fence. Some childcare centers do have 4' high fences, but are usually in the backs or sides and not along the streets. The playgrounds are not generally along the streets. Applicant Participation Jim Clark, manager of the Gardens on Spring Creek, 2145 Centre Ave, introduced Herb Shaw from Edaw Inc, the local landscape designer for the Children's Garden, and Steve Sefelt, Project Manager for City of Fort Collins Operational Services, who is helping manage the construction of the project. Clark explained that the project is City owned and operated, but there is a significant amount of community involvement and support. Clark explained the project phasing. Clark directed the Board to the packet material for the Children's Gardens and passed out five more specific renderings of the gardens. The Children's Garden's will be a fun and interactive place for kids and their families to explore. There will be a series of gardens, and will include expensive elements, that could be damaged by vandals. There will be an activity shelter that will have a roof that is about 10' above a paved surface. There is a 10' high watering can for a fun, fanciful element and 10' high scarecrows. The Children's Garden is about a half acre in size. It has been planned since the very beginning of the project to be in the front yard for a variety of reasons which include proximity to the building, resources of a classroom and restrooms. This will not be formal botanic gardens but rather a community horticultural center, where everyone is welcome including children. They want this garden in the front yard where it is most visible to the community as they drive by. About 90% of the $400,000 needed to construct this garden has already been raised. Herb Shaw and Edaw are completing design and construction will begin this spring. Clark shared security reasons to support the appeal for a variance. The Land Use Code states that fences in the front yard shall be no more than 4' high, except if required for demonstrated unique security purposes. This is the first public horticultural center in Fort Collins, so there is no precedence or language in the Land Use Code for this situation. As a horticultural center, in contrast to other commercial and institutional cases, the grounds in the front of the building are not the foreground for an unrelated purpose, but the grounds are the purpose. There is public funding invested. A 4' high fence would adequately keep children safe within the gardens and out of the street, but would not deter vandals. The 6' high fence proposed would not completely deter a determined vandal, but would be significantly more effective. A 4' fence around the Children's Garden would breach security not only for the Children's Garden, but would breach security for the entire site. A 6' high vinyl coated chain linked fence is being planned around the rest of the site that does comply with standards. Clark stated that the second goal of the 6' high fence is to minimize the possibility of injuries. Adolescents may be tempted to climb the sedum roof, which is slippery and 10 feet above pavement. A 4 foot high fence would be ineffective against keeping out adolescents looking for this type of fun as well as vandals. Clark noted a third reason for their unique security needs. They would like to charge an admittance fee after the Children's Gardens are finished. Besides the City's budget concerns, Clark's group feels it is appropriate to charge a fee to help pay for costs to operate and maintain the gardens. A ZBA January 13, 2005 Page 8 secure fence is needed to justify charging a fee. The first two security needs of keeping out vandals and minimizing injuries are more important than charging a fee. Clark explained the intent of meeting the equal to or better than standard. The first point is the quality of the fencing materials. The second point is the softened and mitigated look of the fence. Clark showed a sample of the fencing material of powder coated stainless steel. The proposal is a 13% solid and 87% relatively invisible fence enhanced with a powder coating of black or green against a backdrop of vegetation. This will not look like a fortress looking enclosure. Clark referred to the photographs of Denver Botanic Gardens to demonstrate the softening of a fence with plants, trees, shrubs, perennials, and vines growing in front of and on the fence. The fence will be articulated with an indentation to break up the linear look and add visual interest to the fence. Clark noted that alternatives to the proposed 6' fence would not be desirable. Lighting would not be effective security and the neighbors to the west oppose extra lighting. The neighbors have requested that the Garden's lights be turned off at 10 p.m. except the lights washing down the walls of the buildings for security. Clark remarked that the visual continuity and beauty of the garden would be disrupted by having a 4' high fence in the front of the Children's Garden and a 6' high fence behind the garden and around the rest of the site. Also, fee -avoiding users could hop the 4' high fence and breach security. Clark summarized that the Garden Center of Spring Creek has unique security needs which in complying with a 4' high fence would cause hardship: the risk of vandalism, potential injuries, and the desire to charge a fee for admittance to the grounds. Secondly, the proposed 6' high fence is