Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 12/12/19961-1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING December 12, 1996 Council Liaison: Ann Azari Chairperson: Martin Breth, Jr. 8:30am Staff Liaison: Peter Barnes 229-1629(w) 226-5101(h) The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, December 12, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Gustafson, Shannon, Breth, Stockover, Keating Absent: Lieser, Felner Staff members present: Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Elain Radford, Building & Zoning Admin. Support Carol Goff, Building & Zoning Admin. Support The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Breth. The minutes from the October 1996 meeting were approved. There was no meeting held in November 1996. Appeal 2185,1608 Maple Street, by Dennis Van Dina, owner. RL zone, denied Section 29-133(3) --- The variance would reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 7 feet 1 inch in order to allow the construction of a one -car detached garage. The garage is proposed to be constructed over the existing driveway. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: There is no garage on the property. This is the only location to place a garage. The owner has had several incidents of vandalism and break- ins to his vehicles and now desires to construct a garage for shelter and security. Most of the surrounding homes do have garages. --- Staff comments: A concern of allowing the garage to be so close to the sidewalk is the lack of an adequate driveway length to prevent cars from hanging over the sidewalk. The petitioner proposes to add a driveway on the east side of the garage in order to have a longer driveway. However, a large tree exists at the location, meaning the length of the ZBA December 12, 1996 Page 2 drive will be only 17.5'. If the Board decides to grant a variance, consideration should be made to requiring the extra driveway to be located on the west side of the garage, rather than the east. This will allow for a longer driveway. Zoning Administrator Barnes presented slides illustrating property under consideration. In this zone the required setback is 20 feet from the front property line. The existing house is 30 feet from the front property line. The proposed garage would be a detached one -car garage 20 feet deep which places it 7 feet 1 inch from the property line. The petitioner plans on constructing the garage over the existing driveway. Originally the house was constructed with an attached one - car garage. At some point the garage was converted to living space. One concern regarding the proposed setback of 7 feet from the property line is that the driveway would be about 12-13 feet in depth which is not enough to provide a queuing space, a space in front of the garage in which a car can park in the driveway. Normally 20 feet depth is required to ensure cars are not hanging over the public sidewalk. As proposed, the queuing space would not be adequate between the sidewalk and the garage. The petitioner is proposing a one -car garage and a two -car wide driveway with a proposed 20 foot concrete pad on the east side of the garage that would allow a queing space on the side of the garage. Barnes commented that when he measured from the base of the existing tree to the sidewalk, which is about 17 and one-half feet, the tree has roots that protrude up. These roots may hinder meeting the queing space requirement once this area is paved. He suggested that this may be an item of concern for the Board and recommends the petitioner consider putting the extra slab on the west side of the garage, if the Board considers granting the variance. Other houses in the neighborhood have converted their garages into living areas. Board questions: Board member Shannon asked how far is it from the existing drive to the tree to the west. Barnes commented that it is about 10-11 feet. Shannon commented that from the site plans it appears the new drive would encroach on the property to the east. Barnes confirmed that is correct and stated the petitioner might want to address this. Board member Gustafson asked if other houses in the neighborhood have garages that are ZBA December 12, 1996 Page 3 integrated into the house and don't protrude from the front. Barnes stated that that seems to be the character of the neighborhood. Petitioner, Dennis Van Dina, addressed the Board. Dina stated that he plans to take out the tree in question which would make it possible to meet the requirement for the queuing space. He commented that his neighbor has agreed to give him an easement in order to make the extra slab. He further stated that he plans to extend the depth of the garage almost 25 feet in order to accommodate his 20 feet long new club cab truck. Board member Breth asked if the garage would be attached to the house. Dina responded that the garage would go up close to the house but not be attached. He commented that if he attached the garage to the house, he would have to knock out a window and build into the house which would reduce the living space of the house and redo the roof. Board discussion: Shannon commented that her concerns are in regards to the loss of the tree and the way this garage will look in the neighborhood. Gustafson stated that he is not able to find a definite hardship on the petitioner's property. He commented that there may be other options the petitioner can look at such as building off the back of his house or converting the original garage space back into a garage. Dina responded that he cannot build onto the back of his house because the backyard is small and KCOL radio station owns all the property behind the house and there is no access. He commented that he wants security for his new truck because he has had three incidents of vehicle break-ins since he moved into this house in 1979. Breth stated that he also is not able to find hardship. He explained that the Board has to look at the hardships and if there is a narrow lot or a topographical problem and base their decision on those types of conditions. VOTE: Gustafson motioned to deny appeal due to lack of hardship. Keating seconded the motion. ZBA December 12, 1996 Page 4 Yeas: Gustafson, Shannon, Breth, Stockover, Keating Nays: none The variance was denied 5-0. Petitioner stated he may submit revisions after working out the details with his builder, and come back to the Board with a different variance request. Appeal 2186, 3847 S. Mason by Eric Elwell, Gardner Signs, HB zone, approved with conditions. Section 29-595(d) -- The variance would allow a 60 sq. ft./face ground sign to be located within 5 feet of the north property line, instead of the required 15 foot setback from a side lot line. The sign advertises Front Range Raynor Garage Door Co. -- Petitioner's statement of hardship: When the contractor staked the location of the sign prior to installation, the site was not graded and the 15 foot setback was measured from a mistaken pin that turned out to be on the neighbor's lot. The contractor believed the sign to be in compliance with the code, but it turned out to be only 5 feet from the lot line. The other possible locations for the sign are problematic. The area between the driveways is not big enough to allow the sign to be outside of the required site distance triangle and another building is to be constructed on the south portion of the lot. -- Staff comments: none One letter was received and read into the record by staff support Radford (copies attached). Zoning Administrator Barnes presented slides illustrating the property under consideration. The sign in question is currently installed at this location. The code requires that free standing signs be at least 15 feet from interior side lot lines. The intent of the ordinance is to ensure that we have at least a minimal separation distance of about 30 feet between free standing signs along the street. This helps reduce clutter that can occur if signs are allowed to be next to each other and the competition between businesses to have a bigger sign than the other guy. The existing sign is not complete. It is required to have a base on it of the material or color matching the building. When the error was discovered, the construction of that base was put on hold until this non- compliance issue gets resolved. ZBA December 12, 1996 Page 5 Board questions: Keating asked if Barnes measured from the property line to the south 15 feet. Barnes stated that he did not and explained that the area from the front is about 14 feet and narrows as it goes back to the west on the lot. The width where the sign is measures less than 14 feet. Gustafson asked if the size of this sign is based on the size of the entire lot and, if a second building is built in the future, will this remain one lot. If the lot is split, would they be allowed two signs? Barnes explained that nothing would preclude the owners from building a second building in the future as long as both lots that they create meet the minimum requirements of that zone. They now have a sign allowance of 200 square feet as one lot. The sign allowance, if they divide the lot, could be calculated in two ways: 1) for every lineal foot of lot frontage along the street (in this case about 200 feet), they get one square foot of sign allowance, or 2) for every lineal foot of building frontage parallel to the street, they get two square feet of sign allowance. They can use whichever one is greatest. Barnes continued to explain that in this instance, with only one building that is 60 feet wide, if they used the 2:1 ratio, they would end up with 120 sq ft of allowance. If they used the 1:1 ratio on the lot frontage, they would have about 200 sq ft of allowance. The existing sign has 60 sq ft per face - 120 sq feet of signage. They have some individual letters on the front of the building that is 12 sq feet, so they are using us 132 sq feet of allowance. If they divide the property in the future, the lot would have to be 132 feet wide to keep the wall sign and the ground sign. This isn't possible because the other lot would be less than 75 feet, which would mean they would be 12 sq ft over their sign allowance. So, either the wall sign would have to come down or the ground sign would have to be made smaller. Barnes pointed out that the property owner to the north wants to ensure that if the variance is granted, it will not preclude them from doing something different with his sign if he wants to in the future. Gustafson asked if there is a maximum size for a ground sign. ZBA December 12, 1996 Page 6 Barnes replied that 90 sq feet per face is the maximum size and 12 feet high is the maximum height. This sign is 60 sq feet and it's height is 8 - 8 Y2 feet. Breth asked if Barnes had discussed alternative location options for the sign with the petitioner. Barnes stated they had discussed moving it into the area between the two driveways. There is a concern because of the site distance triangle requirement on an arterial street, a sign has to be a certain amount of feet behind the curb when it's within a certain distance of a driveway, or intersection, so people have adequate distance to stay behind the curb and still see around the sign. The street curves in both directions so that adds a bit of a problem to the sight distance requirements. Another potential location would be to move the sign to the other side of the driveway where it's not as close to a curb cut and can more easily deal with the sight obstruction. Petitioner, Eric Elwell, came before the Board. Elwell stated that they were aware only one free standing sign would be allowed. The placement of this sign at the north end of the building was to ensure no confusion as to the entrance for the Front Range Raynor building. With no development at the south end of the lot, the sign would work fine there. Another issue is that the north curb cut was put in to align with the curb cut across the street and that drive would remain as the main entrance to the parking lot - the other drive would be closed except for deliveries. Moving the sign to the south would create confusion for the traffic flow in and out of the parking lot. On this street most business signs are at the main entrance into the parking lot. Elwell requested their variance be granted with a stipulation that if the neighbor to the north wants to do something different in the future, this sign would have to be moved. He stated he believes this would please the north property owner who would still have the right to have his sign 15 feet from his property line. He stated that he has not heard of the property owner planning to divide the lot in the future. Board discussion: Shannon asked about the north property owner's concern that the evergreen trees will obstruct this sign as the trees mature. Elwell stated that they believe there will still be a distance that allows visibility for good traffic flow in and out of the property. He explained that the sign was intentionally set back further than is required to allow for good visibility. The desire is to keep the sign at this location to keep customers using the main drive into the parking lot, even if a second building is built in the future. ZBA December 12, 1996 Page 7 Barnes mentioned the gate proposed on the south curb cut would be an electric gate for deliveries only. Shannon asked how the second building would be accessed. Would it share the Raynor driveway? Barnes stated that the layout for a future parking lot would be the same as this one. Barnes commented that if the Board wants to grant this variance, there are all types of conditions that could be placed. One could be that if the property owner to the north proposed to move his sign to within his legal 15 foot setback, that would void this variance and they would have to move it. If the south driveway gates are ever removed and the City allows that to be a full access, then also the variance might be reviewed or null and void at that time. Gustafson asked the petitioner if the Planning Department was the one that required the south drive be closed and only use the north approach. Elwell responded that the Traffic Department required the gates be installed at the south drive and that it be used for delivery only - not for customer traffic flow. Barnes clarified that the City put in the north driveway to align with the curb cut across the street. There were concerns about the south driveway regarding people pulling into it halfway and discovering the gate closed. The Traffic Department approved it with the gate. Gustafson stated that during the development review process a hardship resulted by the placement of the north approach. They have tried to put the access drives one per lot and share it with the adjacent property. Obviously, they can't do that with the property to the north and the chance of them getting another access to the south portion of this lot is pretty much non-existent. Gustafson further stated that the petitioner does have a hardship based upon the requirement of the location of the north approach. He recommended that if the variance is granted, a condition be placed that the sign would have to be relocated such to get the minimum 15 foot setback should the property owner to the north ever want to put his sign on the south side of his property. Breth asked for clarification regarding using the south driveway for the loading dock. ZBA December 12, 1996 Page 8 Barnes reviewed the north side slides that clearly showed there is no way to get a semi -truck to the back of the building. Breth agreed that a hardship has been created by the requirement of the entry on the north side to align with the entry across the street. He favored the variance be granted with conditions. Keating stated that the hardship was created by the driveway, but more so by someone's mistake of measuring incorrectly. If the mistake had never been made, the sign could be placed elsewhere. Stockover stated that placing the sign anywhere except on the building will cause traffic problems because of the visibility issue. He commented that the curb cut is the hardship and the variance should be granted as is. VOTE: Gustafson motioned to approved this appeal based on the hardship of the required placement of the north access drive into the property and add the condition that if the property owner to the north ever decides to place a sign within his legal setbacks, that the sign on this property be moved to obtain the necessary 30 foot separation between signs. Barnes asked if the Board would consider an additional motion that if the City were to ever approve the south drive to be a full service access, then this would be null and void and the gates need to be closed except during demonstrations and when trucks need to get in. Gustafson motioned to add a second condition that if the south drive ever becomes a full movement access, the sign be relocated to closer proximity to designate that as the primary entrance. Stockover seconded the motion. Yeas: Gustafson, Breth, Stockover, Shannon Nays: Keating The variance was conditionally approved 4-1. & ZBA December 12, 1996 Page 9 Appeal 2187,1000, 1006,1012 Cuerto Lane by Carl Glaser, owner, RLM zone. Partially approved, partially denied. Sections 29-439(1), 29-439(2)(c) --- The variance would reduce the required 5 feet wide landscape strip along the east lot line of all three tri-plexes to 3 feet, and would allow the proposed landscape visual screening barrier along the east property line of 1006 and 1012 Cuerto Lane to be less than 6 ft. High in its initial planting. The proposed cotoneaster hedge would be between 30" and 36" initially. --- Petitioner's statement of hardship: In order to improve the site drainage, the petitioner is incorporating the drainage in the parking area. If this were not done, then the drainage would have to occur in a drainage swale straddling the rear property line of these lots and the lots to the east. This would constrict plantings and fencing. The petitioner desires to create as much liveable area between the nits and the garages as possible. Moving the garages west and adding 2 feet to the landscape strip would really not benefit the tenants because the landscaping would be located where they can't see or enjoy it, and it would result in less useable area between the units and garages. At the same time, the property owners to the east will still have a very intense landscape barrier, or fence, as a buffer. --- Staff comments: none One letter was received and read into the record by staff support Radford (copies attached). Zoning Administrator Barnes presented slides illustrating the three property lots under consideration. All three of the buildings are proposed to be tri-plexes fronting on Cuerto Lane with detached garage facilities to the rear of the property with some additional parking spaces between the east property line and the garages. Since the parking area exceeds 1800 sq feet, the Code requires a five foot wide landscape strip along side or rear property lines. The proposal is to reduce that from five feet to three feet. The Code also requires that in addition to the landscaping, a six foot high screen, either solid wall, fence, or landscape treatment be installed. The other variance is to reduce the initial height of the cotoneaster hedge from six feet to 2 Y2 to 3 ZBA December 12, 1996 Page 10 feet in height. Eventually it would grow and fill in to provide the adequate screening. The intent of the screening is to shield headlights. The proposal includes installing a six foot high solid fence along the property adjacent to the existing single family residence, in order to achieve the screening requirement. This homeowner would be screened along the rear property line. The petitioner's hardship includes issues with Storm drainage as stated is the applicant's letter to Storm drainage - included in each Board member's packet. Petitioner, Carl Glaser, owner, developer, and architect of the properties under consideration addressed the Board. Glaser stated he is a new developer trying to demonstrate what can be done in tune with what is being promoted in the current City Plan under review. He presented the drainage plan for these properties submitted in 1978 and approved. He explained that what was proposed was a drainage way between lots 25 and 26 and his proposed drainage swell, behind the rear portion of the lot, would eliminate the need for the drainage to do a 90 degree turn between lots 25 and 26. By moving the drainage way out of the landscaping and fencing area, it is a more effective drainage, and enables effective screening to be placed between the adjoining lots to the east and the parking area. Reducing the required landscape strip to three feet would give as much space as possible to the backyards. Glaser further explained that because they could not get a curb cut onto Elizabeth Street, the parking configuration had to be different than what will be in lots two and three. He stated he is proposing detached parking in the rear portion of the lots with curb cuts only between buildings. All parking is hidden. He is developing this as owner occupied with a homeowners association that specifies homeowners park in their garages. In order to provide two parking spaces per unit, there are four enclosed garages and two pads. The pads are the portion east of the garages and are part of the drainage way. Glaser stated other aspects of this project that fit the City Plan are porches on the front, bay windows facing the front, and stone piers. They are proposing to use the cotoneaster as the hedge and burr oak trees as recommended by Tim Buchanan, City Forester, as most hardy and able to withstand wet snowfalls. The cotoneasters will be placed three feet apart and grow rapidly. They are compact, can be trimmed, and provide a nice effective landscaping. Glaser commented that another aspect of this project that is noteworthy is that it is the first owner occupied affordable housing project to come through Fort Collins that is developed by private development. He will be getting FHA approval within the next two weeks that will enable buyers to only put down three percent. He stated that the hardship is the liveability he is trying to provide and the enhancement of the drainage ways between this and adjoining properties. ZBA December 12, 1996 Page 11 Jeff Wolfe, owner of lots 26 and 27 to the east of this project, addressed the Board. He stated the two foot reduction in the easement would not affect him and he favors this appeal. Bill Clothier, owner of property to the east at 3001 W. Elizabeth, addressed the Board. He stated his main concerns are shortened backyards of the duplexes behind his property, parking lots that crowd too much onto the property which creates persons backing up into fences or hedges and leaving unsightly fences or hedges that don't get repaired, and if this variance is granted now, there will be developers in the future who will also ask for the same kinds of variance. Barnes clarified how access is obtained and how the liveable backyard areas would be. He reviewed the slides to show that the garages and parking area do accommodate the bumper overhang when people back out. All garages except two are side entry garages so the building buffers the people's property from adjacent properties. Breth asked if there is a minimal backup distance. Barnes clarified that 20 feet is the minimal backup distance. Board Discussion: Keating stated that the drainage is improved so he doesn't see a problem with the drainage hardship and the hedge reduces the parking back out concern so it actually helps not hinders. Stockover asked if it would be feasible to require two or three bollards in the landscaping for the two garages that would be backing directly into the fence. Glaser used slides to show that there are bollards located strategically so parking can be negotiated. He suggested a curb that would act as a wheel stop be placed there to prevent backing into the hedge or fence. He stated that his intent is to allow as much area as possible for the backyards. Clothier asked what happens with the utility easement if the fence or hedge is installed. Barnes stated that the only restriction on what can be placed in an easement is something that requires a building permit. The utility company has right of access into an easement area and can take a fence or hedge down without replacing them. It is incumbent upon the property owner to replace the fence or hedge. The easement remains a dedicated utility easement. ZBA December 12, 1996 Page 12 Gustafson stated he cannot find a hardship that allows them to decrease the landscape strip from five feet to three feet. Breth commented that he, also, is having difficulty finding hardship though he commends the owner on providing affordable housing in Fort Collins. Breth asked Barnes if the drainage is considered part of the hardship. Barnes explained that drainage has always been a problem for this property and the reason this property has not been developed until now so it is a part of the hardship. Clothier stated the drainage has always been a unique development problem for this area. Keating asked if the only problem really is the two garages due to the drainage issue. Glaser confirmed that drainage and parking are the issues. He added that he can't move the unit forward because of the frontyard setback. If the garages are moved forward, the backyards would be diminished. He feels it is a liveability issue and he is trying to do something nice. Shannon commented that the project is very nice and making the units affordable, however, she does not see a hardship in terms of the land. Stockover asked if it would work to shorten up the two garages for 19 feet depth instead of 20 feet. He asked Barnes if the developer could reduce the 13 foot driveway to an 11 foot driveway. Barnes stated that from the Standards standpoint they could go down to a 10 foot driveway. VOTE: Barnes asked the Board to keep in mind that there are two variances being asked for. The first one is to reduce the five foot setback width to three feet. The second is to reduce the height of the cotoneaster hedge. The Board may grant all or part of the variances requested. Gustafson motioned to deny the reduction of the landscape setback from five feet to three feet, but approve the request to change the height of the hedge to 30-36 inches from the required six feet. ZBA December 12, 1996 Page 13 Shannon seconded the motion. Barnes asked if the petitioner may be allowed to ask a question regarding drainage. Glaser addressed Gustafson and stated he believes the drainage problem is a hardship on this property. He stated the section of the concrete swale requires an extra two feet so he can keep it as a low -profile swale. Gustafson responded that the drainage may be a hardship but he feels it is a problem that can be worked around. He commented that within the parameters City Council has given ZBA he is not able to find hardship with the lot. The city legal department has specifically stated to ZBA that something being a good idea is not sufficient reason to grant a variance. He explained that though he feels some of these issues are good ideas, he is not able to find hardship and grant the variance. Yeas: Gustafson, Stockover, Shannon Nays: Keating, Breth The motion to approve part of the request and deny part of the request was approved 3-2. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Carol Goff, administrative support staff in Building & Zoning was introduced to the Board. She will rotate with Elain in providing administrative support to ZBA in 1997. B. Barnes discussed with the board portions of the new Zoning Code. Martin Breth, Jr. Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Mr. Peter Banes Community Planning City of Ft. Collins December 1 o, t 99e Dear Mr. Barnes, This letter is in response to the request for modification of the Zoning Code being made regarding the property at 3847 S. Mason, Fort Collins, Co. We are the property owners that adjoin 3847 on the North. Our comments are as follows: 1. Our project is not built out to its fullest, and though we have no plans for additional signage, we are opposed to any variance that would negatively impact our ability to place any additional signage on the south end of our property. 2. Currently we have a number of trees which are in the line of sight of the sign In question as one travels south on Mason street. One tree, an evergreen, is closest, and will attain a mature height and width that will obmuct nearly all of the sign In question. This gives the appearance of poor planning. In addition to the negative Impact on the applicant's sign, (can't be seen), as one travels south on Mason street, the current sign placement also negatively impacts the appearance of our landscaping as one travels north. 3. The applicant has developed only half of his property. Though having the sign In the middle of his property (apparently the most feasible option), might cause him to alter slightly some of his plans, having his signage in the middle of his property (south edge of current development) would be more compatible with the other developments along Mason Street. I understand the applicant may want to subdivide in the future, an option that might allow an additional sign but it would also, as i understand the zoning, require alterations of the proposed signage at that time. We had the opportunity to live In Houston Texas for a year. Houston had little or no zoning at that time. The result was a proliferation of development, especially signs, that was extremely offensive. Because of this experience we are strong believers in the planning and zoning process. It was difficult, expensive, and time consuming for us during our development process to be sure we met all requirements. We did so however, with the expectation that other property owners along Mason would be required to do the same. If there had been prior attention to the city codes by the developer of the property in question, this would not be an issue. In the vein of being a good neighbor we already made it possible for the applicant to utilize our detention pond for much of his run off water. This allowed him to maximize his development along the north, and be able to build additional parking on :he south without it being a deep detention area if the property owner had no other reasonable options at this time we would be more inclined to "be a good neighbor' and acquiesce to their req jest. As things stand however, there are better locations for their sign, and if there is to be a negative impact, let it be on the developer and his future plans, not the appearance of Mason Street or hi; neighbors. Sincerely, Rainey and t_ynnette Corbyn r �C- L.-keQ 4- FA X December. 1>, 1996 Peter Barnes, Zoning Administr-tor Community Planning and Environmental Services 281 North College Avenue P.G.Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 REs Appeal No, 2187 Dear Mr. Harness I received your notice of December 2 regarding a request for modification of the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins. I do object to a variance. Years ago the city appointed a.committee to set down E.nd decide codes for various situations. Obviously those individuals thcught long and hard before they come up with the final rules. To allow developers to come in and get variances at their pleasure is irresponsible. To disregard or shove aside the codes is setting up the conditions of the development of today becoming the ghetto of tomorrow. I recognize between my property at 3001 West Elizabeth and the properties on Cuerto Lane is a utility easement. We must keep that in mind when talking about lot lines and land development. I understand the need for multiple family housing in c'ort Collins and knew when I bought this house in 1993 that I would someday have development aroind me. I saw that the developers had barren lots to start with and feel they should have known they wo-ild need to develop those lots within city guidelines. I urge you to deny the request for modification of the Zoning Code on lots at 1000, 1006, & 1012 Cuerto Lane. I plan to appear at the meeting on December 12, 1996 to voice my objection. Respectfully submitted; -3a�Bill Clothier 3001 West Elizabeth Fort Collins, Colorado