Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 07/08/2004• • 0 Minutes approved by the Board at the August 12, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting — July 8, 2004 8:30 a.m. 11 Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat 11 Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes (221-6760) 11 ILChairperson: Steve Remington 11 Phone: (H) 223-7138 II A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday July 8, 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 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Remington William Stockover STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Bames, Zoning Administrator Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairperson Hall, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: McBride made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 10, 2004, meeting. Miscio seconded the motion. The motion passed with Dickson and Donahue abstaining. ZBA July 8, 2004 Page 2 3. APPEAL NO. 247 1 —Approved with conditions. Address: 2914 Indigo Circle South Petitioner: Tanya Dowd Zone: RL Section: 4.3 (D)(2)(c) Back round: The variance would reduce the required rear -yard setback along the north lot line from 15 feet to 8 feet in order to allow a 12' x 27' covered patio structure to be built over the existing concrete patio location (the existing concrete patio is 12' x 12', and the concrete would be extended to the west and to the east). Petitioner's Statement of Hardship: Please see attached Petitioner's Letter A. Staff Comments: This property is a comer lot, wherein the front of the house faces Indigo Circle South. When the house was built in 1997, the Code required that the lot line along Wild Rose Ct. was to be considered the legal, front lot line. Consequently, the east lot line was considered to be the rear lot line, requiring a 15' setback. Prior to construction of the home, it was necessary for the contractor to obtain a "variance" to reduce the setback from the east lot line (the rear at the time) to 7'. That setback reduction was approved. At the time it was approved, the north lot line was considered to be a side lot line, wherein only a 5' setback is required. Since the time that the house was built, the Code was changed in order to avoid the corner lot setback variances that the Board frequently dealt with. For this specific lot, the change resulted in the north lot line now being classified as the rear lot line rather than as a side lot line. Consequently, a variance is now being requested for the setback reduction from the "new" rear lot line. This will be the second time this lot will have requested a rear setback variance, with the rear lot line being a different lot line each time. If the porch would have been constructed at the time of the original home, no variance would have been required since the setback from the north lot line would have complied with the side setback requirement. Staff believes that this has created a situation that is unique. Staff Presentation: Barnes informed the Board that the petitioners, the Dowds, were out of town. The Dowds made arrangements with the most affected property owner to be present on their behalf to answer questions. There was a letter in board packets from the Dowds that explained their hardship. The lot is a comer lot on the comer of Rose Court and Indigo Circle. The house faces Indigo Circle. The lot frontage along Rose Court was shorter than the lot frontage along Indigo Circle ZBA July 8, 2004 Page 3 • South. Bames stated that up until a year and a half ago the Code defined the front lot line on a comer lot as the shorter of the two street frontages, regardless of which way the house faced. Under the previous Code, the property line along Rose Court was the legal front lot line. The Code was changed due to the amount of variance requests on comer lots when the house faced a different direction than the legal front lot line. The original contractor came in for the permit for this lot. Zoning reviewed the permit application and determined that they did not meet the required rear -yard setback. The property was developed under a Plan Unit Development. Plan Unit Developments prior to 1997, did not go to the Zoning Board of Appeals when unable to comply, but through a minor amendment process (a non-public hearing). The builder applied for a minor amendment to reduce the rear setback requirement from 15 feet to 8 feet and, it was approved. The Code was amended to state that the front lot line was the lot line to which the house faces, and the lot line opposite was the rear lot line. The lot lines changed with the code change. The Applicant proposed to build a patio cover on the rear lot line, which used to be the side lot line. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The proposed porch cover would line-up with the rear of the houses to the east. The existing slab will be widened. Applicant Participation: Jeremy Hale, 5020 Rose Court, addressed the Board. Hale stated he was available to answer • questions regarding the Dowds' proposal. Donahue asked if the porch was going to be enclosed. Hale replied that the proposal was a gable design that will be open. Hale noted that the home received a lot of afternoon sun and, the Dowds hoped the proposal would offer some shade and a cooler area. Miscio asked if there were other properties that were similar to the proposal. Hale replied yes. Board Discussion: Hall wanted a condition placed on the approval that the porch cover could not be enclosed. The Board agreed. Miscio made a motion to approve Appeal 2472 based on the hardship standard. The granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Miscio based the hardship on the configuration of the lot and stated the amendment of the Land Use Code imposed a hardship. Miscio placed the condition on the approval that the structure remain open. Hall seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Miscio, Hall, McBride, Dickson, and Donahue. Nays: Nays. 3. APPEAL NO.2472—Approved with conditions. Address: 2505 South College Avenue • Petitioner: Clarissa Castor Zone: C ZBA July 8, 2004 Page 4 Section: 3.8.7(D)(5)(a) Background The variance would increase the sign allowance for the building from the allowed 220 square feet to 285 square feet in order to allow two new signs to be placed on the east wall for two tenant spaces, one currently occupied by Oreck and the other currently vacant. The existing wall signs would remain for the existing tenant spaces. Petitioner's Statement of Hardship Please see attached Petitioner's Letter B. Staff Comments As recently as 1998, this building had 555 square feet of signage displayed as a result of a prior sign code provision. The amount of signage was reduced considerably when World Savings moved out of the building. The proposed increase to 285 square feet will still be considerably less than the previous amount. The two signs on the west wall of the building aren't visible from the street, yet they still count as signs. If those signs were removed, then a variance would not be required. However, the removal of the 2 signs would not affect the streetscape appearance of the property since they aren't visible from the street. The passing motorist would not know that the west signs would have been removed. Such a scenario could also be illustrated for numerous other buildings in the city. Therefore, that condition alone may not be adequate to avoid setting precedence. However, that condition, coupled with the fact that the amount of signage will still be far less than what was historically on the building, may be sufficient to distinguish this property from others. Staff Presentation Barnes said the property had some code change history. Barnes presented slides relevant to the appeal. The building had multi -tenants with entrances on all four sides of the building. The area was originally called the Kmart Plaza with Kmart, a former Denny's Restaurant, and various other buildings. Barnes stated that as recently as 1998, this particular building had 550 square feet of signage displayed on the building. The sign allowance was 220 square feet. Historically, the building has been well over the sign allowance. Barnes explained that the Code used to allow a development that consisted of multiple buildings to transfer unused sign allowance from one building to another building. Kmart transferred signage to the property at 2505 South College Avenue. When the Code changed the sign allowance changed on the property to 220 square feet. According to Barnes, the building was nonconforming for many years and well over the allowable 220 square feet. Barnes noted that over time the building has become more compliant with the Sign Code as tenants have left, and currently the property has only 15 square feet of remaining sign allowance. The Applicant proposed to have 285 square feet of sign allowance to enable each tenant to have a sign. Barnes explained that Oreck has relocated from another building on the premises to this building due to the March 2003 blizzard, and since then ZBA July 8, 2004 Page 5 • Oreck has been without signage. Barnes said there were not a lot of sign cabinets or clutter on the building. Hall asked staff how signage was calculated. Barnes replied that there were two ways to calculate signage. One was for every lineal foot of building frontage, facing the street, two square feet of sign allowance was given. This calculation was used for the property. Dickson asked if the Applicant planned on placing signage on the north, south, and west, and if the allowance was based on the east frontage. Barnes said yes. Hall asked staff if the building was unique in that the four sides were used for signage. Barnes said the Plaza consisted of several small buildings with signage on all sides, but generally buildings of similar size do not have multiple tenants that face different directions. Applicant Participation Susan Fleischer, Vice -President of Southwestern Development Group, 333 West Hampden, Ste. 810, Englewood, Colorado, addressed the Board. Fleischer stated that the building was unique. She stated that the south building was destroyed in the March 2003 blizzard and resulted in the relocation of two tenants—Oreck and Advantage Rent-A-Car. Fleischer noted the Oreck was not happy due to their lack of signage. Miscio asked Fleischer how many tenants she had on the east -side of the building. Fleischer said • a total of five spaces and that four are currently occupied. Barnes clarified that there were three signs and one box. The box was empty because there was no remaining sign allowance. Miscio asked Fleischer if she wanted to maintain five tenants on the east -side. She replied yes. Dickson asked staff about the rule in the Sign Code pertaining to signs that were not visible from the street. Barnes noted that the Code stipulated that if a sign was not visible from a street or property line then it was not regulated. Barnes said that in this case it can be seen from another property line. Miscio asked Fleischer if the property decreased to four spaces if she had a problem with complying with the Code. Fleischer thought about it and stated that even with four tenants the property would still be over the sign allowance. She would not object to the number of signs. Miscio asked Fleischer if her position was that of a hardship or equal to or better than the Code. Fleischer was concerned with Oreck vacating the premises, and she was unable to lease the vacant space without a sign. Fleischer asked if subdividing the building could be used as a hardship. Miscio stated that it was a self-imposed hardship, and asked if the current signs could be reduced in size. Fleishcer replied that she had lease agreements with stipulations regarding certain amounts of square footage for signs, and it would be difficult. Dickson commented that it would be reasonable to look at the request from an equal to or better than manner. Dickson noted that often when a building was highly visible from four sides that there was more than one dedicated street that the sign allowance can come off of The Applicant • was limited to just College Avenue, although all four sides had a lot of traffic. Dickson felt it would be equal to a dedicated street. Dickson stated that if there was another dedicated street the ZBA July 8, 2004 Page 6 property would have 440 square feet of sign allowance. Miscio asked staff if that was correct and Barnes said yes. Donahue stated that the March 2003 blizzard could be used as a hardship. Hall agreed with all that had been said and stated the request was reasonable. Hall wanted a condition placed on the approval that if the building was rented out in a different configuration, compliance with the sign code would be necessary. Dickson made a motion to approve Appeal 2472 based on the equal to or better than standard. Dickson stated the granting of the variance was not detrimental to the public good. Dickson stated that the general purpose of the standard was to prevent sign clutter. Dickson noted that there were regulations in place regarding square footage of signage along the streets to control the amount of signage. The appeal promoted the general purpose of the standard due to the amount of traffic on all four sides of the building and, the fact that there are major entrances on the west side of the building. Dickson stated the 285 square feet of signage being requested could be spread around the building with a maximum of 220 being allowed on the east elevation of the building, which could prevent signage clutter. Miscio seconded the motion. Vote Yeas: Miscio, Hall, McBride, Dickson, and Donahue. Nays: None. 4. Other Business Barnes stated that the Appellant for 1300 Coulter (rear setback variance request for a shed that was already constructed) planned on appearing before the Board at the August meeting. Barnes scheduled a breakfast meeting for the August 12, 2004, meeting. The Board will meet for breakfast at 8:00 and the meeting will begin at 8:45. Barnes wanted to discuss the Board's authority to use an additional standard that the Planning and Zoning Board was using. Bames read the standard, "that the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this division to be modified except in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan." There was a discussion held regarding the nominal and inconsequential standard. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 a.m. Dwiglit Hall, Vice -Chairperson A)6—,— 601NA-A*- Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator • 0 To Whom it May Concern, June 14, 2004 3q�y We request that you consi416 grant g our application for a building permit for a cover to our patio behind our home at Indigo Circle South. Although the City's Land Use Code requires a 15-foot rear setback, we propose to construct the patio cover resulting in an eight -foot setback. We believe that our request is reasonable for the following reasons: 1) Our lot is exceptionally shallow. It is a corner lot, with the home constructed to meet applicable front and side setbacks. The resulting home footprint leaves only 20 feet from the rear of the home to our rear property line. The patio cover we propose to build will be 12 feet deep, enough to cover the concrete patio that currently exists. 2) The size and shape of the lot, which leaves a non-standard rear setback, was created by the subdivision's planner/engineer, and was not caused by any act on our part. 3) The setback proposed is allowed in other residential zoning districts, i.e. the L-M-N district, within the City. 4) The patio cover we plan to build will allow us to shield the late afternoon sun in the summer, resulting in increased energy efficiency. 5) The improvement we propose is similar to that built by many of our neighbors. Denying us this request would deny us an opportunity that our neighbors enjoy. 6) The topography of our yard and our neighbors to the north, the Hales, is such that the patio cover we propose is in scale with the two homes; it will not tower over the Hales' house. Moreover, the Hales do not have significant windows or other viewpoints on the side of their house facing ours such that views would be impacted. 7) The Hales and our neighbors to the east, the Lords, have both indicated their approval of our proposed patio cover. Letters from them are attached. 8) The plat for our lot includes no utility easement along the rear property line. Therefore, we will not be encroaching toward any utilities. With the above rationale for your consideration, please grant the permit we request. Thank you for your time. (7ely, Donald and Tanya Dowd .292b Indigo Circle South 2505 S. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO History. When this building was purchased by the current Owner, World Savings and Loan occupied approximately 4,800 square feet of the south side of this building. Their occupancy also included a portion of the east and west side of the building. In other words, it "wrapped around" the end cap. In September 2001, World Savings vacated, and the current Owner began leasing the property, beginning with Cricket. In February 2002, after remodeling the vacant World Savings and Loan space, Cricket took possession of their current location. Current Allowance. The total square footage of the building equals 9,920 square feet. Current sign code regulations permit 220 square feet to be placed on the existing building. Current Sienag . There are currently 235.01 square feet of signage on the existing building. However, a sign of 27.34 square feet located on the northeast comer of building is being removed due to the recent vacation of the space by Super Cuts. Removal of this sign will create a new total of 207.67 square feet of signage on the existing building. Advantage has signed a new lease agreement to relocate from their current location on the west side of the building to the east side of the building, into the space recently vacated by Super Cuts. Under the previous lease agreement, Super Cuts had the right to have two signs, which was permitted under the previous sign code regulations at the time of construction. However, the relocation of Advantage and the ultimate execution of a new lease allowed the Owner of the building to remove the second "Super Cuts" sign and limit Advantage to one sign only. Reason for Application: As a result of the Advantage relocation, there will be two vacant spaces. The existing Advantage space, which totals 900 sq. ft., is on the west side of the building, and currently has a 33 sq. ft. sign. The vacant space on the east side of the building, totaling 1181 sq. ft. currently has no sign available. Necessity for Application. We currently have two vacancies at the center. We are requesting a sign variance of iffeet. This would permit placement of i' wo 5 r9 i s on the east side of the building, which will accommodate the vacant space. The total square feet of signage would then equal Zg3 square feet. The Owner is requesting that the Variance Board consider discounting the square footage of the signs on the west side of the center. These signs total 58.18 sq. ft. As this signage is only visible from the interior of the center, we are requesting that the Board take this into consideration with regard to this request for a variance. Benefits. It is our belief that this additional signage will allow the Owner to fully lease the vacant space that currently exists in this building. Full occupancy will again create a viable center that will provide services for the surrounding community, and will present a positive front along these major thoroughfares in the City of Fort Collins.