of substantial quality and visually softened to where it fully complies with the intent of the fence standard. Thirdly, there is no reasonable alternative for meeting compliance. Remington asked for clarification of the fence standard quoted. Clark replied it is section 3.8.11. Dickson noted that a 6' high fence would help keep deer out of the gardens. Clark agreed that deer are a concern. McBride asked for clarification of the complying chain link fence at the back of the property. Clark remarked that the fence in the back is not yet complete. They are waiting the Stormwater Department's approval, in a separate process, for the fence since it is in a flood plain zone. Steve Sefelt, Project Manager for City of Fort Collins Operational Services, commented that the 6' high chain link fence would be started first, before the Children's Garden fence would be constructed. Herb Shaw, a representative from Edaw, 240 E Mountain Ave, made the observation that the building is within the setback standards both from Rolland Moore and Centre Avenue. Remington questioned the location of the Children's Garden on the intersection of two streets rather than in the back of the building. Shaw stated the Children's Garden was positioned in relationship to the building, meeting room, restrooms, and parking. The Children's Garden is the first garden to be established and they want it to be visible. The garden sits in a depression from the streets. School groups will be visiting these gardens and want direct access to this garden. The garden will have a gate adjacent to the building that will be locked up night. ZBA January 13, 2005 Page 9 Clark noted that it has always been in the plans to have a 6' high fence in place around the Children's Garden for security reasons. Board Discussion: Barnes noted that Andy Miscio left the meeting at 9:30 a.m. and was not available for the Board's discussion and participation in this appeal. Barnes clarified zoning district E as being employment such as the Natural Resources Research Center, commercial uses and community facilities. The fence standard applies to all districts, including district E. Remington questioned which standard should be used for this variance, hardship or equal to or better than. Eckman stated that it is not the Board's decision to decide whether this property has unique security issues. That decision is made by Barnes, the Zoning Administrator. Eckman explained that the Board's jurisdiction is to grant or deny variances. If someone had appealed a decision made by Barnes, then it would come back to the Board. Barnes shared his discomfort in saying that this case is a unique security situation. This is a one of kind use in the City and the use of the community gardens is unique, but it may not be a unique security situation. Other citizens may also have yard and garden features they want to protect with a security fence. Dickson commented that if the hardship standard is used, she wants to propose that it is a hardship situation because they do have unique security needs. Donahue questioned whether the hardship situation is self imposed or not. Eckman stated the Board has to decide what is unique about this property. Dickson noted that they chose to put the botanic gardens there. Donahue stated that it is equal to or better than case because of the lightness of the fencing, only being 13% solid, plantings to soften and help screen the fence, and it will not be as visible as a 6' line. A hard line canyoning effect is not being created by the proposed fence. So it's for mitigating reasons it is equal to or better than. Donahue made a motion to approve Appeal 2493 finding that this variance request is not detrimental to the public good. Also, finding that the proposal is equal to or better than the standard with the standard requiring a 4' fence to prevent canyoning, and visible barriers in residential areas. The proposal submitted has noted that it will have 13% coverage of the fence in a black or green color that would blend into the surroundings and with plantings to soften the visual appearance of this fence. McBride seconded the motion. Vote:Yeas: Remington, Dickson, McBride, and Donahue. Nays: None 6. Other Business Eckman informed the Board of an error in the forms of motions and asked that the Board disposes of them. The forms will be corrected and replaced. Barnes announced the City Council's approval of a new Zoning Board of Appeals member to replace Stockover. The new Board member is Ron Daggett. He is out of town for January and February. ZBA January 13, 2005 Page 10 The breakfast meeting is being rescheduled to March 10. Eckman stated that wording of the Nominal and Inconsequential Standard may need to be changed. It states that P&Z has to make the finding according to Code. We have to decide whether to change it so that this Board has to make that finding or fix it so that P&Z does not have to make that finding of whether something is nominal or inconsequential when considered in the context of the neighborhood. The discussion about the Nominal and Inconsequential Standard will be continued. Barnes commented that Stacie Soriano is no longer with the Building and Zoning Department. Marcha Hill will be taking over the staff support duties. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m. �Alisonr Dickson-, ct a Chairp rson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator